Monday, July 31, 2017

Counterfeit "laws" create a market for lawyers

If a law is such that you have to look it up to see what it says; to see what it says you are allowed to do (or prohibited from doing), it's not a real law.

If it is written so that you need a lawyer to interpret it for you after you look it up, to tell you if something is "legal" or not, that "law" is even worse. In fact, it's an even clearer sign that the "law" is counterfeit.

The mere existence of lawyers is irrefutable evidence that the majority of "laws" are counterfeit.

Of course, who do you think writes those counterfeit "laws" to give themselves "job security"? Quite a racket, if you can keep getting away with it.

Thank you for helping support

Sunday, July 30, 2017

'Hate speech' protected after all

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 28, 2017)

Mark your calendars-- the Supreme Court got something right! Amazing, I know. What occurred on this notable occasion? They admitted the First Amendment protects "hate speech".

Of course it does! It's absurd to think there was ever any question.

They didn't go far enough and still managed to miss the important point, though. It's not because the Bill of Rights creates any rights-- it's because it recognizes that no government has the authority to violate rights, including limiting speech. It is a barrier which binds government, not a permit which applies to the people. As cogs of government, the Supreme Court Jesters don't like to face this painful reality, preferring to frame the issue in a way which preserves their feelings of grandeur. But truth is truth.

You have a right to say whatever you want, even to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, regardless of legal opinion. No law can ever change this reality. However, you have no right to avoid the consequences of exercising your rights in an irresponsible way-- especially if people are harmed. Even if you are a president or a congresscritter.

Yes, I have the right to call members of congress "critters", and they have a right to call me whatever they want.

Freedom of speech is meaningless if it doesn't include the right to say offensive, potentially hurtful things. But, if you lie about someone, or try to talk someone into attacking an individual, or advocate for a law which would violate anyone's rights, you open yourself up to restitution or even rightful self defense. Don't speak unless you are prepared to face the music.

The other side of this right to free speech is your right to shun anyone who says hateful things. In turn, you also have the right to say what you think of them, even if it offends. Even if you have no real argument, but focus on their skin color, their religious beliefs, or their lack of intelligence. You have the right to express your opinions, and no one has the right to force you to stop.

While you have a right to say whatever you want, even beyond the right recognized by the Supreme Court, no one is obligated to let you use their soapbox to be heard, and no one is required to listen to a word you say. Rights don't work that way.

So be careful of your words; they can end up hurting you more than those you were aiming at.

Thank you for helping support

Statist projection

Anarchy doesn't preclude working with others; only ruling others or letting them rule you.

Yet, I can't begin to count the number of times a statist has said something to the effect of "anarchy is anti-social" or "anarchists can't get along with others".

As if statism-- telling others to do as you say or you'll have your armed thugs kill them-- is in any way civilized!

A huge part of getting along with others is living up to your responsibility to not force yourself on them. Government is based on the polar opposite. Government is the height (or depth) of anti-social behavior.

Statists claim that anarchists would fail because they would rely on contracts with each other, and people are unreliable. That we can't get along with each other, much less with those who want to violate us through government and "laws".

What an odd claim.

I make mutually agreed upon contracts just about every day with no problems. I get along with people very nicely. Partly because I don't try to force them to live as I choose to live. It would be nice if they extended the same courtesy to me, but that's not the nature of those who behave in a government-like fashion; muggers, government employees, rapists, kidnappers, etc. I don't expect bad guys to act as anything other than what they are, even as I give them every opportunity to do so.

So, yeah, anarchy works just fine in my personal daily life. I see no need to archate against others, regardless of how they choose to act toward me.

But what if some people can't handle anarchy-- i.e., being self-responsible people?

Well, if someone isn't suited for anarchy-- if they can't deal with others voluntarily-- they'll either learn and grow up, or they'll turn back to statism where they feel "safe".

Thank you for helping support

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Rights and responsibilities again

Well, they are both fruit...

Somewhat related to yesterday's post is this odd notion I heard expressed recently: "Your rights are my responsibility".

Well, no.

Your rights are your responsibility. My only responsibility concerning your rights is to not interfere with you exercising them. I am responsible for not violating you, and if I do, I'm responsible for that, too.

As an example, you have the fundamental human right to own and to carry weapons. I do not have the responsibility to provide you with those weapons; I only have the responsibility to not try to prevent you from owning and carrying them.

For most people, being responsible for their own rights (among the other things they are responsible for) is a very heavy "burden". It's so much easier to demand everyone "give you" your rights than it is to recognize they aren't responsible for that.

The other side of the coin is that it's also so much easier to violate people than it is to respect their right to do things you don't like.

And yes, rights bring responsibilities along with them, even if most responsibilities have nothing to do with rights.

Thank you for helping support

Friday, July 28, 2017


For some reason I was just thinking about my responsibilities, and-- as I sometimes do with things I can list-- I decided to make a list.

