Thursday, January 31, 2019

How theft and slavery became "legal", normal, and acceptable

With all you ever wanted to know-- and more-- about the practice of "income taxation", I present this piece from
The 16th Amendment: How the U.S. Federal Income Tax Became D.C.'s Favorite Political Weapon


Reminder: I don't steal, so I could really use some voluntary help.

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

Scott Adams doesn't understand "plant food"

Scott Adams says the observation that "carbon dioxide is plant food" is a terrible argument-- an "embarrassing opinion"-- for AGCC skepticism.

He's wrong.

Here's why:

When plants "eat" CO2 they take it out of the air and turn it into plant matter. Even if carbon dioxide raises the climate's temperature as the AGCC activists claim, once a plant removes it from the air, it isn't available in the atmosphere to raise the temperature anymore. That's how "eating" something works. It is removed from availability in one form (in this case, atmospheric gas) and turned into a different form (leaves, wood, flowers, stalks, roots, seeds, fruit, etc.).

And, yes, each individual plant might be able to only use a limited amount of carbon dioxide, but plants reproduce. If you improve their growing conditions with more "food" (and sufficient light), they can reproduce more. If you've ever had an aquarium or a pond experience an algae bloom you've seen conditions result in more plantlife. And one of the most effective ways to end the algae bloom is to add other plants which will use up the "plant food" available in the water until it is reduced to a level where it can't encourage excess plant growth.

But to say that the addition of CO2 will raise the temperature and kill the plants so that they can no longer "eat" the CO2 is overlooking the main effect of plants taking CO2 from the air and using it to make more plant matter. More plants = less CO2 in the atmosphere available to warm the climate.

Now, when those plants rot or burn, that CO2 will be released into the air again. But, more CO2 could result in more plant mass overall, trapping the CO2 in a form which can't contribute to "climate change" at least for a time. Coal is plant matter, made of atmospheric CO2 removed from the air long ago (~359 to 299 million years ago, in fact) and stored in a fairly stable form. Once that carbon dioxide was in the form of plant matter-- living plants or coal-- it couldn't help heat the world until it burned.

Sometimes a person tries so hard to look unbiased and "scientific" that they fall into a reality trap. This seems to be one of those times for Scott Adams.

If you want to read more of what I've had to say about Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) over the years, here ya go: link.


Reminder: I could really use some change to my economic climate.

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Homosexuality isn't the issue

Back when I was a follower of a religion which condemned homosexuality, I went along and believed it was wrong, just like I was told to believe. Still, I could never really figure out how it was supposed to be a threat to me. I didn't give it that much thought.

During my teenage years I had begun to realize my youngest sister was probably a lesbian, although I never said anything to her about it. It wasn't an issue and was none of my business until she chose to make it my business.

In my early 20s I got "hit on" by an older guy at a park while I was taking my lunch break away from work. I wasn't rude-- I just mentioned my wife and hinted I wasn't interested. There was no problem; the guy just went on his way.

Years later, a gay friend hit on me at karaoke one night. Again I just said I wasn't interested in guys and let it drop. We remained friends.

I've been propositioned online several times over the years, especially during the chat room days. There was no need for me to be rude about it. I can't blame someone for taking a chance.

As the years passed I became more and more libertarian (even before I knew what to call it). This powered up my inability to be offended over such things. I came to see that all humans have equal and identical rights, and that's that. No one has "extra" rights; no one has "limited" rights. Your sexuality doesn't even figure in. I see this more clearly every passing day.

Which brings us to now. There is one apparently homosexual person who is offending me, and some are trying to twist my offense into being about homosexuality. I don't think it is.

My 11-year-old daughter has a "frienemy" who has been trying to bully her-- with the encouragement of the girl's parents-- into a lesbian relationship. It has been going on for a year and a half now. This girl acts like a friend until she draws my daughter in, and then she does the nastiest, meanest things I have ever seen a kid do-- totally crushing my daughter with her backstabbing. This drives my daughter away from her. As soon as she realizes my daughter is out of her control, she acts sweet and reels her in again-- and convinces her that she's my daughter's only "real friend" and that her parents can't be trusted. This repeats endlessly. This has led to some difficult and uncomfortable parenting decisions on my part.

The other girl's parents have even tried to talk my daughter into leaving home and moving in with their family so the girls can be together. They are all trying to make this into an issue of anti-gay bigotry, when it is nothing of the sort. You abuse and backstab my daughter, and manipulate her to try to drive a wedge between us, and I don't care who or what you are. I'll hope for your destruction. My older daughter was trapped in an abusive heterosexual relationship for 7 of the last 8 years of her life. This is a line you don't want to cross with me. My tolerance for such things has been used up.

"Mad" doesn't begin to cover it.

