Saturday, June 30, 2018

Someone is confused

Terribly confused. (And I don't believe it's me.) He even stated it for the record, too!

How can he be a lover of Big Government, while being a hater of government? He can't.

On the "Hates government" side he has:

  • Taxation is theft. (Yes it is. Even if you like what it pays for)
  • "government hating" (which seems a dubious claim, considering)

On the "Loves government" side he has:

  • "military and law enforcement supporting" (HUGE welfare programs, and what other molesters does he support?)
  • "illegal immigrant hating" (it takes a government to declare something "illegal" and to decide something is "immigration")
  • "border security" (HUGE welfare program, and why does he hate property rights?)

On the "irrelevant to the topic" or "insufficient information" side, he has:

  • "Gun waving" (Cops wave guns. Troops, too. Government extremists love guns-- as long as they control them. Guns are just tools and it depends on who you are pointing them at)
  • Free speech (speech can be pro-liberty or against... but where is he throwing it?)
  • anti-abortion (I know people who are pro-liberty, and reasonable, on both sides of the issue)
  • school choice (is this school I'm allowed to choose regulated and funded by government? Does my choice include not funding schools at all?)
  • anti-handout (except when he's handing other people's money to military, law enforcement, ICE employees, etc. apparently)
So, yes, this guy (who I probably should have redacted, but I'm not going to) is mighty confused. That's why he's a "conservative".

No, "liberals"/"progressives" (who are neither) are not more consistent. I laugh at their confusion and hypocrisy just as much. And when I find a comparable hilarious example, I may share it as well.

Statists-- they don't get that way by being smart or consistent.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Friday, June 29, 2018

Don't archate, part 2

More accurate; too wordy

So, why shouldn't you archate?

The biggest and best reason is that you have no right to do so. Admittedly, most statists and kriminals (archators by another name) don't care. That doesn't change the reality, though.

And if someone is doing what they don't have a right to do, anyone has the right to use force (or whatever it takes) to stop them. If you don't like the consequences of archating, don't. This is a utilitarian reason, so not really the best, but it is still true.

If everyone archates constantly, a functional, positive society isn't possible. Trade wouldn't be possible. "Don't steal the stuff I stole from others" just doesn't work in the long run. Once again, this is too utilitarian for my tastes. And again, statists and kriminals won't care anyway.

But that's the thing, statists and kriminals don't care about a lot of things. If they did care, they wouldn't choose the path they chose. If someone isn't going to care about right or wrong, it's pointless to try to convince them an act is wrong, expecting it will make a difference to them. It won't matter to them. You're not going to talk them out of their wicked ways. So don't waste time trying. State the facts, then let the chips fall where they may. Facing unpleasant consequences is all that will matter, and it will matter most when they lose. Make them lose.

The fact is, "Don't archate" is just what I tell myself. I hope it's what you choose, but I'm only responsible for my own choices, not yours.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Statism isn't working?-- redefine "working"

I notice a lot of people have a hard time admitting when something isn't working.

They'll pretend it does work.

They'll redefine what "works" means to them-- in a way that often goes against how they originally defined it.

They'll ignore the failure as long as they don't have to change what they are doing.

It's probably smarter to stop as soon as you notice something isn't working, or if you feel the desire to redefine "works" in the situation. Think about how else you might approach the problem. Try something else. Don't keep doing what you've been doing just because it's what you've always done.

And, even if it does work, there's probably a better way just waiting for you to discover it. See if you can.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Don't archate

Don't tread on me > Don't tread on anyone > No one tread on anyone > Don't archate.

Seems simple enough. Why is it so hard for some to understand?

Probably because they don't want to understand, because it would show they need to change. To make themselves a better person.

Again, it's a suggestion. A promise from me to you. I think you'd be better off to adopt this philosophy, too, but I don't expect you to. Just know that it's how I will relate to you and others, including how I might react if you do choose to archate. For your own sake, and for the sake of humanity, don't archate.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Monday, June 25, 2018


How many times throughout history have bullies sought to humiliate and dehumanize their victims by forcing them to grow their hair long? I doubt this has ever been the case.

Yet, how many times has the opposite been done, where thugs and bullies sought to humiliate and dehumanize their victims by chopping off their hair, or even by shaving their heads? Over and over again this has been a tactic used by vile archators against their victims. It has been done in Nazi concentration camps, U.S. government's Indian "schools", prisons, etc. Some of you history buffs may have lots more examples I'm not aware of.

Why is this the case? What gives the bad guys this idea repeatedly throughout history?