My list goes something like this, although this is not necessarily in order of importance:

My daughter.
My son.
My parents.
The house upkeep.
The vehicle upkeep.
The newspaper column.
This blog.
To not archate against anyone.
My cats.
Keeping myself healthy enough that I'm not a burden on anyone.

Maybe there are more responsibilities I have that I can't think of at the moment.

I'm not sure it's a responsibility, exactly, but I do feel a desire to make the world a better place for me having been here. Whatever that's worth.

One common thing people say in order to trivialize rights, is that there can be no rights without responsibilities. That is probably true, but it doesn't make rights any less important, and most responsibilities don't seem connected to rights at all.

The responsibility to not archate is the one most related to rights; I have a right to do anything which doesn't archate.

But, what "rights" do I have to my daughter, for example? She holds the rights (as well as the responsibility to not archate), and I have the responsibility. She isn't my property. If someone violates her, they haven't exactly violated me-- even though I will take it personally. I hope to teach her to defend her rights, and to take responsibility, and I'll do what I can to defend her as long as I am around.

I'm thinking that rights and responsibility may not be as entwined as those who aren't comfortable with rights would have you believe.

Of course, those who exercise their rights but take no responsibility will end up archating and stepping beyond what they have a right to do, and they'll find themselves in the position of being someone their victims have a right to defend themselves from, and that won't be a fun place to be.

I'll look at this relationship between rights and responsibilities from a slightly different angle tomorrow.

Thank you for helping support

Thursday, July 27, 2017

You've got to work for it

"Anarchy won't work, because it won't last. Someone will always come along and become a government and rule people."

Yeah, I've pointed out a flaw in this ... "argument"... before.

But here's another take on it.

Yes, anarchy would have to be maintained in order to last. It's not automatic. So?

Everything has to be maintained, even States.

If you are willing to work to maintain a State, but not willing to put effort into maintaining liberty, you don't want liberty very much.

I do. I'm willing to work for it. I'm willing to change the oil, rotate the tires, wash it off when it gets dirty, and fix any troubles that crop up. Because I LOVE liberty.

On the other hand, I'm not willing to lift a finger to maintain any State-- not by v*ting, not by pretending "laws" are legitimate, not by cooperating or complying, not by supporting cops, politicians, judges, courts, bureaucrats, prisons, border walls, or any other statist monstrosity. Statism isn't worth the effort to maintain, and I will not use my limited time and resources to help prop it up.

Thank you for helping support

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Making people mad

People are tired of me harping on cops. I know it. They've told me so. It makes them mad. It hurts their feelings. It makes them... uncomfortable. They don't want to hear it.

I understand why. But I'm not sure I want to stop. It's just too important for liberty to make sure to drive the point home, and to never let up. To never give an inch.

Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face. Without their active aggression, there would be no such thing as political power. The opinions of the bullies of the State would be nothing but a bit of hot air, quickly lost to the gentlest breeze.

Next to cops, presidents are nothing. "Laws" are nothing. Corrupt prosecutors (but I repeat myself) are nothing. Power-crazed judges are nothing. Bureaucrats are nothing. The State is nothing. Cops are the one thing that makes government a problem for Rightful Liberty and those who exercise it. Nothing else even comes close-- no matter how evil and reprehensible other things may be.

Yes, I understand it is tiresome to hear "Cops are scum" and "Cops are losers" again and again. But it is more important than anything else you can hear, with regards to liberty. It is absolutely crucial to understand why you can't support cops without polluting yourself; without being a part of the problem. It's just the way it is, and telling it the way it is makes people mad. And, yet I keep on.

I try to be nice about it. I try to not get profane and angry like so many others I see. Quite honestly, I am not angry; I am persistent in speaking this irritating truth. Truth is mistaken for anger when that truth is painful.

In my day-to-day life I don't worry about cops a tenth as much as some of the people I know who don't have a principled stance against policing-- simply because they fear being the target of police attention. Or because they worry that a cop will see them doing something "illegal" while driving. That's something I really don't worry about. It is what it is, and I'm not going to live my life worrying about those parasites.

As with any gang, I avoid contact as much as possible. I recognize what they are, and I don't sugar-coat it. And I go on with my life, knowing they are utterly irrelevant and worthless in the grand scheme of things.

But, I know it is something the population needs to keep being reminded of, because the cult is so ubiquitous and so generally popular. And because it is important.

Thank you for helping support

Monday, July 24, 2017

Ride that bandwagon right over the cliff

If you live in America today, wave the US flag, and support the troops and "law enforcement", I have unhappy news for you.

If you had lived in Nazi Germany you would have almost definitely been an enthusiastic Nazi.

If you lived in a Muslim country today, you would almost certainly be Muslim (which is totally unrelated to whether you would be an Islamic loser).

You hop on the bandwagon too easily, and go along without thinking about what you are doing.

Only those who resist the dominant "culture" in America have a credible chance to have been a truly decent person in Nazi Germany or a non-Muslim in a predominantly Muslim country today.