My daughter can choose to be in a developmentally appropriate relationship with whoever she chooses, but I will do what I can to protect her from an abuser. And this girl is quite definitely an abuser and a bully, even if my daughter refuses to see it.

And, by the way, my (lesbian) sister agrees with me.

Interesting times.


Reminder: I could really use some economic help, too.

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

Monday, January 28, 2019

Wilson's government "job"

As much as "Wilson" disliked and distrusted government, he did have a government "job" most of the time I knew him.

He had been stopped by a cop at some point, and ticketed for something. Probably "driving without a license", but I'm not certain of that (I do know he never had a driver's license as long as I knew him). Part of his "fine" was community "service" at the recycling center-- I think he was there for a couple of months. (I met him during his stint at the recycling center.)

Apparently, the supervisor was impressed enough with his work that he offered Wilson a permanent job at the landfill.

Even better was what Wilson was to do as his job: he just walked around the perimeter fence all day picking up escaped trash. Honestly, he really enjoyed it. It didn't pay as well as the job government cronyism had stolen from him earlier, but it was peaceful, undemanding, and he was left alone from the time a co-worker dropped him off in the morning until he picked him up at night.

He carried a backpack, his .40 pistol, and a "wrist rocket" type slingshot. For his lunch break he would often use the slingshot to shoot a grouse, then cook it over a small fire. Occasionally he shot an extra grouse and took it home for a later meal (he offered me a bird once or twice).

I never questioned him about the contradiction of working for an entity he despised-- it was none of my business. I just knew the job suited him better than most other available jobs.


Reminder: I don't mean to grouse, but I could really use some help.

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

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Looking back, hoping for liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 26, 2018)

Here we go, wrapping up another year. While there's still the possibility of something significant happening in the final days of December, there's an even better chance nothing significant will happen, but something trivial will be overblown to seem important.

Until that happens, how do things look?

For yet another year, after too long following the same downward path, the U.S. is still trying to become everything it previously opposed about the late Soviet Union.

Political prisoner Ross Ulbricht rots in prison, and two of liberty's heroes-- Julian Assange and Edward Snowden-- sit just out of reach of the U.S. government so as to avoid also becoming permanent political prisoners of the regime. This is how far the U.S. has gone toward replacing the USSR as the enemy of human rights and liberty.

It's fixable if enough people demand it.

Closer to home, the people who vote still seem to believe it matters which party has the power. Most of them don't seem to notice there's a Democrat in threadbare Republican clothing occupying the White House.

On a happier note, we received a year-end treat. An increasingly common one, but one which inspires hopeful daydreams. What is this gift? We've been given a government shutdown.

I realize it's not much. The only parts of the government to shut down are those parts the market would better serve if actually allowed to compete; those parts which will inconvenience the people most by closing. The shutdown is temporary and the non-essential employees still end up getting paid when the theatrics are over.

All the parts of government which violate your life, liberty, and property continue governing as usual. All such shutdowns are imaginary; nothing but political drama. If you want to keep your government, don't worry; the politicians can't risk you adjusting to being without it. You might realize how useless it is, which wouldn't be good for the job security of those who need you to believe they are necessary.

In the end, the political clowns will save us from this "horror" by reaching a deal to keep the government fueled with your money-- until the next time they can use another threatened shutdown against each other.

In reality, if liberty started taking hold, they'll have found a way to re-open government by the time you read this. Still, it's a happy thought while it lasts.

Whether you prefer liberty or government, freedom or slavery, I hope this holiday season is treating you and yours well.

Thank you for helping support

Saturday, January 26, 2019

That razor ad

I finally got around to watching the razor advertisement that has so many people worked up.

I didn't think it was too bad, only a little insulting in the assumptions it made. But not very. I've known men like those portrayed negatively. But I also don't think all the behavior portrayed in a negative way is entirely negative. Not if I believe the species should continue. Perhaps that's the quibble.

If I had any of that company's products, I wouldn't toss them out over the ad. But I also wouldn't rush out to buy them in support of the company.

Not that I'm in the market for a razor.

I've never even used a modern safety razor (is that what they are called?) I have the same electric Norelco I've used a couple of times per week since my 17th birthday. I also shave with my knives sometimes when I'm bored. Once or twice I've even used an old straight razor which belonged to my great-great-grandfather (which is the razor pictured above). As a way to connect with family history, I guess.

The ad in question is just a case of a big company trying to look all SocialJusticy and score points with people who aren't even its customers. Probably not the smartest move, but not suicidal, either.


Reminder: I'm on the razor's edge and could really use some help.

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

Friday, January 25, 2019

Addicts can't think outside their box

A heroin addict might not like the side effects and other consequences of being addicted to heroin, but giving up the drug is unthinkable, so they try to find ways around the consequences which don't involve giving up heroin.