I understand some people, many people, choose short hair or a shaved head. I would never seek to force them to grow their hair out, even though the opposite is so often the case.

This is why I see long hair as a way to feel my own liberty, and why I don't cut it off. To me, it would feel wrong. I would feel less free. It would feel like giving the bullies what they want. Plus, I just like long hair (on everyone, regardless of how they believe it looks on them).

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Laws themselves a senseless crime

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 23, 2018)

Droughts are a serious problem. They cause wildfires, dirt storms, crop failure, and they deplete the aquifer. Droughts are harmful and dangerous. Someone should do something! Why aren't droughts illegal already?

On the other hand, you don't want floods, either. Or property-damaging hail or tornadoes. Those should be criminalized as well.

There needs to be a legal minimum and maximum amount of rainfall each month, and bans on assault weather, so everyone is safe and healthy.

Reasonable people understand it is absurd to criminalize nature. People who advocate, write, pass, and enforce laws are not reasonable people. When nature and laws collide, nature will always make a fool of laws.

I once had a short hedge which grew berries every summer. Nothing was interested in the berries until they fermented, then the robins would gather to eat the fruit and get drunk.

It was funny to watch and proves a point.

Robins aren't arrogant enough to threaten other robins with a cage for eating berries, and to kill them if they resist hard enough. Only certain humans are this arrogant.

Seeking mind-altering substances is not just a human trait. It goes much deeper into the nature of living things-- at least those with a mind to alter. Trying to make the behavior go away with laws is as stupid as criminalizing weather.

The potential to cause harm doesn't justify laws, either. Everything can cause harm, so laws covering anything could be justified by that standard.

Crime only occurs when an individual's life, liberty, or property has been harmed by the actions of another. Crime-- harm to individuals-- is the most common result of writing and enforcing laws. It's the same whether the laws are against substances, tools, or the victimless behaviors commonly called "vices".

Even in the case of harm, do you really need a law against murder before you'll accept it's wrong to murder? Would you wait to make sure murder has been properly criminalized before defending someone who is being attacked? I hope not. What is the point of a law telling you what you already know? Does putting it in writing really change anything? It justifies hiring judges, police, and prosecutors, and paying them all with money stolen "legally" through the act of taxation, but it doesn't solve anything.

You don't need laws to make acts which harm life, liberty, or property wrong, and laws which criminalize other acts or objects harm life, liberty, and property by their existence. Laws are a senseless crime.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Blogger might not like me

Just a heads-up.

Blogger has stopped notifying me about posted comments. I have no idea why, and making sure the settings are right hasn't fixed the problem. So if I miss a comment for a while, forgive me.

They've also stopped showing me search results on this blog earlier than about the past 2 years, making it hard for me to find older posts I want to link to. No idea what that's about, and my inquiry was ignored.

I'm also cross-posting on Wordpress (and just about always have, although it's somewhat of a mess) just in case Blogger decides my blog is unwelcome here. I prefer to keep this one as the primary blog, if possible.


Problems with "authority"

I don't mean I have problems with "authority, I mean there are problems with the concept of "authority". Besides it being the most dangerous superstition.

Obviously, I'm speaking of political "authority", not expertise. Two unrelated concepts; one word used for both. Confusing by design.

"Authority" is the power to molest. That's really all it is. This power is based on superstition, but beliefs have consequences.

Probably, in the big picture, this is the thing "conservatives" get most wrong. Along with their absolute rejection of their greatest responsibility, while crowing about everyone else's "responsibility", that is. They don't understand what "authority" is, so they end up worshiping something nasty and disgusting, and criticizing others who see it more honestly than they do.

Political "authority" isn't a real thing. You shouldn't respect it. But you should realize dunderheads will murder you if they feel you have disrespected their delusional "authority". Individual beware.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Saturday, June 23, 2018

"Human trafficking"-- the "people trade"

This recent focus on "human trafficking" is ignoring the biggest offender: government. This means the activists aren't serious.

Who can possibly "traffic" even a tiny fraction of the humans that government does? Without trafficking-- trading-- people back and forth for money, government would lose much of its power and purpose.

Just the prison bureaucracy alone trades in more people than all the freelance slavers combined. And yet this is supposed to be OK? It's not OK with me.

End "human trafficking"; abolish the prison industry.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Friday, June 22, 2018

Yes, you are an "-ism"... or two

Some people like to claim they are above all "-isms". They take pride in this claim, and may even believe it. They are fooling themselves.

