Are troops pro-liberty?

One thing I’ve never understood is the people who understand and love liberty, hate and distrust government, and yet are fans of the military and “the troops”.

Everything about that seems inconsistent.

Yes, I have known several "anti-government" former military people. But I've known former Blue Line Mafia members who were also anti-government after they stopped being legislation enforcers. Some of them nearly make me look like a copsucker by comparison. Yet, they were on the wrong side all their career and only rejected that side once they were no longer employed by Big Brother. Once the theft-funded paychecks stopped coming.

What evidence is there that "the troops" will side with liberty instead of with government if it comes down to a forced choice? Or, is that not even the issue?

Is there something else that some supposedly pro-liberty people value above liberty? And does the military embody this higher value in their minds?

-

My surgery fund. 

Thank you!

That's not "defense"

There's a GunTuber I enjoy watching (he's way more libertarian than most of the others), "The Yankee Marshal" who called the police "government's first line of defense".

I would say he was slightly wrong on that point.

Police are the government’s first line of offense. The government’s loyal aggressors.

If they were truly defensive I wouldn't despise them. 

Since I have no intention of aggressing against any government employee, cops would never have any reason to interact with me. That's not what they do. Police seek out people who would be perfectly happy ignoring government, and proceed to zealously violate their natural human right to ignore government. 

That's offense, not defense. It is archation.

This is why there are no “good cops”.

-

My surgery fund. 

Thank you!

Donations reminder

Just a little reminder that my surgery fundraiser is still active. It's been a while since it got any attention. Or, PayPal works just as well (and is 4 days faster).

If you haven't yet donated, please consider it. If you have, just share the fundraiser.

Thank you!

Smug in rightness

I don’t like listening to people who are so sure of their rightness that they can't even listen to anyone else. Everyone else is an NPC, is quibbling over definitions, or is just "wrong" because they disagree with the speaker (and "reasons" aren't necessary).

Their smug attitude destroys any credibility they might otherwise have had. 

I try my best to not be one of them.

On anything other than the ZAP I'm willing to listen to alternative ideas. Well, I'm willing to listen to criticisms of the ZAP, too, but they are invariably so weak and flawed it's hard to take them seriously. I do try.

Following the ZAP where it leads… no one has ever been able to give me a realistic, rational justification for political government. For governing others. Every attempt to govern others goes badly wrong, sooner or later.

It’s hard to not feel more right as the years go by.

I always remind myself, with an inner voice running on a loop in my mind, that I might be wrong. I look for ways I might be wrong. I listen when people tell me I'm wrong-- at least I try to let them make a point.

No one has ever gotten close to convincing me that liberty is inferior-- for individuals and for humanity-- to the alternatives. That theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better than liberty.

If that makes me look smug in my self-assured rightness, I suppose I'll have to accept it.

-

My surgery fund. 

Thank you!

The sucking parasites are here

As much as I hate the Giant Mesquite Bugs that swarm my little mesquite bush every summer, at least I know when to expect them and when they'll be gone again. 

They showed up Monday, June 25th during the day. They'll be gone before Summer is past its hottest days, giving the mesquite a chance to recover somewhat before Fall.

I guess politicians, those other sucking parasites, are also predictable, They hang around 24/7, 365.24+ days per year. You can plan around their presence that way.

I wish politicians had the manners to completely die off and leave us unmolested for most of the year, like my enemies the Giant Mesquite Bugs do. That would be a service of sorts.

Of the two, I much prefer the Bugs, even as much as I hate them. To vent my frustration with the Bugs I can-- and have-- bought a can of bug spray and wreaked a holocaust on them. More swarm in to replace the dead by the next morning, but it feels satisfying to do this every few years anyway. 

For some unfathomable reason, it is frowned upon when you do the same to politicians. Go figure...

-

My surgery fund. 

Thank you!

The worst neighbor possible

Government is a really bad neighbor. The worst, really.

It is said that good fences make good neighbors. 

Not so with government. You often are told you must ask its permission to build a fence-- and it will tell you where and what kind of fence you are allowed to build, after you pay for permission. Not only that but government employees will claim to have the “authority” to ignore your fence if they want to come into your property and snoop around. Or rob, kidnap, or molest you.

