Friday, March 31, 2023

Panic and pain

Today's visit to the urologist who is assisting in the surgery (complications due to a childhood injury) was one of the worst, most painful experiences of my life. It brought the childhood injury back to mind and triggered my phobia etc.

I just don't know how I'm going to get through this.


Stopping ALL mass shootings

Assume "they" got rid of every semi-automatic weapon and every firearm that was owned by someone who isn't a government employee who is armed as a condition of his "job". (Impossible, but let's pretend.)

Even all cops are only armed with revolvers or pump-action shotguns.

Would that stop mass shootings?


One cop who snapped could kill dozens of unarmed people with his revolver, because who could do anything about it? You think that wouldn't happen? How cute.

There is no way to completely end mass shootings. The best approach is to make certain any potential mass shooter faces armed resistance. And, again, anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted around children.

I'm in the last week before the surgery.

Thursday, March 30, 2023

Acts of an evil loser... Same song, different verse

The response to the evil loser in Nashville has been predictable in just about every way.

Including the observation that the only way to stop these things in their tracks is armed people among the things you want to protect. Children and employees, in this case.

And the outcry from the anti-gun bigots is the same as always. "A gun did this and you want more guns? You want to arm teachers instead of taking the guns away from everyone?"

I'll just say what I've said in response: If you don't trust someone with a gun, you shouldn't trust them with your children.

If I don't trust someone with a gun, I don't trust them. Period.

I'm in the last week before the surgery.

Wednesday, March 29, 2023

Prohibition fails every time it's tried

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 26, 2023)

Drug abuse is stupid, but prohibition is evil.

The surest way to guarantee a market will become dominated by criminals who are willing to steal, kidnap, and murder to protect their market share is to criminalize a product.

You saw what happened with toilet paper and eggs when they became harder to buy. Why would you imagine the same economic factors don't apply to substances you don't want people to have access to?

Yet, toilet paper and eggs were temporary shortages, not permanent government-imposed shortages. No one believed toilet paper and eggs were going to have to become black market items. What do you think would have happened if everyone did believe this, or if government had actually banned those products? Soon the market for those items would have looked exactly like the market for politically incorrect chemicals-- it would have been violent and dangerous to the customers and innocent bystanders.

I understand-- you don't think people should be "allowed" to abuse drugs. Maybe you don't believe people should even have access to them at all, regardless of whether they will use them responsibly or abuse them. You might even be under the illusion that it's not possible to responsibly use the drugs you want banned. You'd be demonstrably wrong, but it doesn't matter.

Plus, in the case of drugs, prohibition guarantees the product gets smaller and easier to hide over time-- this means it is stronger. It's easier to transport a soda can-sized package containing thousands of doses of fentanyl than to hide the same number of doses of cocaine. So guess which one is safer to ship into enemy territory where your customers live. Guess which one it is then easier to fatally overdose on.

Drug prohibition has been the excuse used for most of the worst violations of our liberty since the end of the most violent parts of alcohol prohibition. Liberty isn't a decorative trinket to be ripped off and thrown away just because it tolerates some things you don't like. It is the foundation of any worthwhile civilization, to be protected from all who would chip away at it, no matter what you think it costs.

Do I want people to abuse drugs? No. I lost a daughter to someone who did. My personal pain doesn't change reality. Prohibition not only fails every time it is tried, it makes things worse. Prohibition is evil.
I couldn't do this without your support.

How my doctor appointment went

Not as well as I would have liked. That seems to be the theme.

I learned I have to go to another appointment-- another 180+ mile round trip-- on Friday, to meet with a doctor who will be assisting the main surgeon (due to a unique medical history complication). I begged for an alternative. There is none I can live with.

This trip was a monumental mess. I N-10-slee dislike medical stuff, and I hate bureaucracy-- maybe nearly as much. Tuesday was a glorious mix of the two-- I felt like Philip J. Fry swimming in Chunks, the 2-headed goat's, pool. 

And, of course, now the insurance problems begin. I'll see if they get resolved or get worse.

I'm terribly frustrated right now. I'm (unwisely?) taking some of my frustration out on Twitter-- if it doesn't get me banned. I won't be surprised if it happens this time.

Thank you for sticking with me through this. I know this isn't what you come here to read about.
I'm in the last week before the surgery.

