Monday, December 31, 2018

Popular doesn't mean right

I'm sure this will come as no surprise, but I was never one of the popular kids. Popularity wasn't ever something I wanted. I was too different to care what others thought (and I thought most of the "popular kids" were kind of dumb and dull. Still do).

In elementary school, at recess, when we were supposed to be playing some form of sportsball, I would be sitting on the ground looking under rocks to see what interesting lifeforms I could find. Hoping the ball wouldn't come toward me.

My family moved around too much for me to make any friends who would have the time to "get" me.

In junior high I missed the entire first semester after a nasty bike wreck, and was never able to socially recover. Although the chance that made much of a difference is slim.

In high school, I was known as a nerd. Even worse, I was the nerd who would eat acorns and weeds, wore a survival kit on my belt, and drove the weird electric car. I had one main friend and he was known as the genius who was also a "pothead", and it was suspected I was probably also smoking the wacky tobacky with him. I can neither confirm nor deny those rumors.

I never did fit in. And it's been the same for me as an adult.

The only taste of popularity I ever got was during my 3 or so years in Pennsylvania-- during karaoke nights. Then I knew what popularity felt like. I admit, in that context I enjoyed it.

Now I'm back to my normal.

But, the point of this is, I understand liberty is not popular. Why would it be? I value it.

I have a small audience for this blog, but I value you all. I may not be popular, but I'm on the right side. And that means you are, too. We are awesome... Liberty is awesome... whether anyone else appreciates it (us) or not. The rest of them can join us or they can continue to be wrong. It's their choice. Their problem. They are the "interesting lifeforms" I find under rocks. I still observe them; try to understand them. But I am not inside their heads. And truthfully, I don't want to be. The sacrifice would be too great.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Sunday, December 30, 2018

Free market means individual choice

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 28, 2018)

I love the free market. The market, liberated from government rules, subject only to the choices of individuals.

One of my choices is to not shop on major holidays. If I knew for certain the store let employees volunteer to work on the holiday it would be different. As it stands, no sales or discounts can entice me to shop on Thanksgiving or Christmas when I know the employees were probably coerced into working instead of spending the holiday with their families.

I'm also not willing to fight crazed crowds for "deals". It's not an experience I enjoy.

That's my choice; yours might be different.

I would oppose laws making it illegal for stores to open on major holidays, just as I oppose laws which make Sunday alcohol sales illegal. Those laws are arbitrary and silly. I am responsible enough to make my own choices of what to buy and when to shop. I don't need a babysitter holding a gun on shop owners to make certain they do what the babysitter believes is right.

I'm not boycotting anyone. It's not a crusade. I'll go to those stores on other days. I won't ask anyone to join me. It's just me, as an individual, making a personal choice. My meager spending won't be missed, but I feel better not encouraging businesses to use their employees in ways I don't like.

I care about people; that's why I'm libertarian. I believe all human interactions should be voluntary. If a business (or any other institution) can't survive through voluntary association, I believe it should die. Customers and employees are equally important.

There would be employees who would choose to go to work rather than spend the day alone, or with family they want an excuse to avoid. It might not result in a full staff, but if you put off the sales for one day it would be fine.

When I owned a business I chose to open one Christmas day. I wasn't able to be with family, so I was completely alone. I had nothing else to do, so instead of sitting and watching television or something equally pointless, I decided to work at the store and flip the sign to "open". I got some things done, even while feeling sorry for myself. I had one customer all day; I still remember what he bought. He didn't comment about my store being open on Christmas. At least I was busy and productive, and it was my choice.

Thank you for helping support

Wilson, the stingy

"Wilson" was the stingiest person I ever knew... with his ammunition.

In his mostly unfurnished house, he had built a "wall of ammunition". He had stacked the little boxes of 7.62x39 and the bigger boxes of .40 S+W so as to build a "wall" against the back wall of his living room. It didn't actually cover the whole wall, but it was about 3 or 4 feet high and about 6 feet long. It continually grew. I don't know why he didn't find a better way to store it.

But when we would go out shooting, he would only shoot one firearm that day. He would either shoot his carry pistol or he would bring along his SKS to shoot. He would never shoot both on the same outing. And he would only bring 3 to 5 cartridges to shoot. That was it.

The first time we went out to shoot his SKS I offered to buy a box of ammo from him for us to shoot. (He always bought every round the local shops would get as soon as they came in.) But, no, he wouldn't do that. He was convinced he might need it later.

When I ran into him years later and miles away he told me he had gotten married, but it went bad and his angry wife reported him to the cops for abuse. They came to his house, cuffed him on the floor at gunpoint, and stole his guns and all his ammo. He said he never got it back. I have no clue if he really abused her or not. It's possible-- he could be a bit excitable. Doesn't sound like she was without issues, though.


If you enjoy personal stories like my "Wilson" series, you might also like Grant McGee's blog. He used to write in the paper here and has pretty interesting tales to tell.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Saturday, December 29, 2018

People who need to get out more

I've not been online much this past week, and I apologize for the sporadic posting. Lots of family holiday stuff, plus I got a special gift this year because my son and his girlfriend surprised me by moving within visiting distance just a few days before Christmas. Which is awesome!

But, what I have seen online makes me unsure whether to laugh or shake my head in disbelief. Maybe I shouldn't have turned on the computer after all.

Did I seriously see that people still admire Obama more than any other man in the world and that Michelle Obama is supposedly the "most admired woman in America"? What kind of nonsense is that? If that's true, people are dumber than I suspected.

I'm against presidents, ex-presidents, and other such ectoparasites as a matter of principle. To admire politicians is terribly misguided... or worse. People who admire these professional molesters need to get out and meet more people. They really need some sort of hobby.