If you are a flag waving, troop loving, cop supporting American in 2017, you simply don't have what it takes to resist the appeal of the bandwagon.

Thank you for helping support

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Satisfying watching parties fight

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 21, 2017)

Besides being an experienced negotiator, I'm beginning to suspect President Trump might be an excellent magician. Or, at least an expert in misdirection.

He gets observers to focus on one hand's flamboyant flourishes, while doing the work he wants to accomplish with the hand they aren't paying attention to.

If you don't believe this, notice how he says and does trivial, even silly, things which get all the attention. While people are laughing at him, he is doing things which could impact the future, for better or worse, mostly under the radar. Perhaps he doesn't do this on purpose, but I wouldn't bet on it.

His self-created caricature has become the focus of attention, probably just as he wishes it to be. After all, if no one takes you seriously, they won't pay attention to everything you're up to. If you can get them to worry about the wrong things-- things they have been tricked into worrying about-- you can get away with almost anything.

His posts on Twitter are a case in point. Not just the "covfefe" brier patch his opponents threw him in, but all the rest as well. People focus so much on the pointless things he writes there that he is able to work on his real agenda pretty much unseen by the population. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the particular bullies you prefer to have trying to run your life.

Those of us who prefer to keep all the bullies at bay, regardless of the particular flavor of their bullying, are a tiny minority.

He also manages to entice his enemies into doing things which show them in the worst possible light. Just by fanning the flames of their hatred, and by not being the president they had been assured they were going to be blessed with. To get your opponents to humiliate themselves without you having to lift a finger is almost a superpower. I wish I could do the same; it would save so much time and effort!

Maybe none of this is intentional on his part. Maybe he is just lucky. Maybe his opponents are simply incompetent. It's not beyond the realm of possibility.

For me, sitting outside this "Red State vs. Blue State" civil war, it's an interesting show. It's like watching all those who want to destroy your liberty tangling themselves in barbed wire while fighting amongst themselves. There is something very satisfying about it.

Thank you for helping support

Observation on observing

Most people don't observe. This observation (ha ha) has annoyed me all my life.

I'm not picking on other people; I constantly get annoyed at myself for failing to observe something I think I should have noticed.

People also fail to observe things they don't want to observe-- things that would make them uncomfortable.

This explains why most people don't notice that cops are bad guys, even with a seemingly infinite stream of irrefutable evidence being shoved in their faces on a daily basis by the behavior of cops themselves.

When the tendency to be unobservant is combined with the fanaticism to not see what you'd rather not see, it is almost guaranteed that people won't notice something really important.

Now, copsuckers might come back with the claim that I don't observe the good that cops do. If so, I have counter-evidence to refute their claim. I observe both sides, but to the copsuckers it appears biased against cops. That's because ethics itself is biased against cops. If you are observant, you'll notice this fact, even if you don't want to.
Thank you for helping support

Saturday, July 22, 2017

An obligation to comply?

Do you believe you have an obligation to comply with "the law"?

How far do you believe your obligation extends?
Only to those "laws" you agree with, or all of them?
What about "laws" which would require you to do something you know is wrong, or "laws" which would forbid you to do something right?
Would you sacrifice your ethics, morals, or religion to "the law"? If not, what happened to your obligation.

I recently heard someone say they had an obligation to comply with the law, and it instantly sounded ridiculous to me. But, as with all ridiculous utterances, I ponder them to try to understand why someone would say something so ridiculous.

The "reason" I come up with is that it sounds "reasonable" to people who have come to mistake "the law" for what's right and good. It sounds civilized. It may even feed upon their belief in a "social contract".

But to me, it sounds like someone going along with evil for convenience and so they don't feel the need to actually think and weigh their actions.

I am freer, feeling no such obligation whatsoever. Yes, I'll "comply" when a cop is watching, just like I'll "comply" when a mugger has the drop on me. But that's just a survival strategy in the face of armed reality, not really compliance.

Thank you for helping support

Friday, July 21, 2017

Why I (still) blog

The liberty-lover family is facing tough times. We will make it through; we always have throughout history. But the near future will probably be hard and not all of us will make it to the better times beyond that.

I write my blog to try to give you ideas, encouragement, inspiration and whatever else might help you  survive and thrive while living surrounded by rabid statism. So that, perhaps, you can increase your chances to make it through, and enjoy the circumstances as much as possible until times get better. I hope it helps.

Obviously not everyone will "get" my blog. Only a tiny slice of modern humanity could get it, even if they knew about it. Most are simply too entrenched in set ways of thinking to understand anything outside of their toxic little box. Some probably just don't like me, and would reject anything I say on that basis alone. It happens.

I appreciate you for not being like that.

I'll continue to stick my neck out, knowing you-- The Remnant-- are out there. Just as long as I can, as long as I still have something to say, and as long as I still feel I am doing some good.