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

Define "exciting"...

Today I'm heading to the hospital for my pre-registration stuff. 

With all the recent and current stressors, I didn't come up with anything topical to write. Not even with the Nashville evil loser's mass murder event.

I'll do better.

I'm in the last week before the surgery.

Sunday, March 26, 2023

RIP Kirby

Kirby and Tobbles

Kirby, last summer's rescue kitten, and friend of Tobbles, lost his battle with FeLV today. 

He would have turned 1 on April 7, 2023-- just a week and a half from now.

He had a rocky, hopeless start. I did all I could, but the deck was stacked against him. At least I hope he was happy and comfortable most of the time he lived with me.

I buried him under the redbud tree next to his friend Tobbles, who I buried there last July 3.


Saturday, March 25, 2023

Ban TikTok?

I do not believe government should ban TikTok. Government has no rights and shouldn't have the power. That would be censorship. 

Yes, even if it comes down to one government banning another government's app.

I also don't believe anyone should have TikTok on their phone, or use TikTok. I've never used TikTok, so I freely admit I hate it out of ignorance. 

However, from the outside looking in, TikTok is obviously harmful. It brainwashes the young and the weak-minded into beliefs that hurt them and, when used to influence politics, it hurts all of us. But censorship hurts us all, too.

All social media is harmful in the same way, to lesser or greater extents. Don't ban any of them.

I understand the arguments for banning it, I just don't agree.

I'm in the last few days before pre-payments are due.

Friday, March 24, 2023

Statism is dumb... even if some statists aren't

Seeing all the really dumb stuff justified by one brand of statist or another, I think it can be said with certainty that statism has jumped the shark, nuked the fridge, AND nuked the shark. Probably jumped the fridge, too.

Some days I don't even know what to say-- the statist stupidity from every direction just seems so ridiculous all I can do is shake my head and (try to) put it out of my mind.

I never thought statists were statists because they are "so smart"-- I realize some are smart; their evil overtakes their smarts, but I just don't see it in most of them. 

But even if some statists are smart, statism itself is still dumb. It's like a genius who arranges his life according to a horoscope.

But most statists aren't evil geniuses. Just evil imbeciles.

Most don't seem able to add 2 and 2 without trying to find a political angle that supports their preferred kind of slavery.

It doesn't matter, I suppose. Stupid or evil, the results are the same. Be ready to defy and avoid.

I'm in the last week before pre-payments are due.

Thursday, March 23, 2023

Things everyone should respect

People get rights mixed up with things the Constitution forbids government to do. Rights are things everyone should respect, whether or not the Constitution or any rules apply to them.

This idea that only government needs to respect your right to speak freely is kind of weird. Yes, they are the only ones specifically forbidden to censor you, but anyone who censors others is a bad guy. A jerk.

There's nothing special or magic about the Constitution. Documents don't create rights-- rights have existed exactly the same throughout history and prehistory; thousands of years before the Constitution was written. Bad people have always looked for ways to violate those rights. That's what defines a bad guy. The Constitution did nothing but lay out a roadmap telling government what rights it was forbidden to interfere with. (And it has been ignored, so the experiment failed.)

The right way to fight lies and "harmful" speech is with more speech, not censorship. Or, ignore it. If you censor (or demand someone else censor on your behalf), you've already lost the argument.

Someone might be able to tell you not to speak freely while on their personal property-- but in most cases I'll consider them a jerk for doing so. No, this doesn't mean I would use government or legislation to force them to let someone speak, just that in my own mind I will put them in the "censor" category and have no respect for them on this issue. 

I respect your right to speak freely, and I respect it hard. No exceptions. I am a free-speech absolutist.

Again, if you don't like what someone says, say something better to counter it. Don't try to forcibly silence them. It's a bad look.

I'm in the last week before pre-payments are due.

Wednesday, March 22, 2023

'Legal' not the same as 'ethical'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 19, 2023)

You may think I only object when it's government doing the bad things. Nope. An act isn't wrong or right based only on who's doing it.

Theft is wrong no matter whether you're a burglar, a mugger, or a government tax collector "just doing his job". To imagine it's only wrong if it's done by the government revenue employee is as crazy as saying it's right because it's called "taxation". The act is wrong in itself and no rules can make it right. Not even if those rules have been around for thousands of years. Time doesn't magically change wrong into right.