Reminder: I could still really, really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Thursday, December 27, 2018

No government employee is "essential"

With regards to the fake news about a "government shutdown", where they give the "non-essential government employees" an unscheduled paid vacation (because it will be paid sooner or later)...

All government employees are non-essential. Every single last one of them, from the president on up to the contract janitor who scrubs Ruth Bader Ginsburg's office toilet.

If they were essential the market would be doing their job and the government "job" would have never existed in the first place.

Or, the market would be doing the job if the government didn't artificially step in with "laws" or other ways to prevent the market from filling the need. Which it often does.

Government is a net negative in everything.

Send them all home forever. No back pay. No retirement. No paid medical care. Nothing. Burn all the records-- I'll do it if they just get out of the way. Just go away forever and ever.

That would be a real government shutdown. One I support without the slightest reservation.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Tuesday, December 25, 2018

Happy Winter Solstice Holidays!

Merry Christmas!
Happy Festivus, Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Newtonmas, Yule, Government "Shutdown", etc.!

I sincerely hope your Winter Solstice was a good one, and that all the remaining Winter Solstice holidays-- whichever of them, if any, you celebrate-- are great for you and yours!

I love you guys!


Sunday, December 23, 2018

I'll keep my loopholes, thank you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 21, 2018)

In those moments when my skepticism falters, the recent midterm elections threaten to give me a little hope. It doesn't last long. A Congress divided between Republicans and Democrats brings the promise of sweet gridlock, but they always seem to find a way to work together more than is healthy.

I am naturally skeptical of those using theft and aggression against the individuals who comprise society-- even when they call the theft and aggression "government" or "the law".

As bad as partisanship's reputation may be, bipartisanship is far worse. When working together, the old, fossilized political parties make it clear it isn't "The Right" vs. "The Left"; it's government colluding against the rest of us.

Back in 1866 Judge Gideon J. Tucker observed: “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” It has only gotten worse since then.

The best hope for the survival of your liberty is eternal gridlock preventing Congress from doing anything. While they are fighting each other they may not be paying as much attention to you.

Those who want government to "do something" are calling for your liberty to be crushed bit by bit until none is left. They consider any remaining islands of liberty in a rising ocean of government to be "loopholes" which they want closed. In spite of everything they might claim, this is never for your benefit.

I don't want Congress, or any branch of government, to get things done. There is nothing legitimate for Congress to do.

Laws were discovered; legislation is invented. All real laws were discovered centuries ago; no new laws are needed or even possible. All the real crimes have always been crimes in any civilized society. All attacks on life, liberty, or property are wrong, whether laws criminalize them or not. They are still wrong when laws say they are OK if done by government employees "just doing their jobs".

Anything Congress imposes on the population will be legislation; fake "law". These counterfeit "laws" look like laws to most people. They use legal language and are treated as though they are laws, but they lack the ethical foundation which distinguishes real law. In fact, they violate real law by endangering your life, liberty, or property.

The last thing I want or need is for the houses of Congress to work together, with the president, to impose more legislation. I'll keep my loopholes-- my liberty-- thank you very much.

Thank you for helping support

Prohibition-- not just wrong, but evil

I hate the current anti-opioid campaign.

Not for myself, fortunately, but on behalf of those it is harming.

Yeah, I understand that people can harm themselves by abusing opioids, and I also understand that innocent people can be harmed by those who abuse opioids. That doesn't justify this insane push to make society opioid-free. Nothing can.

I realize that some time in the future I could be in the position to need the pain relief of opioids, and the government might just prefer I suffer and die rather than "run the risk" of addiction. I hope not, but if it happens it's MY choice, not some idiot bureaucrat's.

A few years ago when I was hospitalized with a kidney stone I was given morphine a few times. The experience was bad enough and would have been so much worse without effective pain relief. At least it was temporary. Just imagine those whose pain isn't temporary.

It's things like this that make me see the evil that is government even more than the rest of the archation that is committed in its name. There's no excuse good enough to do this to people. The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs must end. Prohibition is always wrong; it is always evil.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Saturday, December 22, 2018

Wilson and the accused informant

"Wilson" was a little paranoid. We spent a fair amount of time together, frequently wandering trails (and off-trail) on foot in the nearby wilderness area. I knew he didn't trust easily. I was to discover that what trust he did have was shakey and easily upset.

There was this guy he sometimes spoke to in town. I had seen the guy around, wearing old camo clothing and a backpack-- I suspect he may have been homeless-- but I never met him. Which is odd because he claimed to know me and he caused Wilson to lose his trust in me. Which could have ended badly.

I stopped by Wilson's house one afternoon and he approached my car with an odd demeanor. I noticed his hand was on his pistol. I didn't get out of my car, but asked what was up. He told me this guy, who I didn't know and had never spoken to, had warned him I was a police informant. Supposedly I was spying on Wilson's activities and reporting to the cops. He was telling me all this using colorful language.

I got very uncomfortable very quickly. I honestly expected to be shot at any moment-- and my young daughter was in the car with me.

(A few years later I got the same sort of feeling when a different friend told me he "knew" I was a Martian who was controlling his mind, but that's another story. I'd rather be a Martian than work with the cops.)

Wilson loved to buy ammo but hated using it. I've never seen anyone so stingy with ammunition. Maybe that worked in my favor that day.

I told him I wasn't a police informant, and would never do that. Not to anyone. I told him emphatically that I had never worked with, or helped, the police in any way. Never had and never would. He knew how I felt about cops, or at least I thought he did. He questioned me for a few minutes, and I guess he was satisfied enough with my answers. I left on somewhat calmer terms. But it was a few weeks before we were back to normal.