I've also got to remember to do my best to balance no-holds-barred truth with compassion and being nice. And, for me, that's not easy. Statism drains me, exhausts me, makes me tired and short tempered, and I have an almost overpowering urge to mock statists of any degree. It's a struggle.

Thank you for helping support

Thursday, July 20, 2017

If you support States...

If you preach ethics, but support States, you are being inconsistent. And unethical.

If you preach morals, but support States, you are either being immoral, or your morality is warped until it is unethical and evil.

If you are a genius, but you support States because you believe them to be good and necessary, you're either being dumb or you have a tragic blind spot causing you to be wrong.

You would do well to correct your errors.

Thank you for helping support

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Heroes wanted

I sure could use some monetary help.
If you can and want to, please consider it.
Here's the link to the fundraiser post, but right now Paypal donations would help the most.

Law vs "laws"

Natural Law is completely in sync with liberty-- the two are bound together and can not be pulled apart without destroying everything.

Through experience, over long periods of time, humans discovered Natural Law, which illustrated how to live among others. Society grew as these rules were discovered, and eventually this led to civilization growing from society.

Then some "genius" came along and decided it would be a good idea to write down the Law somewhere so it could be read and referred to. Which wouldn't have been too disastrous, if they had stopped there. But...

This motivated even worse idiots to write down their flawed opinions and call it "law", also. Trying to steal legitimacy for their dreamed up "laws" from the Law which had been discovered.

Unfortunately, none of these new opinions were based on anything but opinion, and were harmful to society. The more of these harmful opinions that were added and called "laws", the more damaged society became. Civilization won't survive if the tide isn't turned. Counterfeit "laws" must be tossed aside. Every single one of them. The sooner, the better.

Thank you for helping support

Monday, July 17, 2017

Evil, with the best intentions

All decent people are, as are some terrible people

I'm sure most of those who created the State had the best of intentions.

Most probably they felt they were doing a good thing. They wanted order to overcome liberty, which they mistook for chaos.

Just like most statists today, and those who support cops.

Good intentions. I know because I know many of them.

But that's why I don't put much stock in intentions. Results are more important. A good quote from The Null Zone- Episode One: Janus illustrates the point:

"No matter how noble your goals, no matter how pure your ideals, no matter how good your intentions, if you look down and discover you’re eating babies, you’re no longer the good guy."

Well, pragmatic or not, that's what statism is. Don't ever. Not even once.

Thank you for helping support

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Won't pretend a weed isn't a weed

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 14, 2017. I called this one "How does your liberty garden grow?".)

I am completely in love with liberty. My own, yours, and everyone else's. I want more people to understand it, love it, and live it. I am not afraid of you having and enjoying liberty to the fullest extent humanly possible.

Freedom is not the same as liberty, although many confuse the two. While freedom can seem nice, it can also be a problem. Freedom is doing whatever you want to do, and some people want to do terrible things. Some even want to govern other people! While everyone is free to do hurtful things, limited only by their ability and the ability of their intended victim (or a rescuer) to stop them, no one has the right to commit aggression or theft.

Liberty, on the other hand, can never go "too far", because it is self-limiting; limited only by the equal and identical liberty of everyone else. You can never have the liberty to violate other people.

This is why I love liberty, and try to scatter seeds of liberty whenever I have the chance. I appreciate the efforts of everyone who does the same. Most liberty seeds will wither and die, but a few sprout. I've watched it happen, and it's a beautiful sight.

I will do my best to water and fertilize the liberty seedlings I encounter. Sometimes I run across liberty sprouts which were sown years ago by persons unknown. Yet, there they are, struggling for life in someone's mind. I want to help them thrive.

Sometimes this means having to pull some weeds which took root in the garden; noxious weeds which were mistaken for liberty. This is my least favorite part of spreading liberty. Most people love their weeds, and often they design entire gardens around them. These weeds come in the form of historical documents, respected politicians, revered institutions, and laws they want imposed on people they don't like. These deceptive weeds need to be exposed and uprooted wherever they grow, otherwise they will continue to strangle and kill liberty.

People can grow whatever they want in their garden, of course, but they need to know what it is they are nurturing. When it's not real liberty, it's not going to produce the fruit they expect. If a person is shown they are cultivating a weed, but they choose to keep protecting it, that's their business. I'm still not going to pretend their weed is liberty. You can choose your beliefs; you can't choose your reality.


This blog, like all of, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

History- an obsession with drama queens

I noticed something about "history" a long time ago.

History is focused on the drama queens, not the quiet, mature people who made up most of the world's population. And I suppose this is natural.

Who do you remember best? the quiet neighbor who never made a scene, or that "crazy redneck neighbor" who is always annoying you with their drunken antics?

Well, history is the same.

The kings, queens, presidents, prime ministers, generals, soldiers, priests, and all the rest of those who are over-represented in "history" books are no different. They are the drama queens making a scene and getting attention.

The wars, treaties, constitutions, laws, edicts, and everything else they did to get into those "history" books are just the drama queens acting out, to the detriment of the world.