The difference between a regular criminal and a government is an imaginary difference instilled in us from birth. This doesn't make it true.

If it's wrong for me to do it to my neighbor, it's wrong for someone else to do it even if it's in their job description.

I have no right to tell my neighbors what they can grow in their gardens or how darkly they can tint their car windows. I can't hire someone to do things I have no right-- as an individual-- to do. A right doesn't spring into existence if I gather a crowd who wants the power to do the same thing. My neighbors have the right to defend themselves if I try to force my will on them in this way.

Most people don't like this reality. They want to justify violating others if they feel it is necessary. Especially if they can say it's not up to them, but it's "the law".

Once upon a time, it was legal to act as though you owned another human being. People were legally required to kidnap an individual who escaped and return him to the person who pretended to own him. The law-- written and enforced by people who had no right to do so-- said this was right, but it never was.

Later, "the law" required businesses to serve people differently according to their "race". They had to separate customers by skin color. It was "the law" and again, it was wrong to require this.

"Legal" never has meant "ethical". What unethical things do you support today just because they are legal and you like them? Would you feel the same if the person committing the act wasn't acting on behalf of government? Or, do you oppose wrong things being done no matter who is doing them?
I couldn't do this without your support.

Dominoes are toppling, but...

I'm glad that judges across the country are throwing out so many anti-gun rules.

However, it's ridiculous to imagine anyone has to wait for a judge to throw out an unethical rule before they ignore it. That's as bad as imagining slaves had to comply with their enslavement until slavery was declared illegal. 

It's also ridiculous that the anti-gun political monsters are allowed to keep violating natural human rights and fighting to keep their anti-human rules while they beg the courts to agree with them. And they are allowed to keep making up new rules every time they get smacked down. It should be "You were scolded for your misbehavior and now you're done. Go home and never molest anyone ever again."

That it doesn't work that way illustrates how illegitimate all legislation, politicians, the court system, and the entirety of the whole mess truly are.

If I weren't in the midst of my troubles I'd buy a Polymer80 kit, just to have on hand to finish at my leisure. But, maybe, there's no need to rush now.

I'm entering the last week before pre-payments are due.

Tuesday, March 21, 2023

Force-- Violence or aggression

Violence is force, which is ethically neutral. 
Aggression is initiated force, which is something I promise not to use against you. 
If you use aggression against me, I may use violence in defense. 
Also, I’m skeptical of “proportional response” because it’s subjective.
And a HUGE thanks to all those who already have.

Saturday, March 18, 2023

Unacceptable things

It amazes me that people just accept so many unacceptable things. Things like taxation, coercion, and nonsensical rules that violate their liberty. 

They just take it and often think it’s normal. Anyone who objects is the abnormal and unhinged one.

That's sick. It's not something I'll ever be able to go along with.

And a HUGE thanks to all those who already have.

Friday, March 17, 2023

Sl@very in ABQ

I found the blog post that this site went toxic karen over. I deleted it after taking a screenshot. Here it is-- from August of 2010:

(This corporation is apparently pro-sl@very and marked this post as a violation of community standards. Twelve and a half years after it was published! I'll see if this slides past their sl@very-loving eyes.)

The epitome of self-centeredness?

I had a strange reaction to the potential banking collapse. I didn't really think it would happen-- and I still don't-- but I could be wrong. 

Either way, as so often in these situations, I felt more like a disinterested observer than anyone who'd be deeply impacted. Like whatever happens, it's fine.

I don't have enough money in banks to worry too much about it, but the thought had occurred to me that an economic collapse might put an end to my upcoming surgery. My feelings on that were mixed. And that was really the only thought I had about it. Just wait and see what happens and whether it will interfere with the surgery. 

I know other people (people with more money in banks) would be hurt more than I would. I should care more. Even for people who I've warned and who never listen.

I also know it would end up hurting me more than I might casually assume, even ignoring the surgery. I just can't seem to make myself care much.

And a HUGE thanks to all those who already have.

Thursday, March 16, 2023

Agreement is more enjoyable

In real life and online, when libertarians aren't looking for an argument I notice they pander to conservatives when in their presence by emphasizing the things they'd agree with us on. 