And snooping is what it does. Government is the ultimate snoopy neighbor. If any other bad neighbor did even one trillionth the snooping government does, you'd rightfully shoot them. 

Government listens to your phone calls, reads your mail, watches everything you do, demands to know all your finances, and everything else about you and what you do. 

Government can't leave you alone. It meddles. It claims to have the "right" to tell you what you are allowed to own.

Government tells you how to landscape your property and how to maintain your landscaping. It tells you where to park your cars on your own property. And it demands a yearly ransom on that property-- one that will never be fully paid since each year brings a new ransom note with new demands.

Seriously, if any mere human neighbor acted like this you'd kill them and be well within your rights to do so. I'd cheer for you.

I have a couple of sort of bad neighbors-- they are no problem at all compared to the best government.

Government believes it is exempt from the consequences of its behavior. Maybe it is. For now.

-

My surgery fund. 

Thank you!

Pull yourself out of political quicksand

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 21, 2023)

The reality of not being trapped in the Republican/Democrat quicksand is that everything you say will upset one side or the other. Sometimes both. The side you upset will automatically assume you align with the other side. This is because they can't see another option. Their range of possibilities has been pruned to nothingness.

It's like believing every movie has to be either a Star Wars movie or a Marvel superhero movie; allowing no other option to be considered. If this were the case, where do you place Casablanca? On second thought, Casablanca is obviously a Star Wars movie, so maybe it's a bad example.

If you allow yourself to be manipulated into only seeing two artificial categories, you'll usually be mistaken. It will be as though you are blind.

This blindness has been manufactured for some purpose. It doesn't help you in any way, so who does it help?

It helps anyone who benefits from keeping the population divided; voting for Team 1 or Team A.

It helps politicians and government. If they can keep you sniping at your neighbors you'll pay less attention to the real enemy who's pushing you toward a police state, stealing your money through taxation, inflation, and central bank digital currencies, and plotting to watch-- and control-- every little thing you do or think about doing.

It helps the national mass media corporations who get better ratings if they can keep you angry. If you keep hoping the politician you love to hate will soon pay because "the walls are closing in" since his crime family empire has been exposed for all to see, you'll keep coming back for more. You'll be more engaged and invested in the success of your team.

Team sports, even when you aren't on the teams in question, can make you feel you're part of something. You might think it's something bigger than yourself, but I see it as something much smaller than you could be if you escaped the smelly political muck. When the teams are both working to see who can enslave you the fastest, cheering for one or the other doesn't seem like the best move. It looks to me like you are working against your best interests and against the interests of your children and grandchildren.

Are you building a world you'd really want them to inherit? Could you do better by dragging yourself out of the political quicksand?

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

A simple illustration of statism

Mosquitoes can illustrate the difference between a statist and the opposite.

We've had an unusual amount of rain recently. This has created a bumper crop of mosquitoes. (They don't like me; I'm a snack of absolute last resort.)

A desperate mosquito landed on my arm and thought about biting me. My first thought was "I need to be eating more garlic", and then I started considering getting some catnip oil.

I was at my parents' house when the topic of mosquitoes came up. They wondered aloud why the town wasn't spraying for mosquitoes yet. (They have been, but I guess my parents hadn't seen them doing so.)

It's the difference between what I can do about it? vs. what can government do about it?

-

My surgery fund. 

Thank you!

A "lesson" from the Titan tragedy

I'm sure you're aware of the Titan tragedy. I saw a video released just after the debris had been found, revealing the fate of the vessel and her crew, where the commenter said this shows the need to “improve regulation with these submersibles…”

Really? That’s what he took away from this tragedy? Not a need to improve their design or construction, but to "improve" the regulations. 

As if regulation would have been the answer. Or as though more regulations are ever an improvement.

Add this to the desire to have government tell rich people how they are allowed to spend their money, which we've all seen expressed a lot over the past few years.

Sigh. Statism…

Doing exciting, worthwhile things isn't often safe. Space tourists are going to die, just like Titanic tourists have now died. And, it's still going to be worth the risk to those who choose to go. 

Statist control-freaks need to stay out of the way. They are free to cower under the bed if that's what they prefer. Others should be free to make other choices,

-

My surgery fund. 

Thank you!