You'd do better to pay attention to those who never made it into "history" books, but obviously, that is a problem.

Thank you for helping support

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Misguided emails

The libertarian causes that "conservatives" share with me seem to be under greater assault than the libertarian causes that "progressives" share with me.

As an example, anti-gun bigotry is rampant while anti-Cannabis bigotry seems to be on the decline.

Of course, with Trump's regime-- his pro-loser stance and his plans for a Great Prison Wall-- that wind is swirling drunkenly in multiple directions at once. Which way it will be blowing tomorrow is unclear.

Anyhow, looking at the past rather than the future, this explains how I ended up on a few "conservative" email lists. And they keep sending emails seeking my support for decidedly anti-liberty causes, and that's just not going to go anywhere. Other than the spam folder.

Too bad they don't have to pay me when they send me reprehensible pro-State drivel.

At least they sometimes give me examples of statist idiocy that I can turn into a blog post. Sometimes. Usually there's nothing even remotely unique, creative, or usable in the stuff they squirt out. Just the same old junk they've been offering for centuries, packaged in a new form.

Thank you for helping support

Friday, July 14, 2017

Productivity, contributions, and self-doubt

I am constantly nagged by questions of a self-centered nature. Questions of self-doubt.
Questions such as: "Am I productive?" and  "Have I contributed anything?"

The answers I find inside myself are "Well, in a way" and "Even if I have, I could... I should... do so much more".

I want to be productive, and I want to contribute something of value to the future, or maybe even to the present. I know that my beliefs as to what I have (or have not) produced and contributed may not be based in reality. My opinions about what I have accomplished may be off-base. My perspective is too narrow.

What I "produce" may or may not have value. That's not for me to decide. Could I produce more? Sure. The thing holding me back most is that I don't usually know which direction to focus my energy in. I'm not only talking about advocating and defending liberty-- although that's definitely a big part of it. I am uncomfortable focusing too tightly on any one tiny spot more than temporarily, and I always have been. I have too many interests in too many different areas.

And, as for what I have contributed, what will its value turn out to be, if any? I won't know. If the good ideas I have helped spread continue into the future, regardless of who they end up being attributed to, I would feel I have made a valuable contribution, even if no one else does. But that's not something I can ever know in my lifetime. So I have to keep going, blindly, doing my very best to go in only the right direction.

I will never be enough to satisfy myself. I know that. Self doubt is a terrible thing, but I suppose the alternative is arrogance (which I am sometimes accused of anyway). I know many of my faults. I know I probably have many more I can't see. I hope what I produce and contribute is enough to help pay restitution for my faults and flaws.
Thank you for helping support

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Nasty words, used by dumb people

"It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of 'em was one kinda sumbitch or another."
Captain Malcolm Reynolds

Statesmanship, statesman, and statecraft.

If you understand States, none of those will sound like a good thing to you.

If they do sound good to you, or sound noble in any way, it is a clear sign you haven't got a clue, even if you believe you do.

Thank you for helping support

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Tip-toeing through the Valley of Dangerous Opinions

Since it seems I already have half of the world annoyed with me for expressing my honest opinion in today's newspaper column (although I suspect almost no one read the whole column, before getting upset over the headline and/or first few paragraphs), I suppose this is as good a time as any to express another unpopular opinion.

I believe some homosexuality is genetic and some is by choice. Call it nature vs nurture, or intrinsic vs environmental/experiential, or whatever. I have no idea how much is which, nor do I care one way or the other. This opinion is based on personal observation and personal acquaintances.

And, just like the subject of my newspaper column, I know that it has absolutely no bearing on the rights a person has. As I say in the column (which I recommend you read):

"As a human you have the full complement of human rights-- life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness-- just because you are alive. End of story."

I probably have other unpopular opinions-- I've been made aware of a few over the years. Watch for them. But especially watch to see if I advocate statist actions based on my personal opinions, and burn me alive if I do.

Thank you for helping support

KentForLiberty fundraiser

Here are all the exciting ways you can enrich your own life while helping finance mine:

My books and Time's Up patches (yes, you can download the books without cost- and if you like them, you can toss a coin in the Paypal cup. Or not.)

CafePress stuff- I don't actually get more than a few cents off any sale, but the extra publicity of these items being seen in public might help a little.

I'm also usually selling a few things on eBay- user name: dullhawk1840.

I'm actually selling fidget spinners- $6 each, I have a variety of solid colors- none of which are KentForLiberty related. I have been selling locally, so I don't know what shipping would be. If you're interested, I can figure it out. Email me.

You can upv*te my posts on Steemit. Not sure how to use those Steem dollars, but if I get enough to be worthwhile I'll figure it out.

And, as always, you can subscribe to this blog on Patreon or Paypal (Paypal subscription options are on the right), or you can make a one-time Paypal donation if you so desire. You can consider it either charity (or even a birthday gift for the upcoming event) or exchanging value for value. Whichever makes you happier.