Statists don't like some of the side effects and consequences of statism, but giving up the State is unthinkable so they try to find ways around the consequences which don't involve giving up their drug.

Thus you have borderists screaming that you can't get rid of government borders or you'll have people flocking to America to get free stuff from "welfare" or committing crime. They can't even see that they're in a box, much less think outside it.

This utter lack of awareness illustrates my point about statism being an addiction.

No part of statism is a given. Any of it can be eliminated; all of it can be eliminated. That one part of it excuses another part doesn't mean you have to keep either part. Ditch them both. It's the sensible thing to do.


Reminder: I could really use a "hit" of help.

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

Thursday, January 24, 2019

An accidental bullseye

Statist: "Of course YOU don't care about the government shutdown that's hurting so many people, because it's not hurting you, personally!"

Me: BINGO!!*

*And if you think that's an accidental quirk of fate, you'd be missing the point. I don't want the fake "shutdown" to hurt you, either, but you placed yourself in the position to be hurt. Against my advice.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2019

That one's a thinker!

The Facebook post stated "Claiming that income tax is moral, is a claim that slavery is moral.".

That's a completely reasonable statement. But someone then posted a comment saying, "Wealth tax is required." Whatever a "wealth tax" is.

I responded with a link to my "Theft by any other name" video.

She replied, "No taxes, no army. No army, no defence. No defence, no state. No state, no laws. No laws, no peace."

I said, 

"I don't need a theft-funded army for my defense. Why would you imagine you do?
The state is your enemy, or you don't understand what the State is.
There are only two kinds of "law": the unnecessary and the harmful. Which type do you imagine promotes peace?
"Laws" against actual wrongs (murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, assault, trespass, etc.) are unnecessary. These "laws" aren't necessary for you to have the right to defend yourself from these acts.
"Laws" against anything else (vices, trade, tools of defense, resisting government theft and aggression, etc.) -- AND "laws" allowing government employees to commit the actual wrongs in the first list as long as they are called something else (taxation, war, officer safety, arrest, airport security, etc.), are harmful.
Your argument fails."
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have included the last sentence. 

Her dismissive last shot? "neat. Don't complicate a complex argument and sleep tight! 😁"

So is she saying her comment was "complex"? I guess she's too deep a thinker for me.


Reminder: I think I could really use some help.

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

Monday, January 21, 2019

Fear first, ask questions later

It seems the matter is settled. If a cop "fears" for its life, it can commit murder and get away with it. No actual threat is necessary.

If it's OK for a cop to shoot a chihuahua or a fleeing teen because it chants "I feared for my life", then it is OK for anyone else to shoot people and pets using the same excuse. Anything less is a dangerous double standard.

And, if that were consistently the case all cops would be dead. Good riddance!

Every "official" encounter with a cop is an encounter with an armed government molester who would face small consequences for murdering you-- if it faces any at all. If you don't kiss its boots fast enough, you'll scare it. That's as good as permission to murder you.

When this happens, you are experiencing a police state. But it can get worse. Unless the people targeted by cops act to stop it, it will get worse.

Whether or not you are in fear of your life when a cop is around, your life is in danger. They've created the situation. I wonder how they'll react when it comes to fruition.


Reminder: I fear I could really use some help.

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

Sunday, January 20, 2019

Solar shouldn't be forced on city

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 19, 2018)

I'm in favor of solar energy. I'm not in favor of city commissions spending money on it, or on anything else.

The news that the Clovis City commissioners want to spend your money for land on which solar energy could be "developed" sounds like more government-as-usual to me. Once the money is spent, who is to guarantee the land would be used as promised, or that there would ever be a payoff? Spend other people's money now, benefit later... maybe, if everything works out exactly as we imagine, which it never does.

This kind of financial speculation is best left to the market rather than letting politics get involved. The market doesn't spend any money it didn't earn and any risk is voluntary. With politics, all the money is taken by threat (if you don't see the threat, refuse to pay the taxes) and the politicians assume no personal risk. The risk is passed along to you whether you want it or not.

Solar power panels-- which are what is being talked about when solar energy is mentioned-- aren't as environmentally friendly as portrayed. They use a lot of land unless they are placed atop existing buildings and manufacturing them creates toxic byproducts. Nothing is free. For these reasons, and more, governments should stay out of it.

As I say, I like solar power. I have a solar charger I sometimes use for charging my phone. Years ago when I was trying to make my first car-- an electric car-- more practical, I looked into installing solar panels on its roof to help charge the batteries while I drove, or while parked where I couldn't plug in. Unfortunately for my grand scheme, I quickly discovered any benefits were greatly outweighed by the costs, but it had seemed like a good idea at first.

Kind of like government spending your money on anything.