Stolen honor

Ewww! You are not my parent! You’re nothing but violent thieves— disgusting parasites. Don’t you DARE try to pose as a parent figure and pretend you are anything more than the lowlife you are. All of you.

-

My surgery fund. 

Thank you!

My birthday weekend

This past weekend my daughter had a comic-con to attend. As it was my birthday weekend, I would have much preferred to stay home with the cats, but that wasn't to be.

So, while making the best of it in the big city, I drove to various stores (& spent too much money), went to the shooting range to burn some ammo, caused trouble at a gun store, visited the prairie dogs, and sat in a hotel room and read. 

Mostly-- other than the driving in town, which I hate-- it was relaxing.

I had never been to this shooting range alone. Normally I go with my son, but he was in Denver last weekend (so I looked in on his cats). I had fun anyway.

I discovered I shoot a lot more when I'm alone. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing. I only took one gun, so there wasn't any time wasted swapping out guns, I didn't have to wait around for anyone, and the pistol range wasn't busy that morning. I only took a .22lr plinker, so it wasn't painfully expensive to shoot. And I needed the practice anyway.

It ended up being a fairly enjoyable weekend after all.

-

My surgery fund. 

Thank you!

Respecting some rights but not others

Saturday I went to a gun store to replace some .22lr ammo I had used that morning. I chose a store I’ve been to many times. I’ve bought ammo and a firearm there, and my son has bought multiple firearms from them.

Beside their front door is now a sign that says something to the effect of "If you smell like [Cannabis] this isn’t the gun store for you". I almost left without going in, but decided to say something.

I went ahead and bought the ammunition I needed, figuring they'd be more likely to listen to a paying customer, and after I paid I told the guy at the register that it’s not a good idea to pick and choose which rights you’ll respect. He looked confused so I pointed to the sign.

I told him once you start saying some rights aren’t worth defending, where does it stop?

I said I don’t even use marijuana but I respect the right of people to choose for themselves. And that it is a human right to use it.

He said it’s not a good idea to shoot if you’re high. I agreed but said that doesn’t only apply to marijuana, and that's not the point of the sign.

He said, “It’s not legal in Texas”. I shrugged and said there are many things government regulates but has no business regulating. I pointed at the boxes of ammo I had just bought, as an example of things government regulates but has no actual authority over.

I told him it’s just not a good look for a business that relies on respect for rights (rights which are unpopular with some) to pick and choose when it comes to rights that are important to other people. And I left. 

I doubt I’ll spend any more money there unless that sign comes down. I may not be welcome there now, anyway.

-

My surgery fund. 

Thank you!

Misguided blame

"Quarterly profits"? You're barking up the wrong tree, Bunky. These are not the droids you are looking for. 

It's not the fault of those who seek profit, but of those who plunder. Those who counterfeit "money" through the Federal Reserve [sic]. Those who tax.

As long as they can keep you blaming the wrong people, they can keep getting away with it.

-

My surgery fund. 

Or send a gift.
Thank you!

Liberty better than imaginary safety

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 14, 2023)

There is a common weapon of mass murder on our streets; nearly everyone has at least one sitting around. They've probably been used to kill more people in total than any other weapon. They are routinely left in yards, on the streets, and scattered around town; unattended and often unlocked.

One was used to kill my older daughter.

Knowing this, do I believe they should be banned or regulated? No, because I'm not an idiot. 

I'm talking about cars.

The argument to ban guns or more heavily regulate gun owners-- and let's be honest; gun owners are the target, not the guns-- is just as ridiculous. You are being lied to from every angle to make you accept the fake narrative.

Some claim that you can't compare cars and firearms because cars are used for a variety of purposes, but a gun's "only purpose is to kill people". These people couldn't be more wrong if they were doing it on purpose. It tells you more about their inner shortcomings and ignorance than it does about reality.

Cars are used to harm and kill innocent people, but the benefits outweigh the risks, The same is true for guns.

Bad guys use both to hurt and kill. Hopeless people use both to end their own lives-- it probably happens more often than is recognized where cars are concerned. Accidents happen. And normal, everyday people use cars and firearms to save lives, and as a hobby, for sports, and for every other legitimate purpose. To claim firearms are only used to kill is to admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Legislation targeting gun owners is popular. Those who hate us seem almost delighted anytime an evil loser goes on a shooting spree; it makes their pro-slavery opinions seem relevant to the most gullible people in society.