If you are already a supporter, please don't donate anything extra.

Don't spend/donate more than you can afford. Don't do it if you have better uses for the money, or if you don't want to for any reason whatsoever. If you do, then I sincerely thank you. If you don't, that's OK, too.

In my wildest dreams I can imagine getting enough to be able to replace the carport roof. In reality, well...
Even though I am NOT asking for "something for nothing", I realize many will equate this post with begging or panhandling. Such is life. I can't please everyone.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

"Food insecurity", and who's to blame

A while back I watched a video where someone was whining about "food insecurity", and blaming it (and potential future worsening) on "climate change".

Fair enough. But any current or future trouble from AGCC or "food insecurity" is blood on the hands of central planners.

Individual action, motivated by self interest, would solve the problems. Only when the Grand Designs of Central Planners get in the way, with their "laws" and other one-size-fits-all nonsense, does individual action run into roadblocks.

If your grandkids or great-grandkids are starving in a future of bare store shelves and a destroyed climate, it won't be greedy free-marketeers who are most to blame-- rather it will be those who thought they knew how to run the world: government and the other "smart" archators. Hold them accountable NOW.

Thank you for helping support

Monday, July 10, 2017

Dumb, authoritarian smart people

Smart people, and those who imagine themselves to be smart, tend to be authoritarian.

That's because they believe they know what's best for you.

They see nothing wrong with forcing their ideas on you, however they can. Including through the guns of government. They see themselves as the Elite, better than the rest. Better than you and me.

They mistake "smarter than" for "better than"; "more kindly and understanding than".

They are nothing but bullies. Instead of being physically bigger and stronger like the playground bullies, they are (perhaps) mentally bigger and stronger, and they use this to beat up on others who are at a disadvantage.

Oh, they'll believe they are doing it for your own good. Which means they aren't as smart as they imagine themselves to be.

It would be nice if these smart people were smart enough to leave people alone to make, and learn from, their own mistakes. And smart enough to know where their rights end and the other person's rights begin. But that would undercut their feelings of superiority, and they can't allow that to happen.

Thank you for helping support

Sunday, July 09, 2017

Honorable codes libertarian at heart

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 7, 2017)

A well-lived life is a journey to be a better person than the person you were yesterday. Perhaps, In the process, even to leave the world a little better for your having been here. How will you go about it?

I suppose it depends on how you define "better person". You can't get there without knowing where you want to go. Nor can you get there by going in the opposite direction.

To me, being a 'better person" means being kind when you can. It means not being a burden on others; not stealing from them or trespassing on their property. It means not using violence against those who aren't attacking or robbing others. It also means no justification for doing those things, no matter what. All your interactions will be voluntary ones and you don't impose yourself on others. The name for this way of living among others is "libertarianism".

Libertarianism makes me a better person. I am not there yet, but I believe I'm a little closer every day.

It can help you, too, no matter what else also inspires you to be the best person you can be. Libertarianism is a perfect fit with all decent behavior, and completely at odds with everything which might stand in your way of being a better person. All honorable religion, codes, and ethics are libertarian at heart. When applied consistently, libertarianism shines a light into the dark nooks and crannies some people try to hide from their proclaimed values. It leaves no room for contradictions.

Yet, many people have been taught to be suspicious of libertarianism; to mischaracterize it and fear its consequences. Not surprisingly, this suspicion is encouraged by people who don't want to be thought of as the bad guys while doing bad things.

Maybe someone honestly believes living by theft and aggression makes them a better person, particularly when legalized and called by more respectable names. If so, I question their definition of "better person". To me, it seems they want to be a bully while feeling good about their behavior. Until I am forced to defend myself from them, I won't waste much effort arguing their point.

Those who want me to doubt that voluntary acts, self ownership, and individual responsibility are the best, most moral and ethical way to live among others are asking me to believe theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery might be better. I won't believe that's true. I can't.


This blog, like all of, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.


Snoopy, privacy-invading technology has the potential to be annoying, but is only dangerous because you-- or someone-- allows aggressive, thieving gangs to use the collected data to molest and control you.

Apart from the superstitious belief in government, snoopy technology wouldn't really be an issue.

You could shoot trespassing drones out of the sky.
You could refuse to incriminate yourself for the convenience of bureaucrats.
You could exercise your right of association and refuse to do business with companies who snoop and only patronize those who protect your data, and there would be no gang to extort them to either spy on you (or let the gang create "backdoors" in the company's private property where they can enter to snoop on you) or lose their "license" to conduct business.
You could do all sorts of "illegal" things to protect your privacy and get restitution when snoops violate you.
And no data unethically collected could ever be used to govern you, anyway, because the governing gang wouldn't be there to use the information against you.

Again, the root problem is archation; the bothersome trouble most people outside our liberty family will notice from snoops is just what naturally results from snooping in the presence of government.