For a long time I wondered what the guy had actually said to Wilson about me. What he had against me, and how he was even aware of me. Had Wilson mentioned me and the guy just decided to accuse me? Did he have me confused with someone else? That seems unlikely because I was sort of "unique" in town, but it was a town of misfits and maybe he mixed me up with someone else. Or, was that guy an informant who didn't like me speaking to Wilson and keeping him less volatile? At this point, I'll never know.

Eventually the incident passed and was never mentioned again. Once I regained his trust I never seemed to lose it again.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Friday, December 21, 2018

Voluntaryists are good folk

I just got the chance to meet another of my readers (along with his lovely partner). I'm always impressed with the quality of people I meet through this blog when we meet in person.

Impressed, but not surprised.

I know that those who live Voluntaryism are likely to be people who are just good folk. How could it be otherwise? And this has always been my experience so far.

By my count, this is only the fourth time I've had this opportunity. Quality over quantity, I suppose. I am somewhat out-of-the-way; far from the interstates. Not exactly in the bustling center of ... anything. Crops, dairies, and feedlots aren't that thrilling and don't draw crowds. That can be good and bad.

I'm glad I got to meet another couple of good people.

I look forward to the next time I get this chance.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Thursday, December 20, 2018

Common ground with Putin?

Something interesting happened the other day. I discovered I may agree with Vladimir Putin. At least at a personal opinion level on one topic; not on what (if anything) should be done about it.

Does this make me a Russian collaborator?

Putin wants to "control" rap in Russia. This seems to indicate he doesn't like rap and believes it has a negative effect on young people. I agree with him on both, even as I disagree that government should get involved (in anything).

I can separate my personal opinions from what I believe should be done. And I understand what someone has a right to do and what they don't. No one has a right to ban a type of self-expression just because they don't like it.

I hate rap. It's just my opinion based on my personal tastes. I don't like pit bulls, either. I don't want government banning or "controlling" either one. Not on my behalf or for any other reason. That's just my feelings on those things. Every pit bull I've met has been gentle, but I still don't like the breed, and I understand that rap expresses some useful "anti-establishment" themes, but I still don't like it.

I have noticed a negative effect on my daughter's psyche since she was first exposed to rap. Yes, it may be correlation rather than causation; she's reaching that hormone-saturated age, after all. I know banning it from the house would be authoritarian. And pointless. All her friends and frienemies listen to (and live) rap almost exclusively, and she's much more peer-oriented than I ever was. Still, I would have to be blind to not see the effect it seems to be having on her (and the other kids). For that reason, I have asked her to avoid it (and anything else dark and negative) until she seems better able to handle the exposure without evident harm.

This could get "interesting".

The topic will probably keep coming up in the house for the foreseeable future. No, I don't have the parenting thing all figured out.

But as much as I hate rap, I wouldn't support any "law" aimed at suppressing it.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

"How do you talk to someone who doesn't believe in climate change?"

"How do you talk to someone who doesn't believe in climate change?"
That was actually the first sentence to an introduction to a TED talk (screencap above), and it illustrates a big part of the problem with Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) fanatics. Their condescending need to preach at the rest of us is annoying, as is their conviction that we could be won over to their side.

First of all, climate changes. Very few people seriously doubt that. The Earth has been both a snowball and a sauna in the past. I completely "believe in" the evidence that this has happened and will continue to happen. That's not what they are talking about when they say "doesn't believe in climate change".

They are talking about the fact that intelligent, informed people don't necessarily worship with their cult of AGCC belief and their preferred social agenda, and they can't bear it. That's it.

The best way to "talk" to someone who "doesn't believe in climate change" is ... don't. Stay quiet. But if you can't mind your own business, and you ignorantly (and unwisely) broach the subject, maybe you could at least listen to the reasons why they aren't in your cult. If you can't do even that much, then drop the religious devotion to your cult before opening your mouth. No one wants to hear it.

Second, it would help if you would recognize that what you are promoting isn't science. AGCC believerism is partly science; mostly collectivist politics. When you mix politics with science (by funding it through theft, for example) what results is less science than politics. This brand of politicized "climate science" cherry picks data, relies on completely unreliable models (computerized guesswork which is never, NEVER reliable), ignores economics, and violates ethics-- all of which would need to be taken into account for AGCC believerism to be credible enough to be taken seriously. They ignore all the inconvenient factors, which is why they aren't credible, no matter how much they posture and preach. No matter how much they try to talk down to those who aren't falling for their violently imposed "solutions".

I believe the Earth's climate changes over time. I accept that it is possible human activities have changed the rate of change by adding atmospheric carbon dioxide. I don't doubt there is some amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide which would be trouble. I acknowledge that it is possible, although unlikely, that this climate change is entirely negative, with no benefits at all. I am more open-minded and scientifically oriented on this topic than any AGCC believer. And yet I'm not one of them and can't support them in any way. That offends their feelings.

I doubt their "solutions" are solutions. I know they aren't ethical-- more government control never is. If they get their way more problems will be created, yet they won't be held accountable. You can't let the perpetrator of the greatest amount of environmental damage-- The State-- tell everyone else what they are allowed to do. Not on this planet or any other. Denying this reality is science denial.

I am completely in favor of businesses and individuals finding ways to reduce pollution of every sort. It's dumb to foul your own nest. I am not in favor of imposing "solutions" at the barrel of a government gun, no matter what someone imagines will happen otherwise.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Monday, December 17, 2018

Late responders

If someone starts shooting innocent people in your presence, would you respond, or just look on slack-jawed?

If a fire breaks out would you do something, or just sit there in a daze?