The right to own and to carry the proper tools for self-defense isn't subject to majority opinion. It doesn't come from any document and can't be eliminated by abolishing the Second Amendment. Any politician who makes up a rule violating this right is a criminal. It doesn't matter what excuses are used.

Liberty is more important than imaginary safety, or even life. As some will point out, without life you have no liberty-- but you won't care. Without liberty life is a nightmare. This is why slavery is wrong. This is why I oppose all legislation concerning weapons.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

What did they think would happen?

People don’t consider consequences.

For years, residents of this town have wanted an overpass so we won't be trapped when trains are blocking the railroad crossing-- cutting us off from emergency services and being generally inconvenient. My mother was even interviewed by a news crew doing a report on this several years ago.

The problem is, about half the time when you cross the tracks, you'll have to wait for a train or two. Sometimes you get caught by three trains, and sometimes a train will stop, blocking the crossing for half an hour or more. And if one crossing is blocked, pretty often the other crossing is also blocked. Our trains are long. So, we are trapped. If you need to be somewhere it can be a real problem.

The main bureaucratic roadblock is that the overpass would cross the state line, half being in Texas and half in New Mexico, and neither state has wanted to be bothered with it. An overpass would benefit the Texas residents more since the nearest town with shops, services, and emergency medical facilities is in New Mexico. The Texas side is the side that gets cut off from the world (not that this is necessarily a bad thing in all cases).

Something may have finally changed. They are having a governmental "meeting" in town to discuss such a project. And suddenly, residents are realizing such a project will require the destruction of many businesses and houses.

Did they think an overpass would suddenly materialize out of nothing, and simply replace the current highway's footprint? Did no one actually understand what they were asking for? It sure seems that way to me. 

I have long believed the best solution-- but one the railroad would never agree to-- is to rebuild the railway to incorporate a bridge over the existing highway. Yes, it would be expensive, requiring miles of gradual grade on both sides of the crossing to get the tracks high enough. Yes, it would be necessary to divert trains around the construction for as long as the construction takes. Maybe years. But I think it is the only way it could be done without taking private property.

Or, the residents can just live with things as they stand.

-

My surgery fund. 

A (Big) birthday is coming Sunday-- if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

I don’t need…

…but it would be nice.

To have a bit of money for this weekend. I have things to do that a little extra money would make more pleasant.

Thanks. 

(Update: I spent irresponsibly.)

-

My surgery fund. 

A (Big) birthday is coming Sunday-- if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

Statism is human sacrifice

Enlightened modern people look down upon barbaric primitive cultures, such as the Aztecs and multiple others, for practicing human sacrifice.

Yet human sacrifice is absolutely foundational to statism. 

Statism is built on war and legislation enforcement (which always results in death).
Statism requires that human rights-- liberty-- be treated as optional. Violating liberty kills innocent people.
Even that other pillar of statism-- property violation (taxation, property codes, zoning rules, eminent domain, etc.)-- sacrifices human life to prop up the failed cult of statism. When you violate property rights in any amount you damage the ability of people to stay alive. You're making the case that you value The State over human life.

Maybe the ancients and modern statists are right that human sacrifice is somehow necessary to keep society unified and functioning. If so, that's a strike against society, not a reason to embrace human sacrifice.

Statists have no grounds for feeling superior to Aztec priests ripping the hearts out of thousands of victims when they refuse to disavow statism and all its gory facets.

-

My surgery fund. 

A (Big) birthday is coming Sunday-- if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

It's no value to anyone if you don't use it

I recently spent some Bitcoin. Kind of a birthday gift for myself. 

Part of me really hates to spend Bitcoin, I much prefer to HODL... but another part of me knows that spending it-- making it a useful medium of exchange-- is what will, in the long run, make it more likely to increase in value. Sitting on it doesn't do that.

It's kind of like hoarding ammunition and never "spending" any for shooting practice. It doesn't do you much good.

Back when I first got into Bitcoin, I spent some on silver. Multiple times. Now I look at the amount I spent on silver and realize it's as if I paid thousands of dollars per ounce. Ouch! I try not to think about it that way.