Then they do the same around liberals. 

I actually sort of agree with this tactic. It avoids unnecessary fights.

As long as you don't lie or avoid the truth when a different topic comes up; one where they'd disagree.

I'm happy to agree with conservatives when they take a pro-liberty position on guns, but I don't shy away when they take the anti-liberty position on cops. 

Just like I'm happy to side with liberals when they take the pro-liberty position against Cannabis prohibition and I'll turn right around and stand against them on taxation.

There have been many times when I've had good, spirited agreements with both conservatives and liberals, piling on some stupid thing "the other side" does.

As long as the topic stays one where I can agree I'm not going to bring up the issue where I have to disagree. I enjoy agreement more than disagreement. What they choose to do isn't my concern.

And a HUGE thanks to all those who already have.

Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Always fight the government's lies

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 12, 2023)

Are you concerned or angry that the Chinese government has a social control app on practically every cell phone and it is used by most American teenagers-- and others-- every day? Me too. The clock is tick-tocking and the damage is being done.

If you believed a Chinese spy (or bioweapon) balloon was the bigger threat you haven't been paying attention.

But a government ban isn't the way to address the matter.

Are you upset that government schools-- usually inaccurately called "public schools"-- have become major purveyors of leftist indoctrination along with traditional nationalistic indoctrination? So am I. You're missing the mark if you think government can, or will, fix this problem. Government doesn't see it as a problem but as an opportunity. Or a duty!

If you imagine some governments are on your side while realizing the rest of them are not, you have blind spots.

Government won't save you from propaganda. It has no incentive to do so. You are telling it you are fine with this as long as you keep voting and being a source of money and labor to keep it running.

You are responsible for your own safety and security, including keeping yourself safe from dangerous propaganda. You can try to outsource these responsibilities, but this can never truly work. No one can be as responsible for you as you can. Not even if you pay them to do the job.

You can't even really protect your own children from these things. People who want to damage them with propaganda, and who have the opportunity to do so, are always going to be out there. They may disguise their harm as education, entertainment, or compassion so it's uncomfortable to oppose them. It's important to do so anyway.

The best you can do is to try to give your kids the mental tools to see the brainwashing for what it is; to overcome it if they've been infected-- although this is harder. How they use those tools is entirely up to them. No, I don't like this, either. It's part of the package of being a fully-functional adult human being. Some will get there; some won't. You've got to give them the chance.

Never stop countering the lies they will be told from every direction. Silence in the face of lies is nearly as bad as telling the lies yourself. Don't participate in the brainwashing. The future depends on you.
I couldn't do this without your support.

Leave bad ideas in the past

When I encounter someone who's advocating for a really bad idea, and I object, they often categorize my objection as fighting against the future. Opposing progress.

If you know me-- and those who've been reading my blog for a few years should-- you know I don't mind actual progress. I embrace it and want to see it happen. I am excited for Mars colonies, innovative energy sources, cyborg implants for those who need them to enjoy life due to a body that doesn't work well, and all sorts of other things. I've benefitted from medical advancements, without which I would have died long ago.

I think technology and the future can be great. If you don't fall into the trap of imagining that everything that comes along and gets some people excited is an improvement.

Backward ideas (like anti-gun rules, slavery, one-world governments, "identity politics", etc.) aren't progress. Standing against those sorts of bad ideas isn't expressing a fear of the future. It is a recognition that individual liberty is more important than anything else. 

Bad ideas belong in the past, not in the future. Advocating for them isn't a way to show how enlightened you are-- quite the opposite.

And a HUGE thanks to all those who already have.

Tuesday, March 14, 2023

Which one?

I just got this notice on my blog administration page:

 Of course, Blogger gives me no clue whatsoever about which post they are whining about. Is it the one I just wrote and scheduled to post tomorrow? I don't know.

I looked over the past few weeks and can't find any missing posts (when comparing it to the Wordpress backup blog-- if anything, Wordpress is missing a few things I forgot to mirror over there).

If I ever run across it, I'll find a work-around. Still, it's frustrating and odd and is a failure of Blogger.

UPDATE- The warning is gone now. Maybe it was a glitch or a bug.
UPDATE #2- I found the post they were upset by and reposted it after deleting the original.