"-ism" is simply "a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. "

So those who say they reject all "-isms" would like you to believe they take no actions, have no principles, etc. They "do" nothing based on anything? Don't be ridiculous.

What are they afraid of?

Sure, there are many really disgusting "-isms". Ignorant ones based on horrific beliefs. But to pretend to be above them all is delusional. If nothing else those who pretend this are devoted to "antiismism". That's got to be one of the oddest "-isms" there is.

Don't run from "-isms", but choose wisely. There are good ones and bad ones-- learn to tell them apart. It's really not that hard to do.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Caught in the Doldrums

Sometimes I think the world, and what passes for society, is insane.

I can't help but be relieved two evil rulers of two evil governments seem to not want to blow up the world to spite each other right now. How low is that bar? How did they get this kind of power in the first place? These guys-- and others like them-- shouldn't be able to affect the lives of anyone but their immediate familes, and yet, here we are. That's crazy.

People are still denying property rights by shilling for national borders, border walls, and a police state because of their hatred of this thing they call  "immigration", and kids are getting caught in the crossfire. Taking kids away from parents, whether the practice was started under Obama or Trump, is insanely evil. So are Border Patrol traffic stops and other property rights violations. Borderism... ugh. Nasty stuff, that.

The anti-gun bigots aren't screeching quite as loud at the moment, That's good. But just wait until the next "gun control" emboldened evil loser decides it's time to slaughter. It won't be long, I'm sure.

Then you have a vast mob of people openly supporting a brutal nationwide gang of molesters who rob and murder for the "offense", among others, of not bowing down to them fast enough. Completely insane and related to another bit of craziness...

Government, which if it is allowed to exist at all, should never tell any individual what to do, has been allowed to morph into a nasty master rather than a timid servant. Insanity! It's totally stupid to allow government of any kind to ever set itself above any person or individual rights, for any reason. Government, specifically the State, needs to die.

Yeah, today the insanity is really getting me down. Not the first time, and I know it won't be the last. It's not even just all the above. Birthdays get to me, as does Father's Day. This isn't my favorite time of year. It's all causing a bit of writer's block, and just generally making me feel bad. It's always temporary, but I hate when it happens.

So, if (or when) this happens to you, how do you bring yourself out of it?

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Must suck to be on the wrong side of history

So... LEGAL WEED GAINS MOMENTUM AS TEXAS REPUBLICANS BACK MARIJUANA DECRIMINALIZATION... yet after I had pointed out the stupidity of prohibition in a column, the local molester gang spokesvermin promised it'll never happen here.

Presented for your amusement.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Statists against humanity

One objection to a free society that statists frequently grasp at is their claim that without government control ("laws", "taxes"), no one would help others. Or at least, there wouldn't be "enough" help to go around.

This is so ridiculous that it doesn't even need to be addressed, but I will anyway.

I once bought $300 worth of tools for someone I didn't even really know, just so he could get a job. No one forced me to do it.

I have several subscribers to this blog whose monthly subscriptions help me pay the bills. No one holds a gun to their heads to talk them into helping me.

The world is filled with charities-- supported voluntarily-- which help people out in spite of governments robbing people under the pretense of helping those same people. So, people are paying twice for the same thing; once under threat of death, and once just because they care. People still choose to go above and beyond to contribute on top of what they are forced to hand over to the State. Do statists really believe ending "taxation" (and regulation), giving everyone more money, would cause these contributions to dry up? It's what they claim to believe.

Recently, truly generous people helped me afford a vet visit to save my daughter's cat's life. I'm more grateful for that than I can express. They didn't have to help; they chose to.

A few years ago, people chipped in so I could travel to attend my older daughter's funeral. Again, no one made them do it. I'll never forget.

People like to help others. I like to help others.

I still give what I can when I can. If I weren't under continual threat to be robbed by the State I could afford to give more, like I used to back when I had more money to shuffle around. I'm confident others are like me in this regard. Seeing opportunities to help, and not being able to, is one of the saddest things to me about being broke.

If government extremists are so sure ending the extortion racket would end in disaster, let us try it for a year and see how it goes.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Then I suppose you can go back to having your goons rob me at gunpoint.

But if I'm right, and the only things left lacking in funds are those things which shouldn't be done in the first place ("services" no one really wants enough to pay for them if they have a choice), then I want the statists to shut up and go away forever. It's a reasonable deal they are too afraid to take. I suspect they know what would happen.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Monday, June 18, 2018

Wait, can I DO that?