Had I forced other people to pay for my car's solar panels, regardless of any actual payoff, using the excuse that society benefits just because my car could potentially go a few yards farther down the road, I would have been behaving politically. This is something I won't do.

If I'd had the money I would have bought the solar panels myself. Any potential benefit would have been mine alone, but so would the risk. No one else would have been hurt if the idea was a complete failure. It's the civilized way to do everything.

Thank you for helping support

It's OK to be me and it's OK to be you

It's OK to be "white".
It's OK to be male.
It's OK to be heterosexual.

To believe otherwise is dumb. To punish someone for saying so is evil.

But wait, there's more!

It's OK to be "black" or any other "race".
It's OK to be female or a hermaphrodite.
It's OK to be homosexual or whatever.

None of the above categories or distinctions are important. It doesn't matter if you are "white", "black", female, male, heterosexual, homosexual, or anything else. Not one bit.

What is important is that it's NOT OK to be an archator of any sort. Not ever.

It's hard to believe this is even controversial. That saying such things can get a person in trouble. I'll own the truth and accept the trouble.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2019

Prisons are a growing threat

I've mentioned before how much I hate prisons.

Prison is a racket, and it's not better to do something "privately" when it's wrong to do it at all.

Even when something isn't necessarily wrong, if I don't want it, I don't want to pay for it. That's the same reason I would never voluntarily fund a private police force. You want it, YOU pay for it and leave me out of it.

Besides, how "private" is something when it can't exist without government creating a niche for it and being its only "customer"? I don't think that's "private" at all. Just fascism, cronyism, or some other form of corruption.

Anyway, has a very informative and infuriating look at the prison industry. It looks at even more of the incriminating factors that make prison a net negative.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Friday, January 18, 2019

Consent or coercion?

Looking in from the outside it can be hard to tell a non-consensual relationship from a voluntary one. Or at least it seems many people can't tell the difference.

They see people choosing to work for an employer and to them, it looks the same as a person living under a slave-master.

They see a person going to the grocery store and it looks the same to them as a person standing in line at the DMV.

They see an organized social club and to them, it looks the same as a government.

Yet, in each pair, one is voluntary and one is not. Learn to see the difference.


Reminder: I could really use some consensual help.

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

Thursday, January 17, 2019

By excluding the good guys...

One of the justifications most commonly used by borderists for property rights-violating, violent government "border security", including theft-funded walls and such, is that it will make it harder for people to cross, and any "friction" applied to the process will reduce the total numbers of people crossing. As a result, they claim to believe this will reduce the total number of bad guys getting into America.

Theirs is a faulty argument.

As can be plainly demonstrated with drug prohibition.

Prohibition makes it harder and more dangerous to make and sell politically incorrect drugs. A clear result is that it severely restricts the number of honest "mom and pop" stores entering the drug market. This leaves the market (and yes, there is a market) open for the worst of the bad guys to be the main sellers and producers.

This is NOT an unforeseeable surprise. It is an inevitable result of adding "friction" to the drug market: more aggression and theft, more fraud and quality problems, and higher prices.

If border security makes it harder, in a similar way, for everyone who wants to get to America, won't it ensure that mainly bad guys, who are desperate enough to take the risks, will cross into America?

I think it does.

Who's going to have the stamina to try harder? The beaten down dad who just wants to get his kids to a safer, more prosperous place? Or the life-long archator who doesn't care who he stomps to get where he wants to go?

You can't reasonably justify more statism by pointing to the results of current statism.

Let people exercise their right of association, and protect their property rights (and band together to voluntarily, in unanimous consent, protect the property rights of others, including the property stolen by "taxation") and the "problem" will shrivel away.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

It's dark, but does it matter?

Here's a little sidetrack, unrelated to much of anything else I write.

I don't know why I think about these things; no doubt something I read stuck in my head and got wheels turning.

It's about "Dark Matter". You, know, the "stuff" that the evidence points to as making up most of the Universe, but which can't be detected in normal ways (other than observing its apparent gravitational effects on a galactic scale and above).

What is the evidence for dark matter?

Could all those pieces of evidence be explained by a force divorced from matter? Maybe a result of the natural topography (on a large scale) of spacetime itself, rather than a sign of something else sitting in it?

Maybe it's a force which mimics gravity, but isn't a spacetime curvature caused by matter. In other words, it acts very much like gravity, but isn't gravity.

Maybe it's a type of "orphan gravity".

No, I don't know. I'm not smart enough to know, haven't had the training to know, and probably don't have time (or the ability/equipment) to figure it out.

It probably doesn't matter, anyway. It's just one of those things I think about.


Reminder: I have a dark financial future. Does it matter?

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

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Define "interesting"

The past few days have been... interesting. And expensive.