As long as you respond, you are the first responder when something happens in your presence.

But what about those who show up in response to a 911 call? They are "delayed responders" or "late responders", not "first responders". Some of them may even be helpful good guys, as long as they aren't police. But they aren't first, even if they respond to the call.

Calling them "first responders" is a lie designed to brainwash you and prevent you from thinking. Or acting. "Leave it to the professionals". Ha.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Sunday, December 16, 2018

Concealed carry key to safety for all

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 14, 2018)

I want you to be safe. I hope you don't do things to endanger yourself and others, and I want you prepared-- everywhere you go-- in case someone else means you harm.

In the past couple of weeks there have been at least two cases of some loser deciding to murder people who were harming no one. I will not boost the fame of these murderers by using their names; calling them losers is clear and accurate.

In one case, the loser chose his victims based on a delusion that their religious group was responsible for killing his people. It's a common type of delusion, but most people don't decide to murder because of their hallucinations.

In the more recent attack, the loser said, in social media posts he made around the time of his murders, that he was bored and didn't understand why mass shootings kept happening.

Mass murders happen when losers like him make the choice to murder people. It's not hard to figure out. And if your cure for boredom is to murder twelve people, you are evil.

Misguided people will blame the losers' guns, but you know what was missing, don't you? Guns in the hands of the right people; not identifiable security guards, who are easy targets. Widespread concealed carry is critical to your safety.

If something happens in your presence, you are the first responder. No one else is. The moment a crisis begins, no one else is in a better position to defend your life and the lives of those around you. Any law which makes it harder for you to do so is making the problem worse.

These murderous losers make me angry, but I get just as angry when political activists start clamoring for more anti-gun laws which can only guarantee the success of these losers.

There's no safety in hiding behind laws. Losers with murderous intent will not be stopped by laws-- even if you could magically make every gun vanish. Look at other parts of the world where similar losers choose knives, bombs, or cars for mass murder. You might as well make it illegal for the Sun to zap the Earth with X-rays; people intent on murder will pay just as much attention. Each situation is different, as is each loser's motivation, but other than trapping everyone in their own padded cell, there is no way to solve this with laws. The best cure is a commitment to defense.

Thank you for helping support

All cops are thieves; some are worse than others

You might be interested to read this piece on the crime of "civil asset forfeiture" which was sent to me by

They are a little soft on policing in general, somehow not seeming to notice that policing is itself wrong, but the piece is very informative. And infuriating.

"Civil asset forfeiture" doesn't result in stuff being "effectively stolen" by cops; it results in stuff being stolen by cops. Period.

Theft is theft, no matter who is committing it, and no matter if they have "laws" giving them permission. There is simply no wiggle-room there. When cops steal they are the bad guys. Of course, cops are always the bad guys because they commit acts of law enforcement as a condition of continuing to get their cut of the stolen money (paychecks financed through "taxation"). This is part of the reason there is no such thing, and there never can be, as a "good cop". A cop who commits the crime of "civil asset forfeiture" is simply adding to his personal list of offenses to be tallied on the Liberty Offender Registry.

Cops are losers, and losers become cops.

But, still, you will want to read that piece to know what your enemies are up to.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Saturday, December 15, 2018

Wilson vs the Forest Circus

I first met "Wilson" soon after he moved to the area. He told me he moved because he had lost his business. Personally, I think his business was stolen from him by the mafia Wilson always referred to as the "Forest Circus". These were the clowns who controlled (and rationed) the license which "allowed" Wilson to conduct his business.

His former business would be my dream business. In fact, I tried to think of a way we could go into partnership and start again, but unfortunately, it was never to be. Neither of us had the money to get it started.

He showed me one of his leftover brochures. I loved his idea.

What he did was take people into the Colorado wilderness on "public" [sic] land. Sounds simple, doesn't it. He charged what seemed to me to be a huge amount, but he had plenty of takers. He said he had as many as he could manage.

He then let them decide what they wanted out of the experience.

If they simply wanted to get away for a few days, that's what he helped them do. If they wanted to learn survival skills, he helped them with that. Whatever they were looking for, while having an experienced outdoorsman along, he tried to provide. He asked that they not take radios or anything like that on the trip, but otherwise didn't require anything too primitive unless that's what they wanted. He was always more modern than me anyway.

He made certain to walk "lightly" and leave as little trace as possible. This was partly self-interest, otherwise his future clients wouldn't have been happy with the scarred land and the trash, since he generally used the same area for each trip. He was conscientious about leaving little or no trace, and proved this to me time after time.

One thing he did was to go out the day before they left and bury a frozen Cornish game hen (one per person) and make sure that's where they ended up on the last day out when he would dig them up and cook them for a special meal. (He never mentioned any getting taken by bears.)

He had clients from all over the country. The one who apparently made the biggest impression on him was a city guy who was facing a bleak, short future with AIDS. He was the only client Wilson ever specifically talked about. The guy was very grateful for the experience of being immersed in nature's beauty and grandeur, and Wilson seemed moved by the chance to see the wilderness through that guy's eyes. When you see something every day it's almost impossible to avoid getting a little jaded. I think the dying man's joy jolted Wilson out of his apathy.

Unfortunately, I think that was one of the last customers he had before the bureaucrats of the US Forest "Service" decided to not allow him to renew his outfitter's license, but to give it to a political crony instead. Suddenly, Wilson's successful business was turned into a "crime". This infuriated him, and he never got over it. I can't really blame him.