Statists don't-- or can't-- plan ahead

I've pretty much accepted the realization that statists simply can't plan ahead. And they won't accept responsibility when their chickens come home to roost.

They are surprised when massive handouts ("stimulus checks") end up causing inflation. And they'll deny there's any connection even though they were warned well ahead of time.

They are surprised that zero reserve "banking" causes bank failures. They've been warned, but they ignored the warnings. Government told them it would be alright.

They've been told that mandating defenselessness will cause more rapes, robberies, and murders, but they don't listen... and pretend that the cause is too much liberty-- something they didn't do. Gotta close those liberty loopholes! For the children! They were told what the result would be. They can't see it when it is put right in front of their eyes and explained to them as if they are a somewhat slow child.

Anyone with any sense understood that "qualified immunity" would cause the Blue Line Gang to become even more criminal than it was before. Statists can't see what's coming and will deny it if they get warned. And then they'll say it's your fault for not worshiping their "heroes".

If you keep meddling with countries abroad, you will bring conflict (and death) to your allies. Everyone who isn't a delusional statist realizes this basic reality. But look how "surprised" the government supremacists pretend to be when their constant meddling causes a war.

Heavy smokers sometimes act surprised by a lung cancer diagnosis and heavy drinkers often seem shocked when they develop cirrhosis. But, more of them seem to realize what they are risking in the future than the statists who are addicted to political government. 

The statists are the ones in denial who simply can't seem to see what consequences they are bringing on themselves. Not even when they are clearly warned long ahead of time. I try to feel sympathy for them, but they wouldn't listen when their disasters could have been averted, so what can I do now?


Saturday, March 11, 2023

More communication failures

There are a couple of people in the family who can’t communicate well. For entirely different reasons.

One thing they have in common is they don’t listen to what others are saying and they try to put in their two cents' worth based on what they imagine the other is saying. Probably based on notions they already have in their head. It's confusing to the person they are trying to talk to and either frustrating or amusing to any observer (depending on your level of detachment).

Sitting there listening to them try to communicate with each other is an even more bizarre experience. 

It’s as though each is in their own world, and they don’t even realize it. They just keep talking past each other, misunderstanding everything the other says, thinking they are talking about the same thing, and the conversation goes further off track the longer they talk. I've tried to step in and get them both on the same page, but often it's pointless. Just let them run their course. They'll end up making plans and neither one knows what the other thinks they've agreed to, and then it's up to others to untangle it later.

It's like trying to have a conversation with a statist.


Friday, March 10, 2023

Some people are Astronomical Holes

People are like Black Holes. The astronomical kind.

What others see is our event horizon, but the thing that is real, which makes us what we are, is invisible to everyone.

I try to keep this in mind when I run up against someone who wants to violate others in some way-- usually with legislation or other types of government violence. I only see their event horizon, not their true self.

The problem is, a Black Hole can still kill you and destroy everything around it without you knowing "why". Without there even having to be a "why". You'll get destroyed by the gravity well no matter what its motivation might be (if it has one).

I don't have to understand why someone hates or fears guns before I stand up to their attempt to do things they have no right to do to try to keep guns out of people's hands. All I have to do is see the effects of their event horizon on the surroundings-- then warn others about what is happening and label things as they really are.


Thursday, March 09, 2023

All cops? Yes, ALL of them.

cops are bad.

That's just because of what they are required to do as a condition of keeping the "job", not because of who they are as a person. It's not collectivism because it is based entirely on what they have chosen to do, not who or what they were born. Like it or not, in this way they are exactly like rapists in that this condemnation is based on actions only.

To change my mind, at least in one individual case, you'd have to show me one cop who has never:

  • enforced prohibition in any way.
  • enforced a gun "law".
  • enforced a seat belt rule or any traffic rule that didn't have an individual victim. No speeding tickets, etc.
  • enforced any rule about showing ID when approached by a cop without clear and reasonable suspicion that an individual has been violated. "Resisting arrest" is coved under this, too.
  • supported any rule being applied to non-cops that isn't applied identically to cops.
  • enforced any rule or policy that didn't have a specific individual victim whose life, liberty, or property was harmed or put under a credible threat of imminent harm.
  • Has stood up loudly and consistently, without backing down, against any other cops who have done any of the above.