But back then my thinking was that if Bitcoin became worthless at least I'd have some silver to show for it. I suppose that's still true, even though I think the chance of Bitcoin becoming worthless-- short of a Carrington Event-- is tiny.

So I'm doing my small part in making the price of Bitcoin go up over the long term. To keep gaining more acceptance as money. You're welcome.

And I still have my smallish nest-egg of Bitcoin. It would be nice to see it get much larger due to the price of Bitcoin going "to the moon". I also accept donations in Bitcoin, too, in case you have some you no longer want.

-

My surgery fund. 

A (Big) birthday is coming Sunday-- if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

"Laws" are arbitrary, harmful, and stupid

"Laws" aggravate me to death. By "laws" you know I'm talking about legislation-- counterfeit "law".

I stepped in to help someone who was doing something nice yesterday. Yet, I felt I needed to warn them that the nice thing they were doing would need to be done quietly and in secret since it was highly "illegal".

I just don't want anyone to get caught up in some legal mess due to not realizing that "laws" are arbitrary, harmful, and stupid. 

In a way, I felt as though I was perpetuating the stupidity by even warning them, but on the other hand, I don't want to see someone who is doing the right thing get punished for it.

I really hate legislation. All of it.

-

My surgery fund. 

And a (Big) birthday is coming up soon if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

Better not to be led by your fears

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 7, 2023)

It seems everyone falls into one of two categories: those who want everyone rigidly controlled and those who aren't afraid of others-- those to whom this kind of control is unnecessary or even intolerable.

Those who want everyone controlled have their excuses. "Life is dangerous. People aren't responsible. There's uncertainty in every situation." Plus, power over others is profitable.

This kind of control, using threats of government violence to force compliance, is built on a foundation of lies. The biggest lie being that it is for your safety.

Controllers don't want you doing anything without a license. They believe a license proves proficiency, or at least offers a path toward punishment when that fails. This is a nonsense justification. Their excuses hide the fact that those who seek control are afraid and feel unable to deal competently with life and your liberty.

This control has unintended consequences. It often drives the problem-- if there is a problem-- underground. It frequently creates a problem where there wasn't one before. Sometimes it makes a small problem into a much larger problem.

Control freaks hated the fact that some people abuse drugs. So they refused to consider that use isn't necessarily abuse and made up unconstitutional legislation to forbid the possession, sale, or use of the drugs they hated. This made supplying those drugs profitable for criminals, it made more potent drugs inevitable and gave government more power to crush liberty from different angles. It was a gold mine for the newborn police state. It made nothing better, but quite the opposite. This is where the lust to control others will always lead.

Making a small problem into a big problem looks like failure to reasonable people. To those who hunger for control, it probably doesn't. A bigger problem gives them reasons to demand more power. It's a con, but it usually works. The only way it will stop working is for you to stop playing. Stop listening and stop being led by your fears.

Those who want to control others, or want others to be controlled by someone else, should focus on controlling themselves for a change. For most of us, this would keep us plenty busy. Those who refuse to recognize the desire to control others as a personal flaw will never be able to see themselves honestly. You can't fix what you can't see.

Be strong enough to not need to control others.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Fragile nasties

It seems that the worse a person or group is, the more fragile their ego.

I've experienced it many times. 

Someone is rude and insulting, but the second you stand up to them on behalf of those they are being rude to, the bully falls apart and blocks you. They can't handle having their narrative destroyed.

I've seen it in real life, but even more online.

I don't participate on Reddit, but for some reason, I ended up on a highlight mailing list. I'll sometimes look at it to see what's going on if a headline catches my eye. I rarely comment, but when I do it is nearly always because the participants are being rude (most frequently Left-Statist) idiots. I'm not rude in return but I don't coddle them. I get "permanently banned" from the group nearly every time I wade in. They simply can't handle someone calling them out for their nasty idiocy.

I've seen the same, but to a lesser degree, on Twitter.

Nasty people can't handle being told they are being nasty. Their reaction exposes them. And I'm OK with that. 

-

My surgery fund. 

And a (Big) birthday is coming up soon if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

Hate group points fingers

The "Southern" [sic] Poverty-exploiting Law(yer) Center (SPLC), a well-known hate group, has declared that parental rights groups are "anti-government hate groups".