Had a colonoscopy yesterday, which if you've been through that you know how unpleasant the day before the colonoscopy is. That was 90 miles from home.

Then I spent last night in the emergency room in a hospital in a closer town-- only 30 miles away-- because I apparently suffered "post-polypectomy syndrome". Fever, dehydration, tachycardia, very high blood pressure. All sorts of fun stuff. I don't recommend it.

I haven't slept in days (thank goodness for post scheduling), so I'm going to take a very long nap now.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

This skeptic is skeptical

I am skeptical of everything. In fact, I'm skeptical of my own claim that I'm skeptical of everything. I'm probably wrong; there's most likely something I'm not skeptical of... but I need to be.

You've probably seen my skepticism come out on topics of statism and the "necessity" of political government, AGCC (politicized "climate change"), government "borders", and politicized "gender" issues, but I'm also still skeptical of other stuff. Even libertarianism.

I test all these things constantly-- in my mind, in my experience, and in the "thought experiments" and experiences of others-- looking for ways they might fail. One failure tells more than a thousand successes.

Sometimes people present what they believe is a good example of a failure of some idea, but when I dig into it, their example fails instead of what it was supposed to topple. And that's OK. I still want to see the attempts.

If something I trust is going to fail, I want to know it before I am in a situation where failure would hurt me or someone else.

Generally, I only write about the failures I find, which makes it appear that I am skeptical of some issues but not others. But that's just because I haven't found failures in some issues yet. Maybe they are there. If they are, I want to find them. It's just how I am.


Private to the person who made a donation yesterday: I have tried to thank you by email to your family email address, but the email never goes through. But I do thank you!


Reminder: I'm skeptical that I'll get enough help.

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

Monday, January 14, 2019

With Wilson in the wilderness

I've mentioned the business "Wilson" had which was shut down by government meddling. Well, due to our similar interests in that area he and I used to hike in the wilderness area outside of town. He wore a camo army jacket with cargo pants and army boots and I wore my buckskin clothes and mocassins-- in other words, I didn't dress any differently than normal for the hike, although I did carry extra gear.

Most people find me a frustrating person to hike with-- one former wife said I don't hike, I wander aimlessly from spot to spot. But Wilson seemed OK with it.

Those hikes gave us chances to hone some of our less-critical survival skills. We had to cross racing, ice-cold rivers on foot going in and coming out-- during the spring melt that was pretty exciting. We sometimes encountered serious mud traps. We nibbled on various plants, tracked animals, watched game, and met whatever other necessity cropped up for us to tackle.

Until we'd get a long ways down the trail, when we used the trails, we would also encounter the occasional hiker or two. When I'm out wandering like that, I tend to go a bit psychologically feral. When that happens I usually don't like encountering other people, so when we'd hear someone crashing noisily down the trail-- and that's what they all did-- we would step off the trail, sit and wait for them to pass.

When we did this we were never noticed. Not once. We especially enjoyed seeing the female hikers pass, but we never spoke to them. We didn't want to get pepper sprayed as a result of trying to be polite.

We were never more than a few feet off the path. Not hidden. Just sitting still and silent. I suspect people don't like to suddenly notice you under those circumstances.

Once, however, I was in the open, sitting on a boulder in an open area in plain sight, and still just about scared a hiker's dog to death when I said "Hi" as he came to sniff the rock. That time I was seen, but I wasn't trying to not be.

Needless to say, Wilson and I were not very impressed with people's observational skills. Of course, who's to say we didn't miss people doing the same as we hiked past. We were a lot quieter than others, though; while most of them never stopped talking, we rarely spoke. And we saw a lot of deer quietly watching us pass. But who knows.

Of all the Wilson stories, these were the times I enjoyed hanging out with him the most. It was always hard for me to turn around and come back to "civilization". But that's always been the hardest part for me.


Reminder: I could still really use some help.

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

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Politics doesn't improve your life

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 12, 2018)

Occasionally I'm asked what I write about. It's a hard question to answer. Some would say I write about politics, but this isn't quite right. I don't care about politics. I want to encourage people to grow beyond politics; to find better ways.

Politics seems to be the art of making mountains out of molehills. By "art" I mean in the sense you might call pickpocketing an art; not like the Mona Lisa.

Politics is "do unto others before they do unto you".

Life is needlessly complicated when you believe you need to control other people, since they'll believe they should control you, too. You'll probably both take the short-cut of electing someone to do the controlling for you, but the results are the same, if not worse.

Your right to control someone else ends where their actions no longer harm you. If you try to control them beyond this point, you're the one causing harm.

Politics is the only reason immigration is seen as a problem. Someone set up a coercive tax-funded welfare system, criminalized defense of person and property except in very limited circumstances, and crippled the economy with taxes and bureaucracy. A molehill was made into an ever-growing mountain.