Thank you for helping support

Saturday, July 08, 2017

Refugees: a government-created problem

I sympathize and empathize with refugees.

That doesn't mean I want any government importing them; it means I want governments to stop creating them.

Government-- The State-- has to die so that people can live how they have a right to live, where they have a right to be.

It's not complicated.

Refugee assembly line

Thank you for helping support

Friday, July 07, 2017

Banning guns isn't "safe"

Recently some anti-liberty bigots at a government recreation facility refused to abolish their anti-gun policy because they claimed that the "safety" and "image" of their facility would be compromised if visitors were permitted to carry firearms (or other weapons) on the property, and this would drive away customers.


Safety is compromised when visitors are NOT permitted to carry firearms or other weapons. Always. Weapon prohibitions are anti-safety.

Besides, their "ban" is meaningless since everyone intent on harm will ignore it, anyway.

And, they are worried about their "image"? Their anti-liberty bigotry harms their image in my eyes. Allowing people to keep their rights inviolate while in your presence isn't an image killer; it shows you to be adult and reasonable-- nothing could be better for your image.

As for patronage, do you really want to attract people who want everyone around them to be helpless? What sort of people might want that? Murderers, rapists, muggers, kidnappers, cops, cowards, and other scumwads, that's who.

I'm much more likely to go somewhere that doesn't ban weapons than I am to go places that do. I weigh the decision carefully when I go to a slaughter zone which bans weapons; trying to decide if the risk is worth it. Usually I decide it isn't.

If you ban guns, using "safety" as your justification, you are a liar and I won't trust you in other areas, either.

Thank you for helping support

Thursday, July 06, 2017

Liberty ideas

I doubt I've ever had a truly original thought, including about liberty. Really, liberty is very intuitive-- if you can get away from the anti-liberty brainwashing. It's just not that hard to understand, unless you try to not understand.

I've had some thoughts about liberty that I thought were original, only to find someone else had the same thought first (sometimes thousands of years before me). In fact, that happens every time I think I thought of something completely original.

And it's OK. It doesn't matter where a good idea comes from, it only matters that it spreads. I am happy to help spread good ideas, no matter who thought of them first. It's not about me, or any other individual (which seems odd for an individualist to be saying), it is about the ideas leading to the truth; to reality.

Thank you for helping support

Tuesday, July 04, 2017


It is ironic to be using Independence Day to confess my dependence. But, here I am.

Just as anyone is dependent on their customers, I am dependent on my subscribers and donors. They are my customers.

As I have mentioned, the numbers of subscribers has dwindled over the past couple of years, so if you aren't a subscriber, please consider signing up. I can't begin to tell you how much I'd appreciate it.

It's probably a bad strategy to have a business or service where the vast majority of your customers will never pay, but if I had to put everything behind a pay wall, I wouldn't bother to write near as much. I would rather have readers than subscribers. Of course, having both is even better.

And, if you aren't a subscriber, and don't want to be (or can't afford the commitment) consider making a donation.

You can find the links over on the right sidebar. Please give them a look.

Whatever you decide, thank you very much.

Now, go out and bust some caps.


Taking Independence Day seriously

Independence Day is one of the saddest "holidays" there is. It was a missed opportunity, which has mutated into the opposite of its original intent.

I can either ignore the day, or be sad.

So I generally try to ignore it as much as possible. I especially ignore the wargasms that seem to be the order of the day. Celebrating the State's Holy Pole Quilt, its military stormtroopers, and even the newer trend of worshiping cops (as the most ubiquitous evil hitmen of the State), on this day that started as a giant "digitus impudicus" to the archators of the State. All sickening anti-liberty rituals, symbols, and goons. Keep it away from me.

Yet, it wouldn't be so bad if not for the overwhelming numbers of insane fans celebrating the bad guys.

The only thing that really makes government worse than any other gang of nasty thieving, raping, murdering, kidnapping bullies is the support of its fans.

You don't generally see other gangs with droves of fans, seeking ways to excuse the gang members' behavior. Pretty much only government's fans do this. And, that's why it is so important to speak out and tell the unvarnished truth about this disgusting gang of archators and parasites.

If you really valued independence, you wouldn't fly the gang colors on Independence Day. Instead you would demand independence from all such gangs. You wouldn't pledge allegiance to any gang, nor to any gang's Holy Pole Quilt. You would reject such things as the fawning behavior of a slave. You wouldn't celebrate or grovel to thank the government's military; you would see them for what they are: the stormtroopers of Empire, working to spread the gang's influence over the globe through aggression and theft. They are NOT on the side of freedom or liberty, but are diseased carriers of slavery and oppression.

Be independent. Reject the narrative and celebrate REAL independence. Today and every day. Independence from slavery and the gang which seeks to enslave you and everyone you love. They need you; you definitely don't need them. Live that truth.

Thank you for helping support

Monday, July 03, 2017

Inconveniences of Liberty

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

But what are these "inconveniences of liberty"?