How interesting.

Usually, I'd say "it takes one to know one", but in this case, they don't make any sense.

Government is the embodiment of hatred. It runs on hate, feeds hatred, and creates hate with nearly everything it does. What ethical person wouldn't hate that?

So the hate group (SPLC) says that if your group is against anything the biggest hate group (government) does, you are a hate group. You are guilty of anti-hate. Wouldn't this make you a hate hater? 

That seems odd. Now I'm confused.

Especially considering that many "parental rights" advocates aren't even anti-government. They love Big Brother-- they just want it to do things their way. What a weak and pointless hate group.

-

My surgery fund. 

And a (Big) birthday is coming up soon if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

Newsom proposes a 28th amendment

By now you've probably heard of California governizer Gruesome Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution. "While leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition" he plots to violate the 2nd Amendment like never before. He wants to leave the words unchanged while completely taking away the limits it places on government.

He's right-- it doesn't change the Second Amendment, it just violates it into irrelevance.

This is like saying I’ll leave your body unchanged and respect your human rights while I hack off your arms and legs with a cleaver. My words wouldn't match my actions-- I would be lying. Judge me by what I do, not what I say. Do the same with him.

Just because a powerful political criminal asserts that he isn't breaking the law and is respecting you doesn't make it true. He's lying. (What a shock.)

And, yet again, I remind you that the right to own and to carry weapons (not just firearms) doesn't come from the 2nd Amendment or any document and doesn't hinge on government's cooperation. It is a fundamental human right that predates the first government and will outlast the final one. 

People in London England, Mbeya Tanzania, Abilene Texas, Sydney Australia, and any other place on the planet you can (or can't) think of have the exact same right-- it's just that the local political criminals routinely violate it and have brainwashed most of their victims into accepting the violation. It is a basic human right inherent in every human alive, on or off the planet. No rules can change this fact.

Be warned: governments will murder you for exercising this right, so be as sneaky and cautious as you have to be, depending on the specific depravity of the nearest political criminals.

The only unique thing the Second Amendment does (and it doesn't do it very well) is make it a crime-- a serious crime-- for any government employee in America to impose or enforce any rule restricting weapons in any way. It's just that it's "illegal" to hold them accountable in any meaningful way.

It is good that Gruesome Newsom has finally admitted that the anti-gun rules he wants to impose are illegal under the 2nd Amendment, and he’d need a whole new amendment to get them. This admission needs to be used against him and his agenda.

It's up to you to live in liberty in spite of the tyrannical rules imposed around you. Everyone now and into the future is counting on you. Outlast the tyrants. We CAN do it!

-

My surgery fund. 

And a (Big) birthday is coming up soon if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

Isn't this supposed to be an arid region?

I often comment about how dry this region is. Recently, it hasn't been. 

I measured over 7" of rain (and hail) in May, and June is on track to be nearly as wet. That's probably close to half of what we get in a normal year, in only one month.

That's good, but it does have its drawbacks. I've spent the past two days laboring intensely to tame the jungle that is my yard. Amazing what a bit of rain will do to long-dormant seeds. 

If I didn't live in town I wouldn't bother with hacking down the greenery. I'm not a lawn person. I'm perfectly content to let the growth become overgrowth. I prefer wildness anyway. Neighbors and town cops, though, have other opinions.

Wrong opinions, but opinions nonetheless.

So I have exhausted myself to avoid trouble. And it won't last.

I feel like I've been beaten up and cooked in a steamer. We don't normally have humidity, but this isn't a normal year. Anyway, I'm too tired and sore to have anything interesting to say.

-

My surgery fund. 

And a (Big) birthday is coming up soon if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

"Documented"

There's an old joke: "I like my immigrants the way I like my guns: undocumented."

“Undocumented”. That should be the natural order of things.

Its opposite, "documented", is an Orwellian term when applied to human beings. 

Who documents people? Government. I don’t want anyone “documented” by government. No, not even them.

I don't mind if a contract is documented (recorded) by someone who isn't acting governmental-- if they are behaving governmentally you can bet something in the contract will be used against you eventually. 

I don't care if property is voluntarily documented by someone such as an insurance company, as long as those records are kept out of the wrong hands. Government is always the wrong hands.