This is even ignoring the fact that their salary comes from government. We'll ignore that for this discussion. If you can show me one cop who has never done any of those things, I will admit you have found one good cop. If not, stop whining when reality is pointed out to you.

Of course, then the question arises as to how this singular cop has managed to keep his "job" while refusing to do what he is required to do.

I'm doing this for you.

Wednesday, March 08, 2023

Upcoming surgery. Need funds.

I'm going in for colon surgery on April 4. I had a consultation with the surgeon today, and it's going to be more extensive (and expensive) than I had feared. I present some unique challenges, but it seems like the surgeon has it under control. I hope. At least he exudes confidence. 

But the longer we talked, the more upset I became about the whole situation. It's just one of those things.

I started a GiveSendGo ( Do you think I should start a GoFundMe, too? If you think I should (and if it doesn't violate someone's terms of service to do both) I'll update this post.

Share the link with anyone you think might want to help. Thank you.


Tyranny 'for own good' still tyranny

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 5, 2023)

Almost all of us want the same thing: to live in peace with what we need to survive and enjoy life, free to follow our interests. Problems arise when some of us think we can get there through socialism or legislation.
I believe liberty is the only way to get there.
Thomas Jefferson seemed to have been hinting at the same thing when he wrote: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
That sounds peaceful and civilized.  
He went on to say "I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
It's clear Jefferson wasn't a fan of "law and order". At least, not in the way the word "law" is commonly misused-- using the word "law" when speaking of legislation.
The law is "don't hurt people or take their stuff". Everything else is legislation which goes against the law, and which he categorized as "the tyrant's will". Legislation is always about violating liberty in some way; to prohibit people from living in peace, from having what they need to survive and enjoy life, or from following their interests when a powerful minority decides it should be prohibited.
The result is the same whether the peaceful person is violated by the mob through democracy or by politicians and their hired guns making up and enforcing unethical legislation. The tyrant can be one person or an entire political system-- it's only a matter of what they do, not who they are.
Liberty is important enough that I will stay out of your business so you can live your life unobstructed, even when I don't like what you do. As long as you stay within the limits drawn by the equal rights of others so it isn't necessary to defend anyone from your actions.
It makes me sad to realize this is too hard for most people. It's not asking much, but most can't even respect the rights of others this far. They want what they want, and are willing to enslave and rob you-- for "your own good", of course-- to force it on you. 
Society is run by spoiled toddlers who believe their feelings are the center of the Universe. Only this type of person believes society needs to be "run" at all.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Taxation isn't about funding government

Taxation isn't about funding government so much as it's about defunding you.

Government can counterfeit every cent it "needs" (which is also bad) through the "Federal Reserve" [sic]. It doesn't need to tax you at all. Yet, it chooses to do so anyway. Why?

Part of it may be so it can keep up the charade. Statists want government, so they might be willing to keep paying confiscatory taxes if they believe it's necessary to fund government. Gotta keep that military-industrial complex going and growing!

Mainly though, it seems to be about taking away your money and your options. Keeping you less free than you could be. If you are hurting financially, you are easier to control. The government doesn't need your money, it needs your compliance.


Please support the Tobbles Memorial Project on Patreon

Monday, March 06, 2023

I need magic (updated)

Broken tooth, very sick cats, colon surgery consultation, dentist visit, vet visits. 

My week sucks so far and looks like it's going to continue to suck. I hope yours doesn't.

Added 3-7: I've got about half of the Horrible Things behind me now and I'm not so overwhelmed. The sickest cat is on the road to remission and the other sick cat got over it. The dentist appointment is behind me, too.
I honestly think I may have PTSD with regard to doctor/dentist appointments/ If so, I know the events that caused it.
I can think again.


Saturday, March 04, 2023

Leave if you can

Found at Bryan Hyde's site

Over the years I've been hard on Scott Adams. Especially his bad takes on guns.

As I've pointed out several times, he's usually right about things, and when he's wrong, it's invariably because he has taken the government supremacist position. That's just always going to be automatically wrong, even if it's popular.

His latest mess wasn't due to government supremacism, and not coincidentally, he isn't wrong. 

If you discover that a lot of people among some identifiable group don't like you-- don't even respect your right to exist-- why would you linger in their presence if you are able to leave?

Hating, and canceling, him for saying this is ridiculous. Probably evil.