Politics is why crime is a more serious problem than it would be. If people were truly free to defend their life, liberty, and property from bad guys there would be less crime for government to pretend to protect us from.

Why tax people for things which aren't popular enough for people to fund them voluntarily? Allow people to use their money as they see fit. If something is important, people will pay for it. Just because you feel something is important doesn't mean it is. Its true importance will be shown by how many volunteer to fund it. Politics interferes with choice.

I would voluntarily fund a fire department or library, but not a police department. If I needed an investigator for a specific situation I would hire one for as long as the service is needed, and no longer. For me to force you to pay for a service I want would be antisocial, but I wouldn't stop you from funding whatever you value.

I can't think of a single way in which politics improves life. Quite the opposite. It's middle school drama writ large. If that's what you enjoy, have at it. Just leave the rest of us out of your magnified molehill mountain range.

Thank you for helping support

Good intentions, or not

I have no doubt that many "citizen" statists have good intentions. They are misguided by their ignorance but their intentions are mainly admirable. They may even align with mine.

However, that doesn't apply to politicians.

Especially those who have been around a few years. I no longer give them the benefit of a doubt.

They know what's up. Through experience, they know better.

Yet they keep doing the same old thing anyway. That they keep using politics instead of the economic means shows me they have no good intentions left. Even if they did, once upon a time.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Partial "knowledge" and flawed motives

On many topics, the reason people want to "know more" is so they'll have an "informed opinion" they can try to get government to follow.

People want to know if AGCC is "real" so they can know in which direction to ask government to act.

People want to be "informed" about the issue of a "border" wall so they can know which way to push government to act.

People want to know how much "gun crime" [sic] would be prevented with anti-gun "laws" so they can advocate accordingly.

I don't have that problem, because I know theft and aggression are wrong, and that no matter how I feel about something it is wrong of me to ask government to do anything about it. Additional "knowledge", contaminated by a political agenda, can't change that.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Friday, January 11, 2019

Liberty isn't Utopia

Statists. You can't even get them to ask (or acknowledge) the right questions.

Whether the topic is "borders", drugs, guns, rights, or socialism, they address all kinds of peripheral questions which seem to legitimize more statism when answered, but they avoid the real questions which would completely invalidate statism.

Is it intentional or are they really that ignorant? I honestly don't know, and suspect it is some of both.

For example, I recently heard one arguing against ending prohibition because when the "laws" against Cannabis are loosened and the cartels' profits go down, the cartels turn to smuggling opioids. What? How does that justify propping up the failure which is prohibition? All you've managed to point out is that if you relax prohibition in a piecemeal way, the cartels will focus on those areas where the profit motive is still high due to continued prohibition.

When you sink that deep into statism, you can't seem to see beyond statism.

So, look at my crude graph above. Sorry, it's not to scale or painted (a lame Back to the Future joke).

See how I readily admit there are still problems with a condition of zero statism (total liberty)?


Utopia isn't an option.

But statists don't like that admission and it's a deal-breaker for them. Liberty would have to be Utopia with no problems at all for them to accept it in place of their favored statist Dystopia-- no matter the specific issue.

Obviously, death-- with no more problems for the dead-- will result from increased statism long before total statism (whatever that may be) is achieved, but the exact place where that happens will vary from individual to individual and is hard to pin down. Use your imagination to adjust the exact scale of the graph.

We live somewhere along the line between zero statism (liberty) and total statism. The exact spot is debatable, but it's irrelevant for my point. Wherever we are, there are problems-- more problems than there would be under liberty. But statists don't like liberty so that option is unthinkable and invisible to them. They advocate more statism to solve the problems which exist; most of which are worsened due to statism. They will claim that with added statism, the total problems will decrease. That's not reality. More statism equals more problems.

But, because there are problems, and they can see ways to justify more statism because of those problems, they are blind to solutions which don't mean more statism. They won't even ask questions which might risk opening their eyes to the reality.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Immoral walls and dishonest manipulation

Sarcasm only works for me when you don't demonstrate dishonesty while attempting it.

I listen to Scott Adams' "periscopes" to keep an eye on what some of those on the pro-government side are thinking. He's right about half the time-- when he isn't in his pro-government box, unable to see beyond its horizon. But sometimes it amazes me how dishonestly he frames an issue. I wonder if others notice.

Of course, since he is a trained hypnotist, it may be intentional on his part; an attempt to manipulate the opinions of his listeners. I don't criticize him for that-- it's what I hope to do with my blog. But I hope to do it honestly, without deception. I am not trying to be sneaky about it.

A day or so ago he was mocking Nancy Pelosi's absurd contention that "walls are immoral".