He was soon broke and (mostly) homeless and moved to the western side of the pass where I lived. I would never have met him otherwise, but it really was a nasty thing they did to him. Something he never really recovered from-- emotionally or financially. I don't know how much he hated government before this happened (I heard stories) but they definitely made an enemy that day. Not that they care. But, if he ever goes Heemeyer* on them, I'll understand and sympathize.

*Interestingly enough, Marvin Heemeyer looked an awful lot like Wilson.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Friday, December 14, 2018

Choosing slavery-- A bewildering choice

Is every choice a person can make legitimate? I honestly don't know.

What if you choose to be a slave?

Choosing slavery seems to be the choice to kill off your liberty, just like suicide is the choice to kill your own body. Yet I am less uncomfortable with the choice to commit suicide (even though I don't like that choice) than I am with the choice to be a slave. I doubt you'd be able to regret killing yourself after it's done, but you'd certainly be able (and even likely) to regret-- for a long time-- choosing to be a slave.

Once you've chosen to be a slave, how do you change your choice if you come to regret it? If you can change your mind are you really enslaved?

I think about this when I see how many people choose to celebrate being a "citizen", which I consider to be the choice to be a slave to a collective; a government or a nation. Will that collective ever really let you change your mind once you've accepted the terms of your enslavement?

I understand the promised benefits of this arrangement. I can see why some have the desire to belong. I also realize that if certain conditions are met, the government in question will consider you a "citizen" regardless of your wishes. If you believe this government's claim is bogus to begin with, I don't really see much point in paying tons of money and fighting for years to make this government withdraw its claim to you. I'm more thinking about those who make this a big part of their personal identity and are proud of it.

If you choose to be a slave to a collective in such a way, is that a self-destructive choice? It sure looks like it to me.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Thursday, December 13, 2018

Cranky and wallowing in it

Am I imagining things, or are statists getting crankier? Especially when called out for their statist nonsense. They lately seem more desperate to justify their archation, and more bizarre in their criticisms of liberty.

In a lot of ways, things aren't going at all well for me right now. But I'm not angry at the world and trying to take it out on everyone. It is what it is, and it's not "the World's" fault.

Yet, it seems like that's the case with so many statists recently. Just angry, spiteful, and hateful. Willing to take their frustration out on anyone who crosses their path. Especially someone who calls them out on their hypocrisy, inconsistency, or lack of rationality.

Maybe it's just that I'm less diplomatic than at other times in the past, but I'm seeing it in lots of places, and not only in response to me. So that makes me believe it's not just me.

Has anyone else noticed this? Is this what encountering those on the losing side of history looks like?


Reminder: I could really, really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

A crippling lack of imagination and problem solving

Here's one of those (thankfully, rare) long reply posts. Someone had a problem with me not liking socialism/government and responded with a request for answers (link). So I did what I could.

"...paint me a REALISTIC portrait of a world without government"

I'd love to, but I can no more do that than the first bully who proposed governing others could have painted the skeptics a realistic portrait of what today's world would look like with governments. I'm OK with not being psychic and having some unknowns.

"I do not believe that humans are designed to operate well in such environments."

And yet, we do. I don't need anyone governing me, and I seriously doubt you need anyone governing you. You know the best course for your own life... or at least many orders of magnitude better than what some bureaucrat believes is the best for you.

"Though, historically, that 'government' might have been a tribal leader, we have always had government."

Only if you believe leaders equal government. I don't. Leaders can lead without theft and aggression. If I choose to follow someone without them threatening me, I'm not being governed. If I can stop following that person without being attacked, ostracized, or murdered, then he's not governing. The difference is consent. I do not consent to be governed, but I have consented to follow someone for a specific, limited purpose several times in my life.

"[The other anarchist's] argument always seemed to boil down to 'the people' will spontaneously reward good actors and punish evil doers."

Do you continue to do business with someone who cheats you or sells you poisoned food? Or, would you go elsewhere and tell people what the bad actor did to you? Would you go do business with someone you had been warned about?

"Though the mechanism for knowing who was good (and the intrinsic generosity of The People) was never established."

So how do you know who to v*te for if you can't know who is good? Or does that not matter in making your choice?
How do charities survive even when they have to compete with forced support of government "welfare" sucking up the available money? Even people who support welfare programs do it because they are generous; just misguided into believing they can be generous with stuff which doesn't belong to them. Sounds like evidence that people are intrinsically generous.

"Conversely, a boycott only works when you know who is actually responsible (for example, how do you know who littered their trash in front of your house?) and have the capacity to punish them (if I sell widgets to another community – you have no ability to boycott me)."

You don't have to be certain to shun someone (boycott). Because I'm not initiating force nor violating their property rights, I'm not harming them if I'm mistaken. And it is easy to change course if I discover I'm wrong about who did what.

My next door neighbors litter and throw it into my yard. I haven't actually seen them (almost!), but the circumstantial evidence is good enough that I shun them. I'm not harming them by shunning them.

I'm not interested in punishing anyone. Self defense and defense of property from an immediate threat, yes, but punishment after the fact. No. I'm not into revenge.

And, if a bad guy is selling his widgets in another community I will tell his potential customers in that community why I am boycotting/shunning him. After that, it is up to them. The internet is a good tool for following bad guys around. In fact, it would be better without governments getting in the way and protecting bad guys from the rightful consequences of their behavior.

"I find neither to be credible without an overarching government invested with the power to investigate and punish."

Why do you believe only a government can do that? Why can't a voluntarily funded, ad hoc group do what you want? If I want to investigate something, and don't feel capable of doing so myself, I will hire someone to do it for me and when the job is done I can stop paying them. I don't expect you to be on the hook in perpetuity for something I may never need. And, again, I have no interest in punishing anyone. Do what you want, but not on my behalf.