Today is my birthday, and I'm taking a day off. I plan to be back tomorrow with more chewy goodness.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Sunday, June 17, 2018

Don't trust government to keep deals

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 16, 2018)

President Trump has decided to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the "Iran Nuclear Agreement", and his critics are enjoying their opportunity to show concern.

You can debate whether the deal had any legitimacy, whether it was a good idea, and what breaking the deal means, but you'd be missing the point. Agreements are meaningless to governments.

Every government, or rather every person imagining themselves a representative of a government, feels they have the right to make and break deals. Every government sees itself as special and believes anything they do is justified. It's the same if the deal is between governments or between a government and an individual.

There is no downside for a government to agree to a deal, so they are quick to agree and quicker to break them when they become inconvenient. Just ask anyone who isn't a government extremist how well the U.S. government has obeyed its Constitutional limitations-- the charter which allowed it to exist. Or ask the Native people of America how well the treaties they agreed to were kept. Ask yourself what happened with Social Security numbers; promised to never become any sort of national identification number and made illegal to use for identification outside of Social Security, but which are now national identification numbers.

Governments feel no obligation to live up to their agreements while demanding you keep up your end centuries after their betrayal.

A problem with making any agreement with government is that you have no real recourse when the government tires of its end of the bargain. Even if your complaint is heard, it will either be heard by a representative of the same government which cheated you-- a representative who owes his job and paycheck to your opponent-- or by some other government. No government wants to find governments obligated to keep their end of any deal. It could come back to bite them. Obviously, seeking justice on your own would be called a crime by the government which violated you.

If you make an agreement with a government and expect the agreement to be honored, you have set yourself up for disappointment. If you expect agreements between two or more governments to be upheld, you seem unaware of what government is or how it works. Don't expect a scorpion to act like anything other than a scorpion. Not even if you consider it your pet.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Happy Father's Day

Great fathers teach* their kids responsibility.
They teach their kids to not attack people, to not take or damage other people's stuff, and to keep their word.
They teach their kids that searching for loopholes just because they really want to find one isn't the right thing to do.

The truly exceptional fathers also teach their kids there are no "jobs" that come with a pass to do these things; that the people who believe there are aren't heroes or anyone to look up to, but are someone to pity or revile.

And these fathers live the example, even when it's hard, rather than just speaking wise words.

If at all possible, be grateful for the father you have, flaws and all, and do your very best to be an exceptional father, even knowing you will sometimes fall short.


*Remember you can't teach anyone anything they aren't willing to learn. All you can do is to do your best.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Saturday, June 16, 2018

I never suspected...

...which makes sense when you think about it.

According to the graph above, my IQ is somewhere around 65.

I'm sure that's comforting to "certain people". Hey, whatever makes people feel better about themselves, right? 😜

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Friday, June 15, 2018

Identify reality

Just because you don't like what I say doesn't make it any less true.

Of course, the opposite is also true-- just because you agree with me doesn't mean I'm right.

This is a hard thing to grasp. I want to believe those I agree with are right, and those I disagree with are wrong. And, it's still possible that this is the case most of the time. But I have to be careful to not be so happy to agree with something that I don't examine it.

As is the case in so many areas of life, the more you learn to identify the plants and wildflowers, the fewer weeds you'll see. Fewer... but there still are some.

I can see why others embrace certain paths (and people), and in learning to identify some of these things, I see fewer acts as truly evil. But evil still exists.

No matter how you wrap it and put a bow on it, it is still evil to cause intentional harm to life, liberty, or property. It is evil and it doesn't matter what names you give it. It doesn't matter how much you appreciate or love those who do it. It doesn't matter that the alternative scares you or you feel you have no choice. And, even if I can identify your specific weed, I know it's still a weed. It needs to be pulled out by the roots and burned-- and it's your responsibility to do so.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Thursday, June 14, 2018

A response to Bruce the Anti-libertarian

I ran across a letter to the editor written in response to a libertarian's letter. (I have a screenshot in case this letter goes away.)

This raving statist's letter was a treat to behold. Rarely have I witnessed this much dishonesty in such a small space. Kudos to him!

Now I'll address just a few of the lies promulgated therein.

"[R]egulations (and taxes) exist for the public good, and protect the public from bad actors"
That's simply not true. You can't rob the "public" for its own good. It's not possible.

There are only two kinds of regulations- the useless and the harmful. You don't need regulations (or "laws") against things such as murder, robbery, kidnapping, etc. to make it OK for people to defend themselves and others from those acts. And "laws" against victimless acts are harmful to society because they harm individuals. You can't harm all your body's useful cells and claim it's beneficial to your body. Well, you can, but you'd be lying.