I suppose it is inconvenient to respect the rights of others if they are doing something you don't like.

It would be easier to use the bludgeon of The State to get your way than to work out a compromise like self-responsible people.

Liberty can be a little scary sometimes, and I suppose fear is "inconvenient" for some people.

But The State is even more inconvenient. You would have to try hard to overlook that fact to see liberty as the bigger problem. The State would love for you to do that, of course, and will help you blind yourself to the facts. How anyone can seriously prefer the inconveniences of a State over the lesser inconveniences of liberty is something which bewilders me completely.

Thank you for helping support

Sunday, July 02, 2017

Everyone a criminal by laws of today

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 31, 2017)

Ayn Rand wrote "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." Welcome to today. You are guilty; you may not have been caught yet.

When the laws are complicated, confusing, and contradictory, people will incriminate themselves by trying to stay "legal". This saves the enforcers and bureaucrats much trouble.

Contrary to the mythology, you are now guilty until proven innocent. Be ready to prove yourself legal at the whim of any government employee.

Are you sure you even know what's legal and what isn't? I guarantee you don't. It's estimated that each and every one of us commits an average of three felonies per day-- unintentionally and without evil intent.

Traditional American rightful liberty is no longer the default position; the default has become "Is that legal? Do you have permits showing you have asked, and paid for, the privilege to do what you are doing?"

Think of all the ways you are expected to enslave yourself. Are your papers in order and up to date? How about your drivers license/national ID and any occupational licenses? Is your daughter's lemonade stand legal, or is it a black market operation? Do you have the proper permit?

Do you carry any prescription medications with you? Are they in their original bottles? Do you have the prescription with you? If not, you may be considered a drug criminal.

How much cash are you carrying? Can you prove you got it legally, and not through engaging in acts of trade outside government permission? If not, expect to have it stolen from you if an enforcer finds it. In this case your money is guilty unless you can prove it innocent, at your own expense, and it will be forfeited to the thieves of "government" so they can buy more equipment and hire more enforcers to use against your life, liberty, and property. And you'll honor them for doing this job.

Enough! I will assume liberty. I don't care whether what you do is legal or not, and I won't help those looking to trap you. As long as you aren't using violence against the peaceable, or violating the private property of others, what you do is none of my business. Go in peace.

This blog, like all of, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

Property rights preserved-- accidentally

Once upon a time, a long ways from here...

I lived in a nice little house right on the river. This was in a place with more actual liberty, and I enjoyed that liberty a lot. I wore a gun openly probably 75% of the time-- or more. And I carried concealed 100% of the time. I also wore buckskin clothes along with my Bowie knife most of the time, not that it matters.

One day, a gravel truck and front-loader (is that what they are called?) rumbled down my driveway and into the river, and started loading up on gravel. I didn't own the riverbed, so I didn't get too bent out of shape over it. It was pretty noisy, though, and my wife-at-the-time did medical transcription from home and was having a hard time hearing the dictation through the earbuds over all the noise. Plus, the gravel truck began tearing up my driveway.

So, I went out to talk to the guy. I was nice and told him the problems I had with his operation. I suggested some compromises that I thought would work for both of us. He wasn't amenable. He got very excited and angry and started saying he had all the permits (or whatever) to collect river gravel, and it wasn't my property, he had the right-of-way, etc.-- I actually wondered if he was going to shove me or something. I went back in the house.

The next day I was out in the yard messing around (I pretty much lived in the yard) when the truck came back. But this day, as usual, I had my gun on my hip-- not because I was thinking of him or anything, but just because that was how I dressed most of the time. I nodded at him, then went back to whatever I was doing.

He sat in the cab of his truck looking at me for a couple of minutes, then left. The next day the front-loader was gone from the river bed and I never saw him again. When he left without doing any loading, I wondered what was up. Then I remembered my gun.

I wondered if he thought I was wearing the gun as a threat to him. I'm just glad I had gone out of my way to be polite when I spoke to him the day before. His quick exit made me wonder if his "permits" and whatnot were maybe not as ironclad as he had claimed. Not that I really cared one way or the other. The problem was solved and never cropped up again. Of course, it could have gone differently.

Me, from around that time

Thank you for helping support

Saturday, July 01, 2017

The weak seeking the Strong

Weak people crave strong "leaders" or Rulers.

I've seen this time after time. People who silently fear they are weak gravitate to those they see as strong. The Big Brother type they believe will protect them from all the things they are scared of-- and it's apparently a long list. They'll probably never admit this cowardice is behind their politics, but it is.

They don't seem to care about the potential for evil from this strong "leader", just as long as their Ruler is strong enough to make them feel protected. They will always imagine the evil, or "strength" as they see it (if they see it), will be directed at the things they fear. I guess they crave having something scary on their side due to their shortcomings.

I wouldn't even care so much if they didn't insist on saddling everyone else with their weakness by insisting you must share their "leader". But they do. That makes them weak, cowardly, and scummy.

Thank you for helping support