I agree conditionally; walls are not, in and of themselves, immoral. Unless your particular morality is somehow anti-wall, which I seriously doubt. Morals being what they are ("situational ethics") I can see how someone might have a set of morals which doesn't allow for walls, but it's not likely. It's more likely to be political posturing.

The real question is whether or not walls are ethical. For simply being walls. The answer is: walls are ethically neutral.

You can almost always use your own money/resources to wall off your own property from adjacent property without any ethical problem.

Or you can help wall off "collective property" in the very rare cases where you have part-ownership in some actual collective property and there is unanimous consent to build and fund the wall.

There is an ethical problem if you wall off property which doesn't belong to you, or if you force others to pay for a wall they don't want to pay for.

If you wall off a neighbor's property a few doors down, you have unethically built a wall.

If you force someone to help pay for a wall around your own property, you have unethically built a wall.

You could say those particular walls, under those circumstances, are unethical walls. Probably even immoral walls.

"Government land"-- dishonestly referred to as "public land" in the same way kinderprisons are called "public schools"-- is not yours to wall off. It isn't true "collective property", and there is not unanimous consent. Nor does it really belong to the government. Everything government claims it either stole from the rightful owner or bought (and maintains) with stolen or counterfeited money. A thief does not own the stolen goods he possesses, so government can not rightfully own anything. Any wall financed with stolen money is not an ethical wall.

A "border" wall fails on both accounts. No matter how "necessary" you believe it to be. It can not be done ethically under government.

You can sarcastically mock the truth, but the truth doesn't change to suit your wishes. Not even if you are a president or Scott Adams.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Tuesday, January 08, 2019

Tampering with the data

The town I used to live near was famous for its coldness. The locals were proud of this.

Then, someone (government?) decided that the "official temperature" should be recorded at the airport instead of at the radio station just outside of town (about halfway between town and my house). So, instead of being in a pasture, the "official" thermometer was now located around buildings and a large expanse of concrete.

Guess what result that had-- it made the "official temperature" for town several degrees higher. We stopped regularly being the coldest spot in the lower 48-- at least, "officially". People complained but it wasn't switched back.

I'm not saying that one reading was more accurate than the other, just that they were different and that there are good reasons for the difference which have nothing to do with "global warming".

Yet Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) believers would take this data and use it as indisputable evidence for global warming. It is real, scientific, and believable-- the temperatures officially recorded for that town now really are warmer than the temperatures officially recorded there in the past-- and it is misleading.

How often has this happened in other places? Has it happened this way more often than the "official thermometers" either staying in the same place or moving to a spot where the temperature would generally be lower?

It's a good reason to remain skeptical.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Monday, January 07, 2019

Feeling good and dangerous

I don't know why, but I've been feeling uncharacteristically optimistic the past few days. Maybe I'm getting sick or I'm delusional or something.

My financial situation is not looking any brighter. I have a dreaded medical procedure coming up too soon. Nothing has changed, personally. As far as society, the same old gang of bullies is still throwing their political weight around.

And yet...

"What's this weird feeling I don't want to drink away?" ~ Princess Bean
"That's hope...THAT'S HOPE!" ~ Elfo

Here's to hope. I could get used to this.


Reminder: I could still use some help, though.

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

Sunday, January 06, 2019

Some still awaiting return of liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 5, 2018)

For decades I've had my doubts about whether America is still the land of the free. With rules and enforcers everywhere you look, it doesn't seem so.

I've been wrong. Most Americans are free-- as free as they want to be.

I prefer liberty to freedom. Liberty means having the freedom to do everything you have a right to do; freedom is simply doing whatever you want, without regard for others.

This is why, for most Americans, America is the "Land of the Free". They are doing what they want.

They tolerate checkpoints because they make them feel safe. They comply with the airport "security theater" gauntlet, pretending it's fighting terrorism. They are content to beg for licenses as long as they can usually buy the license they want. They are fine with economically crippling taxation as long as they can imagine the money is spent on necessities. They are happy to see the "borders" locked down, not realizing this traps them more than it protects them.

They are free as long as they have smartphones and video games; free to eat, vote, and watch sports. Free to control the lives of others. Free, because this is what they want.

You'll never reach people who are content in their chains while their chains have enough slack to let them do what they want.

So they are free. Free to be cattle. Free to comply; free of unwanted responsibility. Free of fear. They want more of this kind of "freedom". They want to be free of consequences, free of hard decisions, free of everything which makes them human.

They are also free (and encouraged) to look down upon those dangerous lunatics who don't value this "freedom" as much.

They don't want to do the things they can no longer legally do, which previous generations could. Those who complain or fight the limits on liberty are to be feared, laughed at, or even hated. They should be happy with their chains like everyone else.

Few care about their lost liberty. But the Remnant does.