The worst of the bad actors are those who seek positions of political power, from which they can rob and molest people (mostly) without consequence-- because it is "legal", and people like the author seem to believe that's good enough.

"Libertarians believe there is no such thing as 'the public interest' and deny that altruism exists."
More lies.

It can not be in the "public interest" to systematically enslave the individuals who make up the public. This is the reality government extremists such as the author seek to sweep under the statist rug.

Altruism exists. No libertarian denies that it does. I have performed altruistic acts of my own free will, and I have benefitted from the altruistic acts of others-- just very recently in fact. It would have cheapened the act if someone such as the author (or his hired thugs-- government employees) had stuck a gun in the face of those he felt should "help" to convince them to be "altruistic". If you have no choice, due to "laws", it's NOT generosity. It is not altruistic to rob people and claim it isn't robbery because you call it "taxation". It's not altruistic to give "the less fortunate" money or other property which is not yours to give away. That is the opposite of altruistic.

"Everything is seen through a lens of naked self-interest."
Nope. He's lying again! How many lies can he squeeze into this one screed? LOL!

"...they believe all politicians and all bureaucrats are simply out for themselves, and have no other motive than grasping self-interest."
I don't care about their motives, I care about what they actually do. Their acts harm innocent people, and even when they see the harm they do, they "do it harder". That's wrong.

"Therefore, every regulation, and every tax, is a coercive measure of oppression intended to deny libertarians their 'freedom.'
I care about your "freedom" as much as I care about my own. Otherwise I wouldn't be a libertarian. All those acts of statism the author supports deny him his own freedom (and liberty), too. And I care even if he doesn't. I don't want to see someone robbed and raped, even if they're OK with it. But even more than that, I don't want people like him making the decision that others have to be OK with it just because he sees nothing wrong with it. That's just evil.

"Of course, the same daily 'coercion' experienced by most people in the corporate world goes unremarked, because employment is voluntary, and you can always quit."
Another lie. This guy's going for a new world record!
Corporations are an instrument of government, which only exist by crawling in bed with government, and which get government favors out of the deal. They are just as wrong when they initiate force or violate property rights as government.

It's not about government, after all; it is about not having the right to attack others or take their stuff, no matter who you are or what your excuse. Yes, you can usually quit a job without being forced to move away like you're forced to do if you want to quit a particular government. That doesn't excuse the aggression or property violations committed by government's bosom buddies, the corporations.

"Libertarians believe that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work for the benefit of us all."
Haha!! No, you've just stated your own side and blamed it on libertarians. That may be the most dishonest thing you've said here, but it's a close contest.

Bruce, I hope for your sake no one ever characterizes you and your position half as dishonestly as you've just characterized the libertarian position. If they do, you'll probably fang yourself in frustration. You should really get a bit more informed about a topic before you dive in and put your foot so deeply into your mouth.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Be a Jedi-- understand force

You, as an abolitionist-Voluntaryist-anarchist-libertarian, are a real-life Jedi. You understand the power of force. Not The Force, perhaps, but force. In fact, you understand it's (almost) all about force.

Force is neither good nor bad. It's all in how you use it.

Defensive force is the light side.

Initiated force-- aggression-- is the dark side.

If you start looking for ways to justify initiating force, out of "necessity, it is a path which leads away from the light side into the dark side. Follow this path often enough, and despite your best intentions, you'll become a real-life Sith.

And sometimes it is with the best of intentions that you take steps down that path. You may do it out of concern for the less fortunate. Or for the children. Out of fear of what "might happen" if you don't initiate force against someone who hasn't actually archated yet, but you are sure they will if you don't use force against them first. It's a seductive path.

This is the path followed by cops, politicians, and all government employees. They may see themselves as the good guys, but they can't be. Almost all their force is initiated force. Aggression. The dark side of force. Even if they sometimes use force defensively, it's not where their power comes from. They put on the kindly Palpatine act, while secretly they are Darth Sidious.

And this is what you're up against. You didn't choose the battle, but it chose you. Ready or not.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Monday, June 11, 2018

Why try to justify slavery?

Recently, on Quora, someone asked why anyone would be opposed to (government) research on "gun violence".

My response was that I'm against it for the same reason I'm against using stolen money ("taxes") to research ways to justify slavery.

I don't believe stolen money should be used for research of any kind. Ever. Nor do I believe anything can justify slavery/"gun control".

One guy replied that he is "pro-taxation and pro-research". I didn't read the rest of his response-- I didn't need to.