Government has no business documenting who owns which guns, for example, but as long as an insurance company isn't in bed with government, I wouldn't mind them having a record of what I own in order to insure it. Under today's circumstances where just about every company rolls over for the state at the first hint of a request? I don't think letting anyone know what you own is usually a good idea.

But people? Don't document people. Not ever. This sort of thing never turns out well in the end, so just don't allow government to get away with it. At least not when it's in your power to prevent it or monkeywrench it. It's a "Jews in the attic" situation.

-

My surgery fund.
Thank you!

Who is better off and who isn't?

Often, when Scott Adams discusses guns and his "support" [sic] of the Second Amendment, he'll comment that pro-gun people need to realize that "Some people are better off with guns and some are better off without them". This is why he seems to think it's OK to "compromise" away the right if enough people decide they are better off without guns.

As if this makes any difference to human rights!

You could argue, using this same logic, that some people are better off with (other forms of) slavery and others are better off without it. 

I'm sure anyone who feels they can't thrive without slaves doing their labor for them would say they are better off with slavery and anyone who has been enslaved would point out they are better off without it.

Where human rights are concerned it makes no difference if some people are "better off" if they are allowed to violate your fundamental human rights. Even if it means they die.

-

My surgery fund.
Thank you!

Hey Disney, I thought of it first

I've always been imaginative. When I was just out of high school (in the very early 80s) I came up with an idea: Offer "space cruises" for vacationers. Without needing a functional spacegoing cruise ship.

In my "Top Secret Notebook of Vital & Important Stuff" (Yes, really) I have several pages dedicated to writing and drawing up the ideas I had for this business.

Recently I've seen ads for a new Disney experience, the Galactic Starcruiser (which is soon closing, so maybe it didn't work out for them). The first time I saw that advertised it was like deja vu. Like someone had sneaked in and stolen my plans. Great minds think alike.

It's just the latest in a never-ending parade of ideas I've had (and drawn up plans for, which are in the binder) that someone else eventually put into action. I dreamed up "texting" and devices for doing so-- which worked very much like cell phones did before smartphones-- in junior high, for example.

I was (and am) good at coming up with ideas, but I have neither the technical knowledge nor the money to bring any of them to life. Back then, I used to try to get others onboard with my ideas, but that didn't work well, either.

But I suppose if any of those ideas had worked out for me I wouldn't be writing this now.

...Anyway, for your entertainment pleasure (excuse the outdated technology), here's part of the first two pages on my Starcruiser idea from the "TSNotebookOV&IS":

-

My surgery fund.
Thank you!

'Code enforcement' violation of rights

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 30, 2023)

You can tell how seriously someone takes property rights by whether they support "code enforcement".

"Code enforcement" is a euphemism for government violating residents' property rights. It's an inexcusable justification for government to steal property or to violate other rights,. Government has no rights and can never be a victim, so government isn't owed anything for a violation. A "fine" is nothing but legalized theft used to punish. Yes, it's a common practice but "common" can't make it right. This sort of behavior has no place in a free country.

Making up property codes, and enforcing them, is one of the most unneighborly things you can do to others. It's as bad as vandalism, theft, or squatting in their home and eating their food.

I care about people taking care of their property, but I care about their property rights and their liberty even more. If you won't respect property rights you can't claim to have a functional society.

If someone's property is a credible threat to another individual's life, liberty, or property, it is up to the one who is being harmed to seek a solution. Getting government involved is never the right way to do it.

To send government against someone for using their private property as they see fit, against your wishes, is a communistic way to behave. It places government opinions above individual rights.

Respecting property rights means you must accept that people have a right to use their property in ways you may not like. It's their property, not yours. Your property rights end at your property line. Their property doesn't belong to society collectively and it most certainly doesn't belong to government. This means none of these entities have a right to tell the owners how they are allowed to use their property. Not unless property ownership is a lie.

Although, since you are forced to pay a yearly ransom to government in the form of "property taxes" to prevent armed government employees from stealing your property, this does seem to be the case. This must change.

Generally, a renewed emphasis on code enforcement only means some politician or legislation enforcer wants to make a name for themselves. It usually passes when the root cause-- which isn't the excuse used-- has worn out and the program has served its real purpose. Unfortunately, by then it has harmed many property owners. Some beyond recovery.