Somewhere out there, mostly silent and unnoticed, the Remnant listens, learns, watches, and waits. These individuals know what has been lost and will never be satisfied until they get it back.

The Remnant has been patient, but the patience will run out one day. If something can't continue forever, it won't. That will be an interesting day for the political class and their oppressive bureaucratic puppets whenever it finally arrives.

May liberty then be restored.

Thank you for helping support

Wilson's Dan Wesson revolver

Justice is something you won't find associated with government.

"Wilson" was accused by a guy he knew of being involved with the guy's wife. The guy came to Wilson's house carrying a shotgun and yelling threats. Wilson met him at the door with his revolver held down at his side. A nice Dan Wesson revolver that he really liked. Seeing Wilson's gun, the other guy decided to just yell at him for a bit, then walked back to his vehicle. But as he left he fired a shot from his shotgun into the air.

Someone, either the shooter himself or a "concerned neighbor", soon called the cops about the "shot fired".

An hour or so later, the cops showed up at Wilson's door, arrested him and stole his revolver. They didn't care about the fact that Wilson wasn't the one who fired the shot-- they didn't want to hear it. They never checked up on the other guy. They had "the perp".

Fortunately for Wilson, the jury didn't buy it. They found him not guilty.

So Wilson asked for the return of his revolver. He was told he would have to file paperwork to get it back. He jumped through all their flaming hoops, and waited. And waited. And kept asking. And waiting.

A year or more later he was finally told his gun had "disappeared", so "too bad". He was told there was nothing he could do. The state wasn't responsible for replacing (or paying for) the revolver.

Wilson was pretty sure who had taken his firearm. The prosecuting attorney had made comments which suggested he liked the gun and wanted one like it. Sure, this is circumstantial, but obviously the guy was crooked or he wouldn't have been a prosecuting attorney in the first place. Later he became the district attorney (or something like that over that whole quarter of the state). I still remember the guy's name because of the hatred Wilson felt-- and expressed-- for him. I shared his opinion.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Saturday, January 05, 2019

Theatrics on display

I was sitting in the waiting area of the local tire shop yesterday, and they had a TV going. For entertainment, I guess. Usually, it is tuned to a "news" network where you can watch people angrily disagreeing over politics.

This time it was tuned to some sports network and there on the screen were people angrily disagreeing over sports. Or, is it all an act? I can't tell.

My first thought was that people surely couldn't care that much about sportsballing. They had to be putting on an act in order to excite and divide their large studio audience (unless the audience was CGI). Are they trying hard to create drama where none would otherwise exist?

Then I realized I usually feel the same when I see two extreme statists angrily disagreeing over how you and I should "best" and "properly" be violated by government. They are on the same side; taking the side of government against liberty. Are they really so blind they can't see that? Or are they putting on an act in order to excite and divide their audience? To create drama where none would otherwise exist?


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Friday, January 04, 2019

AnComs, climate activists, and me

Excitement! Followed by disappointment and disillusionment.

That's what I experience when I hear someone claim to be an anarchist, but then they start advocating communism.

Or when someone expresses an interest in science but then begins talking "flat Earth" or demanding I devote my life to "Climate change" (AGCC).

There's the promise that a person is sensible and someone I can relate to... and then they expose their "but".

How often does that happen to you?
And what issues do you experience this with?


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Thursday, January 03, 2019

No, that's NOT what Louis CK was doing

People are having a fit about Louis CK making fun of "Parkland survivors". Is that what he really did? No. He was doing what I have done; he was making fun of the handful of nasty little anti-liberty bigots who used their attendance at Parkland as a springboard to promote their mental illness and demand we all adopt the same. The rest of the survivors-- those who didn't become social parasites-- were spared his ridicule; he didn't even mention them.

I'll ridicule David Hogg, his barefoot sidekick girl-- I forget her name, and the other "survivors". They are absurd and deserve all the ridicule they get. They are promoting slavery. They picked the fight and then whined when people struck back. Like the entitled children they are.

And wasn't the vile little Hogg actually at home when the shooting occurred, rushing to the school so he could claim "victim" status and become a Big Deal? Whether that rumor is true or not doesn't really make a difference. He wants government to molest me, so he's fair game for any and all ridicule.

So, whatever else Louis CK said may have been rude, but while making fun of those particular "Parkland survivors", I support him.

I listened to the routine. Some of it was hilarious. He seems to have a good sense of humor about his own foibles and the resulting trouble. Some of the routine wasn't funny to me personally. But I couldn't really get offended by it. He was making jokes. I'm not a delicate little old church lady who gets bent out of shape about jokes.

A lot of other people are. They should rent a sense of humor if they don't have one of their own.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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

Tuesday, January 01, 2019

Happy New Year!

Now go out and do something you want to do, something you have a right to do, whether it's "legal" or not! Live your liberty.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

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