And, as he pointed out, the advice would be the same no matter who you are or who it is that doesn't like you. Get away if possible. Shunning is always the ethical move.

I've noticed that most of those who have a problem with it didn't hear what he actually said, but are going by what someone incorrectly claimed he said. In other words, fake news. Maybe even a hoax, depending on whether it's intentional.

Found on Twitter

I'm doing this for you.

Friday, March 03, 2023

Offering an alternative to "national divorce"

There's been a lot of recent talk about a "national divorce". In other words, secession.

I am unwaveringly in favor of secession. In every instance, down to the level of the individual. I do not believe a bigger government is ever good for liberty, mainly because smaller governments might be easier to resist in the long run. It's also good to pit governments against each other so that liberty can thrive in the spaces between. 

All political governments must be resisted if liberty is to survive. That's just the way it is.

The anti-secessionists are practically having a meltdown over the idea even being discussed. One part of this faction wants everyone subjected to the tyrannical rules they want to impose. The other seems to be the "We're number 1!" club, vicariously feeling relevant because of the US government's power and influence, and they fear losing that feeling. Both are just run-of-the-mill government supremacist types.

However, I am willing to offer them an alternative to secession-- at least a temporary compromise until they can adjust to the idea of secession (which they will because it is inevitable in the long run).

The alternative to secession— a national divorce— is to roll back the power and influence of the US feral government to the point where it’s no longer tyrannical, nor relevant to the daily life of any resident of America. Make it so weak it is safe for most people to ignore it.

The entire reason a national divorce is necessary is that the feral government has become too overbearing. It has intruded into every facet of life, and reasonable people find this intolerable. There is a solution, but government supremacists will find it unthinkable. Make them think about it.

I'm doing this for you.

Thursday, March 02, 2023

Irrelevant concerns

I don’t care what color someone’s skin is, where they were born, or what language they speak. 

What I do care about is if they embrace a culture of archation. Wherever that culture is based. Those cultures are found all over the world, with a high concentration in inner cities and in every government office. But those aren't the only places they exist.

Such cultures are worse than worthless. And membership in one is what makes the biggest difference in whether someone will make a good neighbor or not.

I'm doing this for you.

Wednesday, March 01, 2023

Carrying weapons a human right

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 29, 2023)

Politicians and their allies who want you unable to defend yourself from violent attackers are at it again.

They are pushing for more anti-gun rules. I don't say "laws" because they can't be laws-- the U.S. Constitution makes all such rules illegal. You can't have an illegal law. Even the Supreme Court has admitted this, although they apparently try to play both sides.

Even those supposedly on the side of liberty fall into the trap of using the enemies' words, sometimes calling standard semi-automatic rifles "assault rifles". They aren't. An assault rifle is capable of firing automatically; it continues to fire bullets with only one pull of the trigger until the trigger is released or the ammunition runs out. An assault rifle is a machine gun-- which, by the way, is something everyone has a natural right to own and to carry, in spite of what politicians claim.

A semi-automatic rifle shoots only one bullet with each trigger pull, no matter how fast or hard you pull the trigger.

At least assault rifles are real, unlike "assault weapons". Those don't exist except in the minds of anti-liberty activists. The term can be traced back to 1988 when anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann wrote that this term should be used because it would confuse people who were clueless about firearms and would increase public support for anti-gun rules. It was a calculated lie from the start.

Well-meaning people argue over which weapons the Second Amendment covers, and by doing so demonstrate they've missed the point. The Second Amendment doesn't "cover" any weapons-- not just firearms, either-- because the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to tell the people what government is not allowed to do. Making up rules about weapons is one of those explicitly prohibited things.

It doesn't make exceptions if you believe something is "too dangerous" or unpopular.

Proposing an anti-gun rule and pretending it is law is a serious crime. It should be treated as such... and would be if more people understood what is going on.

The good news is no matter what rules the political criminals impose, the natural human right to own and to carry whatever types of weapon they choose, everywhere they go, without asking permission from government, will forever remain unchanged. It doesn't hinge on constitutions or politicians' opinions and it never will.
I couldn't do this without your support.

Reject all governmental poisons

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 22, 2023)

Why can't most of the public see how ridiculous it looks to fight over the various forms of government? They argue over whether to be ruled (and to rule each other) with socialism or capitalism, communism or theocracy, by a dictator or by the mob through democracy. It’s like arguing with others over what kind of deadly poison to add to your soup.