Liberty is messy, but every alternative is worse.

(Also, read what else I've said about code enforcement here and here.)

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Toxic toxins?

I’ve never seen a real example of “toxic masculinity”. 

I’ve seen bullies who might have believed they were behaving in a masculine way. But they were just being bullies. I've seen guys who were jerks, too.

I’ve seen men doing manly, responsible things that weak, whiny people took issue with.

I don’t believe “toxic masculinity” is a real thing. If it's toxic, it's not masculinity.

Then there are things which are nothing but toxic. Like statism.

"Toxic statism" is redundant. All statism is toxic by nature. It’s all archation and it can’t exist without toxicity at its core. It’s toxic toxicity. Since that makes no sense, it's better to just call it statism and recognize that statism is always going to be toxic. It can't be otherwise.

-

My surgery fund.
Thank you!

Are gov employees really this clueless?

"You don't pay me."

That was a local government employee's response to my next-door neighbor when she went to city hall to complain that our trash didn't get picked up and the dumpster was overflowing...again.

She set him straight right away, with some choice words. I wonder if she actually got through to him, or if he's really as clueless as he seems.

He probably sees no connection between his paycheck and the money stolen from residents through "taxation". Money which goes to pay him to-- apparently-- not do his job.

Now, he's not personally responsible for picking up the trash, but he is in charge of "public works" [sic], which is responsible for ensuring the trash company picks up the trash like they are paid to do. It is literally part of his "job".

She asked if she was the only person to have told him their trash didn't get picked up and he admitted she wasn't. He even showed her a picture of an overflowing dumpster that had been sent to him by a resident and said "This isn't that full-- it could be pressed down". We had been pressing our trash down.

When he said "What do you want me to do about it?" she suggested he call and let the trash company know they didn't finish their route. He said that if he had known a day or two before that they didn't pick up the trash he could have called them, but it was too late now. Besides, they would be there to pick up trash "tomorrow".

He just kept shrugging at her and smirking, and that was probably a mistake. I think she's now on a mission to see him replaced.

About 15 minutes after her visit, the trash truck came and emptied our dumpster.  It turns out there was a substitute driver who decided to not finish the route and didn't tell his boss. The company owner came to personally empty our dumpster. I appreciate that. It's the worthless middle-man of government I could do without.

-

My surgery fund.
Thank you!

Stop the pendulum

I like pendulum clocks, but there's one pendulum I can't stand-- one I have disliked since I was young: the social pendulum. 

Things swing too far in one direction then they reach a limit and swing too far in the other direction.

Like clockwork.

Why can't the pendulum come to rest? Because it keeps getting energy from somewhere. Not from a spring or from weights, but from someone pushing it. Sometimes for good reason-- at first.

The "middle ground" isn't necessarily where some would like for you to believe it is. The middle is equal and identical rights for everyone. Fewer or "extra" rights for none. No "rights" for government or any other collective.

The middle resting position is liberty.

No one seems content with this condition.

People who hate/fear guns might at least consider the rules of the mid-20th Century to be the basic starting point for imposing more rules. The number of anti-gun rules in the 1950s was still too many. The pendulum at rest would be no political rules concerning weapons whatsoever. Not anti- and not pro-. Just none. Liberty.

But people who want to rule you see any reduction in the rules they like as "too far". And those gun owners who want to use politics want rules favorable to them. Liberty suffers.

I want no rules other than the natural rules of responsibility.

Some people don't want any person they don't like to have equal and identical rights to their own. So they'll try to stand in the way of letting the pendulum move toward equal and identical rights, But because of social inertia (which is usually destructive), it won't stop in the middle. It swings too far, where the individuals demand "extra" rights. 

Those who weren't happy with respecting the rights of others to begin with will eventually manage to put a stop to the pendulum and it will get shoved back and swing too far in the other direction again. If no one would try to push things too far, maybe the pendulum could take a break. Maybe it could come to rest at Liberty.

Instead, the pendulum keeps swinging between extremes, destroying liberty bit by bit with each pass beyond the middle. And people keep pushing it to give it the energy to keep going. 

-

My surgery fund.
Thank you!