"Further, I do not find it credible that The People will willingly donate sufficient amounts to create public works such as large-scale infrastructure projects."

So you're saying those things aren't necessary. Because if they are necessary, and people don't have the option of robbing their neighbors to pay for it, they'll chip in or do without. If they are still not willing to fund it, it needs to die.

"Nor do I believe that people will factor in their own externalities (oh, yea, I polluted the river, but my portion was only a little bit, and anyway, it’s a problem for those downstream)"

When those downstream can seek restitution for your portion of the damage you've caused them, you might change your mind. And, in such a society, the tools to discover who added what to a stream will improve-- just because of the potential for profit.

Even in the current situation where government protects people from the real consequences of their bad behavior, I do my very best to avoid letting trash blow out of my car on a windy day (which is most days around here) just because that's not what I want to do to my surroundings. And I pick up massive amounts of litter tossed by those who are less responsible-- without asking government to punish them.

"Lastly, I ask, how does this society defend itself against an organized aggressor? For example, if the US breaks up into anarchist (or extreme libertarian) communities, what stops the Canadians from taking over?"

What would the Canadians "take over" if there is no government to surrender to them? As it is, all they have to do is make the government surrender and they've taken over They can move into the offices, use the "public" records, and easily become the new tyrant. Without a central "authority" to replace it would be much harder. You'd basically have to get each individual to surrender, one at a time. And for what? People who are not brainwashed into paying "taxes" aren't going to suddenly believe "taxation" is legitimate. They won't suddenly believe and respect the counterfeit "laws" which the new ruler would try to impose. Plus, they would recognize they have a natural human right (and obligation) to kill-- in defense-- every government employee they encounter. The only reason people are too scared to do so now is that the "society" around them has been fooled into calling government something other than what it is.

"Surely, The People of Bozeman Montana cannot stand up to the Canadian Army. Would it be expected that other city-states would come to its aid?"

Again, I doubt they'd ever have to since there would be nothing for Canada to gain, but just hypothetically-- I wouldn't count on city-states, because we are talking about a free society, not a government-infested one. Would individuals come to their aid? Why wouldn't anyone? Lots of people still sign up for the military without being forced to because they want the excitement of being allowed to shoot people ("the enemy"). I don't expect that to change.

"What makes you think that The People of Tuscaloosa are going to stick their necks out for them?"

What makes you think none of them would? The old ads in Soldier of Fortune tell a different story.

"And, even banded together, they won’t have the large-scale military to develop and produce tanks and jets and whatnot."

You think all those things will just go away? No one would collect and maintain them in the absence of government? And without a BATFE and other gangs forbidding weapon development, those big scale things might be obsolete soon anyway. In fact, I'd bet on it.

"It would be (roughly) equivalent to the US Army verse the Native Americans – sure they put up a good fight, but the outcome was inevitable."

Except that the Natives had no concept of the types of weapons (and diseases) the army was using against them. No way to buy or manufacture or invent. Do you think the people of Bozeman would share that disadvantage? I don't.

"Perhaps you can paint the picture better?"

I can try, but I've discovered over the years that government extremists won't listen. They want to know exactly how every detail will work out in a free society, with no doubt whatsoever. Something they can't even do in defense of their own position. What I see in every single case is an astounding lack of ability to think outside their box-- lack of imagination and lack of problem-solving skills. But, occasionally I'll give it a shot, anyway. Just for kicks.

"To be sure, it would be nice to live in a world where a crazed orange man does not have access to nuclear weapons and influence over the economy."

I wouldn't want anyone having that kind of illegitimate power.

"And, sure, the government sucks at its job..."

Maybe you are mistaken as to what government sees as its job. I don't think the "job" is legitimate, but I think government does it well. Like the Mafia.

" Mr. Twain said, it is the worst option except for all the others."

That's the same thing everyone has said about their favorite flavor of government (if Twain actually even said it). It's a great way to make people give up on looking for a better way. "Sure he beats you, controls you, and sometimes rapes you. He's the worst husband... except for all the others." Yeah, that doesn't work either.


Of course then he goes into a long dissertation about how horrible and self-centered people are, not realizing he is negating his own argument. Who does he imagine any government would be made up of? Angels or the people he hates and distrusts?
And another guy describes how nasty people are when they've been brainwashed by government, believing this shows how essential government is.
And they get upset when I doubt their intelligence...


Reminder: The situation remains the same. I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Monday, December 10, 2018

Obsessive and insane statists

I thought Obama's critics on the Right were obsessive and insane, but that was before I saw Trump's critics on the Left.

And don't get me started on their obsessive supporters!

I guess this will be the new "normal" for national politics. Which explains why I don't care about politics.

Statists are such a bore. Or, is that "boar"...?


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Sunday, December 09, 2018

Immigration isn't a real problem

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 7, 2018)

Emotions are running hot on the topic of immigration these days, both for and against, with most of the current drama surrounding birthright citizenship and migrant caravans.

Immigration is a government-caused problem which can't be solved with more government.

I'm not talking about people being imported and settled by government; that's not immigration. I completely oppose such government programs. I'm only talking about people making their own way to a new place.

People tend to move from places with less liberty to places with more. More liberty also creates prosperity. Despite the best efforts of the Department of Homeland Security and the government's other "Alphabet Soup Agencies" America still has more liberty than some other places. I'm sure they'll close this loophole as soon as possible so no one will want to come to America anymore.

Until they succeed, people will want to move here.

An inconvenient fact for those claiming to oppose only "illegal immigration": there's no such thing. Regulating immigration isn't allowed by the Constitution. The parts commonly used to justify immigration control only allow government to regulate the importation of slaves and to set the rules for becoming a new citizen. Immigration restriction isn't permitted. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but as it stands government immigration control isn't legal.