The right choice is to rule your own life and not try to rule anyone else; to not add any sort of poison to your soup.

Each of these government options is antisocial because all political government is inherently anti-liberty. Liberty and the state-- political government-- are mutually exclusive. Yes, that includes constitutional republics.

You should still accept that some poisons or forms of government rule are worse than others. Of course they are, but none of them are good and none should be intentionally added to your life. To fight and argue over which one you want instead of kicking them all out of your life is insane.

Consider how many millions of people have been murdered in wars, and how many more will suffer this fate in the future, all because people want to impose their own preferred brand of evil government on people who prefer a different brand of evil government. Think how close civilization has come to nuclear annihilation on the altar of which government is best.

In spite of patriotic noises to the contrary, it's not even a matter of conflicting principles. Just look at the past century of American history if you don't believe me.

The conservative faction is constantly fighting against the policy changes pushed by the progressive faction. The "right" versus the "left".

Yet, when leftist policies, even actual socialism such as Social Security, get entrenched enough that they are part of a historical legacy, conservatives start wanting to "conserve" them as well; to keep them around. As the saying goes, the left wants exciting new evils while the right prefers traditional evils.

In the former Soviet Union, I'm sure it's the conservatives who want the return of Communism. The progressives are probably the ones who are pressing for more democracy, without realizing they are promoting mob rule; might (through superior numbers) makes "right". Pick your poison? I reject them all.

I'll keep pushing for liberty while those who want to add poison to society keep fighting for which type of poison they prefer.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Do what works

As much as I dislike pragmatism, I may have to use it.

No matter how hard I work, or how many hours I put in on my various projects, they never pay off very well. I usually end up losing money. 

(If you're still reading by this point, you're probably unusual.)

Writing this blog comes the closest to "paying off". I'm kind of ashamed of how little it comes to per hour, especially if you include the newspaper column as part of the blog, but at least it continues to bring in something. If money were the only reason I write, it wouldn't be worth it, but it isn't.

On the other hand, asking for donations pays off about a quarter to a third of the time. It has also cost me-- how much, I don't know-- because I've had people leave in disgust because I asked for money.

Perhaps they were like my first wife and were just looking for an excuse to leave and that gave them one. I'll never know.

So, to be pragmatic for a change, I'm asking for donations and subscriptions. Because it has a decent chance of working. 

If you don't want to see me asking in the future, don't donate. Maybe even berate me for asking. If it completely stops working or draws too much hate I'll stop asking.


Is communication impossible?

No one understands anything. Myself included.

I had someone tell me, using words, that words are meaningless. I asked why he used words to try to communicate this idea to me, then. He said he could have used GIFs. I'm skeptical. How could he be sure I would interpret the GIF as he intended? He couldn't.

Then, I had someone disagree with me that "conservative" and "liberal" are both incompatible with liberty. He claimed to be a "classical liberal" who is also an anarchist. I said I can't be a classical liberal since I don't believe in the "night watchman" state. He replied that he doesn't believe in that either, so I asked in what sense is he a "classical liberal" since (my understanding is) that this is the defining characteristic of the group. He said he believes that definition is outdated, but when asked, he couldn't give me his updated definition. He said he'd have to think about it.

You may not agree with me, but I think I can at least explain my position-- using meaningless words, unfortunately. Words which I can also define (using more meaningless words, I suppose).

In another instance I said there are no "good cops" for exactly the same reason there are no "good rapists"-- the actions they choose to take are not actions a good person would take. Someone demanded to know if I was comparing all cops to all rapists. I said, "I’m saying it’s legitimate to judge a group of people by the actions they choose to commit." Of course, the message couldn't get through his conditioning.

The current Scott Adams/Dilbert mess is also based on a breakdown in communication. He used words that people interpreted to mean what they wanted them to mean (and take out of context).

It makes me wonder-- and I know I've expressed this before-- if communication between people is possible beyond a simple "Me Tarzan. You Jane." information exchange. I guess these days, even that breaks down. What a mess.

Maybe it's time to revert to a pre-linguistic state and just grunt and point and whack each other with sticks.

I'm doing this for you.