Admitting to be "pro-taxation" is shameful. What other types of slavery and theft does he support?

I'm not "anti-research", there are just some topics where research is pointless.

Nothing can give anyone the right or the "authority" to prohibit guns or to otherwise enslave people, so there's no reason to seek justifications for either act. The money thus spent is wasted, and the money was stolen to begin with.

I'm against this kind of "research" on principle, not because it is research, but because it can't tell me anything I need to know. But you know what does tell me something important? When someone admits supporting it.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Government not designed to help

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 9, 2018)

How can anyone watch every form of government fail, over 5000-plus years of history, and still have faith it can work if done right; if the right constitution is enacted; if the right people are given power?

Not only do they keep the faith as it fails, but some want to give government even more power over our lives. Enough is enough!

Government is powerless to help, but is specially suited to harm.

People act surprised when the true nature of politician after politician is revealed, but what kind of person do they imagine seeks to have power over the lives of others?

Those who make up government crave power. It's why they sought the job. For their victims to clamor to give them more power-- before such power is taken by force-- makes no sense.

Even if you imagine the true purpose of government is to protect your life, liberty, and property from others, so as to free you to pursue happiness, you're trusting your protection to those most likely to be the ones you need protection from.

No government has ever protected life, liberty, or property when it meant scaling back its own power.

Expecting government to do so is like hopping in your family SUV expecting to drive it to Alpha Centauri. That's not what it was designed to do, and not in the realm of possibility, no matter how much you wish it were.

As has been pointed out, without government some people might choose to rob and kill; with government it's guaranteed. Since the robbing and killing is then done "legally", it must be OK in most people's eyes. Not in mine, however.

It's not right to take property from others. Calling it taxation, property codes, or eminent domain doesn't change wrong into right.

It's not right to pretend you have the right to tell people what they can ingest, whether they are allowed to run a business, drive a car, carry a gun, or any of the other things people calling themselves government regulate, nor is it right to require licenses or permits to do those things. It's wrong to use violence against anyone who ignores such rules. It's also wrong to support those rules from the sidelines.

I don't know what the future holds. Perhaps we stand on the verge of a new Dark Age, where government "helps" people into a benevolent slavery "for their own good". In such case, I may be on the losing side, but not the wrong one.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Write to learn

Yeah, this is how I do it. Frilly sleeve and all.

Want to really learn something?

Find something you care about and write about it. Don't worry that you don't know enough; be open and learn along the way. You can learn along with your readers, and they can help you understand things you might be missing.

When you discover a question, see if you can find the answer. Or an answer... or two.

I've found writing things down, to communicate them to other people, is about the best way to get the concepts clear in my own mind. It also helps me discover gaps in my own understanding which I can then fill.

It's not even necessary for other people to read what you write, although their comments can help you figure some things out.

It may not guarantee you'll get it right, but I'll bet you'll get closer that way than by just about any other way.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Saturday, June 09, 2018

Believing or thinking

Believing is like accepting and eating a stranger's casserole. Hopefully whoever made it had good intentions and was honest. You trust they didn't use feces as an ingredient.

Thinking is like knowing exactly what went into making the casserole, and how it was put together and cooked. You might have even made it yourself from ingredients you chose and combined, then cooked.

Making your own casserole is no guarantee that you didn't use a contaminated ingredient, or undercook it. But, at least any problems can be traced back to the source: you.

I am not comfortable believing but vastly prefer thinking.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Friday, June 08, 2018

Butterscotch the cat

I know it will seem trivial, but I need some donations so I can take my daughter's cat to the vet.

She's sick and my daughter is upset, and I don't know what else to do.

I really hate to ask, because I know it's annoying. If you care to help, thank you.

Added: I started a GoFundMe, just in case you want to follow the updates.

Don't assume others are so pathetic

If you don't like liberty-- if you're scared of it, don't trust it, or don't trust other people with it-- that's fine. Go your own way.

But don't for one second believe that your shortcoming gives you the right to violate the liberty of others. It doesn't. Don't project your flaws on others who may not share them.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Thursday, June 07, 2018

The cost of dependency

Apparently 5 NYC taxi drivers have recently committed suicide. This is being blamed on Uber and other ride-sharing innovations.

Instead of dropping the taxi business and its precious "medallions" like a rotting gopher, the drivers are killing themselves. Can they not imagine a way of life without their expensive government monopoly? If liberty is killing the taxi monopoly, as they claim, why not adapt and start driving for one of the other options? Why demand a place on the sinking ship?