Any government employee who enforces a law which isn't allowed by the Constitution is a criminal, while those who break unconstitutional laws aren't.

If you don't like this, petition for a constitutional amendment which allows government to control immigration.

Honestly, though, there's no such thing as "immigration". There are only people moving around. Either a person is where they have a right to be, through property ownership or an arrangement with the property owner, or they are trespassing. "Public land" can't, by definition, be trespassed upon, regardless of the claims of government. Whether you allow others to use your private property is your choice, not the choice of your neighbors or the voters.

If newcomers are a problem, there are ways to fix it.
- Abolish all tax-funded welfare and replace it with voluntary charity.
- Stop allowing politics, and votes, to violate rights. Natural human rights are never legitimately up for a vote nor subject to a law, no matter how many voters believe otherwise.
- Stop criminalizing defense of life, liberty, and property, and encourage everyone to carry the proper tools of defense at all times.

Immigration isn't a problem, unless you allow government to keep making it a problem.

Thank you for helping support

Police State

What is a "police state"? What does that term mean to you? Is America a police state?

The dictionary defines a police state as:
a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures.

Well, OK...

The US government is a political unit.

"Repressive" is in the eye of the beholder. It feels repressive to me, but for someone who is free to listen to rap, watch sports, v*te, and eat Cheetos, and that's all they want to do, it probably doesn't feel repressive. Sure, it could be worse, but it could be a lot better.

When police can molest (or murder) you based upon "laws" which don't even exist except in their minds, and they get to "investigate" their own acts, you have "arbitrary exercise of power by police". And when they can drive in unmarked cars, entrap you by using a false identity online, and wear masks to hide their identity while ganging up and beating you, you have secret police.

And when the rest of government supports those police, and upholds the made-up "laws", you see the nail being hammered into the coffin.

To me, the simplest description of a police state is when the police have more power than the average person and are treated as though they have extra rights.
So, yeah, America has become a police state in my opinion.

If you disagree, what do you believe and why.


Reminder: Unfortunately, I could still use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Saturday, December 08, 2018

You can't have "open borders" without "borders"

And government "borders", regardless of their openness or closedness, are the problem.

I don't advocate for "open borders" because I don't believe government borders have the tiniest bit of legitimacy. I only believe in lines marking the boundaries of private property. Those are the only real borders. Sometimes those coincide with fictional government "borders" and sometimes they don't.

Claiming that makes me for "open borders" is like saying that because I don't believe in bloody Christopher Lee vampires I must only believe in Twilight's sparkle-boy vampires. No, all those vampires are fictional. Instead of believing in either of them I believe in vampire bats-- the real vampires. Yes, these real vampires gorge on blood, but they aren't otherwise very similar to the fictional vampires.

And real property lines are nothing like fictional government "borders".

Yes, obviously, belief in fictional things can inspire people to archate in real life. The "Slenderman" phenomenon, and resulting attack, should demonstrate that. This doesn't prove the reality of the things they believe in; only the power of belief to cause people to act. It also doesn't matter how popular the belief may be. Fiction is fiction, even if "everyone believes it".

Close your own borders. I'll even help if I can. Build a fence, a wall, or a sniper's roost to protect your property's borders. None of my business unless you ask for my help.

But if you want to justify violating property rights, violating the right of association, and violently preventing people from moving where they have a right to be because of your belief in government and its "borders" I can't support you.


Reminder: Yes, I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Friday, December 07, 2018

When v*ting is archation

It seems to me your "right to v*te", if there is any such thing, ends where the results of your v*te would be used to violate the life, liberty, or property of any other person.

This is why I don't think anyone has a right to v*te for a "tax increase", for anti-gun "laws", for criminalizing any substance, for zoning restrictions, for "national security", etc. You can't have the right to violate others.

If the results of their v*te would be more government power, greater government "authority", or any new government at all, then they have no right to cast that v*te. Doing so is archation.

I suppose this means you have the right to v*te to decrease (or abolish) a "tax", gun "law", prohibition, zoning "law", "national security" boondoggle, government power, government "authority", branch, or government position.

But it still feels to me that even playing their game by their rules means you are agreeing to abide by the results, no matter what they are. If not, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and hope you'll prove me wrong.


Reminder: I could really use some help, still.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Thursday, December 06, 2018

Wilson and the state police

This tale has a few holes. I was trying to remember all the details, but I may not have known them all at the time. Anyway...

"Wilson" never had a driver's license in all the years I knew him. He normally traveled by bicycle. He wasn't usually in a hurry and it was cheaper than buying fuel. Especially at our local prices.

When he needed to carry a load or make a longer trip he drove his old full-sized van. He avoided being pulled over because he wasn't a reckless or impulsive driver. But one day his luck ran out when he was a few miles outside of town.

The state trooper pulled him over and asked for his papers. Well, he didn't have any.
 So the goon ordered him out of the van. He complied. The cop wanted to search his vehicle. Wilson refused to consent and started quoting the Fourth Amendment. This was one place where Wilson and I disagreed. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, he believed the Constitution could protect his rights. I wanted to believe it; he did.

The cop didn't like being informed of his legal limits. He called back-up and a K9 unit, and searched anyway. Wilson sat cuffed on the side of the road to keep him from "interfering" with the cops' "duties".

The cops found nothing-- which is surprisng. I guess they'd already used up all their incriminating substances that day. The cops didn't find the pistol in his backpack, either.

But this is where there's a hole in the tale: I can't remember how the attack ended, or how Wilson got his van back home, but he wasn't arrested and the van wasn't impounded as far as I can remember. I do think he ended up getting the van's paperwork in order soon after this, so maybe it was briefly impounded. If it had happened to me I'm sure I would remember better.

He was much more reluctant to drive the van after this, and pretty much left it parked until he got the pop-up camper and needed to haul it around. But he still didn't get a driver's license.

This confrontation didn't improve his attitude toward cops and led to another incident, as he was coming out of the grocery store, a few weeks later.

In that encounter, the sheriff grabbed him by the shoulders, shoved him against the wall, and told him to "drop this 'Constitution' $#%!". This didn't surprise me, since the local sheriff never saw a right he didn't want to violate. (That was still the most free place I've ever lived, in spite of the vile local Blue Line Gang.) And that threat just made Wilson ramp up his outspokenness to new levels.


Reminder: I could still really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Tuesday, December 04, 2018

When feelings aren't right

There are a lot of times when my feelings about something differ from what I know to be right. I admit it.

One instance where this happens is that I feel negative about a big influx of people from other countries and other cultures. Which is why I understand where the anti-"illegal immigrant" people are coming from.

But I know I have no right to prevent people from moving where they have a right to be. And, yes, everyone has a right to be on "public land" (unowned land) and on property where the owners give them permission to be. I don't have a say in the matter.

And I know you can't justify statism with statism. Or "borders" with the "welfare state", for example. Socialism doesn't justify intensified socialism.

I also know government "borders" are more likely to be used to hurt me than to protect me. It's always the same with any government protection racket or any other socialist program.

That's why, in spite of my feelings, I can't join the anti-immigrant folks. Now, if you want to defend your private property from trespassers (of any sort), I'm on your side.


Reminder: I could still really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Monday, December 03, 2018

You can't debate a belch

I don't debate postmodernists. I can't because there's nothing to debate. They are content-free. It's like arguing with a worm. Or debating a sour belch from a bloated stomach.

Recently some guy didn't like my assertion that something was a natural human right. So I nicely explained it to him again, more carefully, and he didn't like that either.

He then demanded I prove that natural human rights exist, along with a whole laundry list of other demands.

Nope. Not gonna do that. If a person is too dumb to actually debate, why try?

I know-- that's not very nice of me.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Sunday, December 02, 2018

Racino shouldn't be up to majority

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 31, 2018)

Come election day, those who play politics are asking people to vote for or against the "racino". Some say it will help the economy. Others say it will bankrupt people, both morally and financially. I say such things should never be up to government control.

Nor should it be subject to majority opinion. People need to grow beyond this notion that they have a right to control what other people do on their own property with their own money. They don't, even though politics gives them the illusion that they do

This venture shouldn't be subject to a license or any other kind of government regulation. It shouldn't be rationed by a "racing commission". These matters should be left up to those who have the only possible right to decide: the property owners and those who want to build the racino.

Admittedly, this wouldn't please governments or the people who feel powerful because they are on the racing commission, nor those who want to use politics to control other people and stop them from doing something they enjoy. Getting government out of it would please me.

I'm not in favor of gambling, nor am I against it. I simply understand it is none of my business what other people choose to do with their time and money. I see plenty of people doing things I think are a waste of time and money, but I don't imagine it's any of my business, and I would never use the power of government to force my will on them. I'm not that antisocial.

There are many vices out there. Not one of them is legitimately subject to majority opinion nor should a single one of them be subject to laws and punishment. If the vice is really bad it will bring its own punishment. If you don't like it, don't participate. Yes, you really do have a choice.

The only reason for an election would be as feedback to measure whether there are enough potential customers in the area to make it worthwhile. A vote should never be binding on whether someone is allowed to open a business of any kind, or do anything else.

The only other time a vote on something of this sort could possibly be legitimate is when tax money will be used. In such cases, those who vote in favor should be the only ones who pay any additional tax. Those who vote "no" should be completely off the hook.

Thank you for helping support

Scars of statism

Everyone has some kind of scars. I have a scar on my shoulder from an encounter with an armadillo, and many scars on my left hand due to knives held in my right hand.

I would imagine everyone also has psychological scars. Including scars from statism in our pasts.

Most of us were statist to some degree at some time in our lives. Some more than others. And everyone has been exposed to statism. Like any trauma, this leaves scars which are sometimes noticeable to observers.

You can't be involved in a cult, or exposed to it continually, without taking some damage to your psyche.

I can sometimes notice my own scars of statism, and it's even easier to see them in others.

Mine show up in kneejerk emotional reactions. I recently felt one scar when I went into the library and was once again overcome with the desire to wrap my hands around the throat of the evil little loser who shot it up last year, killing one of my friends. I'm opposed to imprisonment, but I still feel the desire to make that little vermin suffer. Even if it's in a way I oppose but can't abolish. I realize that's one of my statist scars showing up.

Of course, I'd rather they set him free and let everyone know who he is, what he did, and let nature take its course-- I wouldn't participate, but I wouldn't help him. But it is what it is, and none of it is in my control, anyway. Other than my reaction, which isn't good.

I do my best to not focus on the scars, mine or other peoples', but to see how the person has managed to overcome and grow, in spite of the scars. Everyone is scarred; no one has to spend their life dwelling on it.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Saturday, December 01, 2018

The magic of statist projection

Isn't it odd how some people take your responsible commitment to defend yourself and your property as a threat to their safety?

It makes it pretty clear what they intend to do to you. Either in person, or with government "laws".

Then they'll say that since you threatened them, they are justified in attacking you first-- in "defense".

The threatener poses as a victim, and then uses their imaginary victimhood as justification to victimize you, when all you intended was to defend yourself from any archators.

This is where political government comes from.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.