Government tries to outlaw liberty, but liberty finds a way. You can either adapt or die. And, in some cases, I guess those who don't want to adapt will kill themselves.

"Waaaa! Our government-promised monopoly is dying! I might as well kill myself instead of giving up the teat!"

One of the whiners demonstrated his lack of ethics by saying "... [Uber, et al] should be regulated like taxi cabs." Yep. "I had to do it this way, so I want everyone else violated in the same way I was." It's the statist faith in action.

How about this instead: taxis and ride-sharing services should both be unregulated, except by customer choice.
Anything less is pathetic and statist.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

The truth about forest fires and Smokey

It seems I have confused or bewildered some people with my comments about Smokey Bear.

The problem is that through Smokey Bear people came to see forest fires as only bad.

And it's simply not true. In fact, this bit of ignorance almost destroyed forests.

Small, frequent forest fires help clean up forest debris. As long as the debris is cleaned out regularly, the fires stay small, fast, and relatively "cool". The bark of healthy trees would get scorched, some dead branches would burn away, and the loose branches and dry underbrush would burn. But the fires wouldn't get hot enough, or stay burning long enough, to burn through the bark of healthy trees to seriously injure or kill them. The fires would keep infestations of tree pests under control, as well, plus many other benefits. Forests evolved under pressure from frequent fires, and recover quickly from the natural renewal process which naturally frequent fires represent.

Then the Forest Circus came along, with Smokey Bear as their anti-fire spokescritter. By focusing on human-caused fires, they convinced people that all forest fires were bad. ("Only YOU can prevent forest fires!")

Well, the truth is human-caused fires serve the same purpose as lightning-caused fires. Not only that, but the Forest Circus actively fought all fires, since "Forest fires are bad, Mmkay?".

So forest fires were artificially reduced in number, but nature finds a way. This allowed flammable debris to build up on the forest floor. Fewer in number meant greater in intensity. When the inevitable fire started, whether caused by humans or something else, the fire raged. It burned hotter and longer due to more fuel available. It burned through the bark of healthy trees, killing them and often adding them to the fuel. The forest fire fighters then airdrop chemicals on the fire and bulldoze firebreaks.

This is all quite a bit worse for the forest than what would have happened if they had just minded their business and let forest fires occur naturally as needed.

Also, pests were able to attack trees unchecked, so more chemicals were used to try to save trees.

The "solutions" are worse than the original problem.

Now, because bureaucrats are so wise, they set prescribed burns, and sometimes let forest fires (which are more deadly due to bureaucratic policies) burn, in the name of healthy forests. Too little, too late.

If they had simply stayed out of it to begin with, it would have just been a lot better.

As always, the solution involves property rights, not government policy or "laws".

This is why Smokey Bear is a government propagandist, not a friend of nature.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Tuesday, June 05, 2018

Navigating around the robots

It's your responsibility to not violate anyone's rights, but beyond that, your responsibilities aren't my business. Certainly nothing I should be lecturing you about. I can't make anyone else accept what I imagine to be their responsibilities no matter how much I might wish to.

If I'm out riding my bike it is my responsibility to not let the cars run over me. I can say it is the other drivers' responsibility to watch out for me, but where will that get me? Dead.

It seems smarter to just imagine all the cars are robotic and unaware of my presence; just moving randomly in some unpredictable way. So I'd better watch out for myself. This is what I try to get my 10 year-old daughter to understand, as well.

It's the same with the rest of life, too. I know I have the responsibility to not archate. I also realize other people have the same responsibility, but may not be aware of it. Even if the knew they might not care. They might enjoy being a mugger or a cop or a "public" [sic] school teacher [sic] and place their feelings, or the money, above their responsibility. I can either get upset that they won't live up to their responsibility, or I can accept it as it is and do my best to navigate around these mindless (from my perspective) robots. Which is likely to enhance my life more?

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Monday, June 04, 2018

Smokey Bear- enemy agent

When I was a kid I loved Smokey Bear. I had a Smokey Bear pillowcase (which my parents donated to the Smokey Bear museum a few years ago). I had a Smokey Bear bendy rubber toy with a mediocre paint job, probably bought in a tourist trap in Colorado.

I also fell for the propaganda Smokey Bear was created to spread. I love animals and nature and wanted them to be protected. I didn't yet know the forests were being "protected" to death by preventing a natural, essential process. A process that when interfered with makes the problem worse and more destructive. It was quite a shock when I learned the truth.

Smokey Bear and his propaganda campaign illustrate the danger of government perfectly.

Use a memorable way to promote bad policy. The bad policy then causes damage which makes the original problem worse, which causes people to believe government (and its bad policy) is necessary to protect from the consequences of government policy. It's a snake swallowing itself. But it remains effective.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Sunday, June 03, 2018

Anti-Trump posturing gets old

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 2, 2018- I promise it's not pro-Trump; it's actually anti-anti-Trump while being anti-president in general.)

How can anyone ever be disappointed in a president? It shows unrealistic expectations. Don't people realize that getting to the top of the political heap takes a certain kind of person, and it's not a particularly good kind?

Some presidential actions irritate me more than others. It is the same with anyone, president or not, who believes he has some mystical authority to tell others how to live and backs his opinions with the threat of violence. I won't tolerate such behavior in friends or acquaintances, why would I tolerate it in people I don't even know?

Presidents matter so little to my day-to-day life; I have to go out of my way to notice the new political threats being made against my life, liberty, and property this time around. Each new law or policy is just another link in the "long train of abuses and usurpations".

Still, the posturing of those who make an effort to signal their elitist disdain for President Trump gets old. Especially when they haven't shown every other president the same disdain. It is terribly hypocritical when they screech about the liberty-crushing agenda of one while fawning over the liberty-crushing agenda of the other. You've got to crush liberty in the politically correct way, I suppose.

The "progressive" Trump haters want you to believe they are the sensible ones, while in their minds, the "yokels" who voted for Trump, many of whom still support him, are "ignorant rubes". This is their mantra, to be chanted until they get what they want.

I chuckled recently when I heard a self-identifying liberal refer to liberals as society's "intellectuals". When it suits them, perhaps, but not so much when it doesn't. Supporting bigger, more powerful and intrusive government, in spite of evidence, doesn't reflect well on a person's intellect. It's even worse testimony against their ethics.

I'm also amused at liberals' reactions to Trump's behavior. The "progressives" suddenly became Puritans.

I'm hoping the "get Trump at all costs" crowd has opened a can of worms they'll never be able to close. One good thing which might come from this melodrama is a whittling away at the illusion of legitimacy which has too long surrounded the office of president. If every future president gets the same treatment, or worse, maybe people would stop wanting the job. It could be a path to better times ahead; where people stop looking to politicians as role models, and start taking responsibility for themselves.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Let them think what they will

Someone recently asked a rather personal question about a particular form of resistance, and whether or not I pursue that path. I'm not going to be more specific.

I foolishly answered, but then immediately deleted the response (I know- too late).

I doubt the person is a snitch. Maybe trying to find something to criticize me on. Or testing to see whether I "walk the walk". Those are valid reasons to ask, but that's no excuse to answer. Let people believe what they want about you-- it's nothing to you.

The question made me stop and think, though. I don't generally consider my "contributions" beyond writing, and I simply don't talk about such things in public.

I do my best to live as I believe I should live. Why would I put it out there, trying to make others see why such a course is the right one, then go off and live some other way? I have room for improvement, but I expect that to always be the case.

But don't go around answering questions that shouldn't be answered just because you don't want someone to think you might be a hypocrite. There's no benefit.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Saturday, June 02, 2018

"Reasonable" statists

It amazes me how reasonable some people can make slavery sound.

They can play the part of the "adult in the room" while advocating mass murder conducted "constitutionally". All they have to do is to mention that it's the law, or that we are obligated to follow the "social contract" or "pay our fair share" and gullible people will nod in agreement and praise them for being so reasonable and responsible.

It is frustrating to me because they aren't being reasonable at all.

No matter how sensible statism sounds, no matter how many people accept it without question as "how the world really works", no matter how "adult" they pretend it is, it is the opposite of reasonable.

Statism is insane. Statists who seem reasonable are like the serial killer who seems rational and calm when they befriend you-- but then makes a stew from your skin and eyeballs.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Friday, June 01, 2018

When you mix your religions

It seems to me there is an unacknowledged religion being widely followed in America. It's actually a combination of a couple of very popular religions.

Just as African slaves in the American south may have combined native African religion with Catholicism to create Louisiana Voodoo, all over America many people are combining Christianity with statism and practicing the hybrid religion which results.

It's not really a pure form of either religion, but a horrifying chimera with features taken from both.

I know many of the adherents personally, and see many more of them online and in the media. They are the ones praying for "the troops", with Holy Pole Quilt on display in their churches, urging respect for the police, and excusing any manner of tyranny with Romans 13.

My first instinct is to call this hybrid religion "Patriotic Voodoo", but maybe it should just be shortened to Poodoo.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium