Helping, hurting, or ?

It's a question everyone needs to stop and ask themselves occasionally: Am I helping or hurting, or am I completely irrelevant?

I've been told I'm all three. Sometimes on the same day.

Some people have told me of the positive difference I've made. That's always welcome and appreciated.

I'm not going to compromise or equivocate. Some people have told me this hurts the cause of liberty because it's "extreme". This doesn't feel as good as the positive affirmations, but it's still appreciated. Feedback is useful.

Then, others have told me it doesn't matter what I say or do because no one's listening to hear it. I know that's not true since I can see how many hits this blog gets in a day. Obviously, simply seeing the post doesn't mean anyone is getting the message, or that they agree. But it's something. I may still be irrelevant in the grand scheme, but I'm doing what I can do to the best of my ability, for as long as I feel like doing it.

I'm still flyin'.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

Anti-education from schools

Mark Twain once said, “If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed.”

I updated that to: If you don't watch "the news" you might be uninformed. If you do watch "the news" you will be misinformed.

It's time for an expansion covering what goes on in "public" schools. If you don’t attend school you might be uneducated. If you do, you will be miseducated. You will be indoctrinated into believing falsehoods.

The historically Pignorant "teacher" in Colorado who kept insisting the Gadsden flag was supportive of slavery is just one example. What other lies is she repeating to the inmates under her thumb? How are her lies helping these kids? Would they really be worse off doing anything other than sitting in that school?

Update-- I've seen reports the school has backed down. But what other crap are they shoveling into those kids' heads that hasn't been exposed?

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

You can't make other people be responsible

People are irresponsible. If you're one of my regular readers, I'm assuming this observation doesn't apply to you.

I was watching a gun video where the guy was talking about a place he has used for shooting over the years; where other shooters left so much shot-up trash around that the state has closed the area for a couple of months as a warning. And they might make the closure permanent because people aren't responsible. 

The people who are the problem aren't going to change or learn. They never do.

If you go to a place to shoot, it's up to you to pick up your own trash. Not only that, it's up to you to pick up other people's trash because they won't do it. Sure, you could say that's not your responsibility. I don't care. You need to do it anyway. Or plan on losing your favorite shooting spot.

Personally, I dislike shooting ranges. But ever since my mom's cousin sold his farm, that's my only option until I hit it rich and can buy my own land.

Near my home in Colorado, there were huge expanses of BLM land. There were two specific places where I would go to shoot. And so would lots of other people. I always picked up my own stuff before I left. Of course, other people didn't do the same. So when I finished shooting I would spend time picking up their junk, too. Sometimes a lot of time. I knew if the area wasn't taken care of, the feds would use that as an excuse to ban the activity. It wouldn't have been my fault, but I would have suffered. 

As much as I hate The State, I know that wouldn't have really been government's fault, but that of the irresponsible shooters. One type of irresponsible person or archator isn't really worse than any other. They all ruin the world for the rest of us.

No, I didn't get all the junk and trash cleaned up. That would have been impossible for one person in one day. But I always left the place better than I found it. That's always my intention, no matter the topic. Always leave things better than they were when you arrived. It's a big part of the motivation behind my writing. Spreading an understanding of liberty improves the world.

As I've mentioned before, I was an (actual) environmentalist long before I understood liberty. Understanding liberty didn't make me care less about taking care of the world. It made me care more. If I don't, who will? It's not the state's responsibility. I don't want to be taxed to fund the cleanup. It's my responsibility whether I want to face it or not. So I do.

Government doesn't really care about the environment-- it's just an excuse to control what you can do and where you can go. I've seen what passes for statist "environmental protection", and it is worse than worthless. You and I can do better, but we have to make the effort.

Face the fact that other people aren't responsible. They can't be turned responsible by punishing them. Be responsible enough that their irresponsibility doesn't hurt you more. It's more work, but responsibility is the hard half of liberty.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

"Rich men" aren't the problem

That song that's going around has some good points. 

I watched one "reaction video" where the guy watching said he doesn't know what's going on over there around Richmond, but it must be bad.

Sigh.

That's as misguided as thinking "rich men" are the problem, rather than understanding that the problem is that the rich men (which includes women) he's criticizing got rich by doing things no one has a right to do. 

He points out "they all just wanna have total control, wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do...". This lust to control-- which leads to ill-gotten riches through the political means rather than honest riches attained through economic means-- is obviously the problem.

The problem isn't that someone is rich; it is when they got rich by governing and other forms of wrongdoing.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

Liberty always the civilized choice

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 23, 2023)

If you don't understand, love, or want liberty-- fine. If you'd prefer having powerful governments take most of your money, tell you what you are allowed to do, and watch your every move, go for it. It's not my place to deprive you of what you want.

I draw the line when you don't return the consideration. When you say I am required to live under your conditions when I don't place the same constraints on you. When you are willing to throw people in a cage for preferring liberty over authoritarian government and acting on their preference.

I wouldn't do the same to you because it would violate my principles.

This is why liberty will always be the civilized choice.

I envision a world where you are free to form silly little clubs whose members take turns governing each other to their hearts’ content. Where all your arbitrary rules apply only to those who explicitly join your club and agree to play by whatever rules are dreamed up. Arguing over how much each member must pay to fund this year's club leadership's pet projects. Where you can fight other clubs without involving anyone else.

A world where no one would be in danger for ignoring your clubs and the quirks of the club members.

I wouldn’t join, but I’d leave you alone to play your club’s games by your club’s rules. I would expect your club to stay out of my life completely.

If your club makes you feel like someone is taking care of you and keeping you safe, I understand. If your club leaders want to steal operating funds from the members and call this "taxation", fine. Just leave those of us who don't swallow the lies-- about the legitimacy of government through the "consent of the governed"-- out of it.

If your excuse for pretending your club should control my life involves a social contract, I would point out that a social contract can't impose an anti-social institution on those who haven't seen, read, or signed it. If it were a true social contract it would read "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff", not something anti-social like: "You will let me hurt people and take their stuff if enough others agree and no one stops me".

You are free to establish your club, but not to impose it on everyone who lives where you think your club should rule.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Calling human rights "Constitutional rights"

I am uncomfortable with calling any natural human rights "Constitutional rights". You may have noticed I don't use that phrase anymore (if I ever did).

I don't like it when people talk about "our Second Amendment rights", for example. 

For one thing, I don't like "our" being used in that collectivist way, and for another, the rights placed off-limits to government attention (oversight or scrutiny) don't hinge on the Second Amendment. 

That ignored amendment makes all government gun rules a crime. It doesn't "give" anyone any rights to do anything.

If the totalitarians of the state decide ignoring the Second Amendment (which they've gotten away with doing for around 90 years) isn't good enough, they can simply abolish it. 

But the natural human rights it addresses will exist unchanged. Forever. They'd rather you not realize this fact-- if they are aware of it.

Referring to the rights to own and to carry weapons and to form militias that are armed with weapons equal to or better than those wielded by government's military, as "Second Amendment rights" cheapens those rights; makes it easier for the anti-gun bigots to attack them through government violence.

But the rights to own and to carry weapons and to form militias aren't the only rights abused this way. Any natural human right called a "Constitutional right" or referred to by an amendment number is the same. If it's a right nothing can change that. Not government opinions, not mob rule, and not time. If it isn't a right, calling it one can't turn it into one.

Thinking rights come from or depend on documents or government opinions means you don't understand rights.
Until you understand and respect rights, you can't understand liberty.
If you don't understand liberty you'll probably never have it.
This isn't an academic exercise.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

Scrape it off and burn it with fire!

Some topics just make me feel dirty. And sick. Politics is one.

Yesterday's post for example.

I didn't think it was that political when I wrote it, but after re-reading it, I noticed it makes me feel a little queasy. Anything to do with government or v*ting has that effect-- even though I wasn't suggesting anyone v*te (or don't v*te) for anyone. I was just mentioning something that came to mind, something to do with a politician. Something which could save that politician's life if she read it and listened to me.

So, just realize when I mention a rule (a "law"), a politician, a bureaucracy, or anything political, I am doing it in spite of my own well-being and self-interest, to help someone else.

If it helps you in any way, you're welcome. If not, the wounds will probably heal and the scars won't be too bad.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

Kamala Harris is in peril

If I were Kamala Harris, I would be in fear for my life.

The Democratic Party (including the FBI, CIA, and the corporate media) needs to get rid of Biden before parts start falling off. But they've got a problem, and her initials are KH.

They can't allow Kamala to take over the "job". 

They can't admit she was a DEI hire and is incompetent. 

They need someone else in her "job" before they can let go of Biden.

They also need an event to pin on gun owners (and a gun design they want to demonize) so they can scream for more anti-gun rules. 

It's a perfect storm on the horizon.

If I were her in that situation, I would resign before they could "retire" me.

If you think I'm joking you'd be wrong.

But, maybe I am wrong, and "no one would ever do such a thing for political reasons, you crazy conspiracy nut!".

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 
Thank you.

I HATE lying anti-liberty bigots!

This is a re-post from October 28, 2012. I'm not only reposting this because I'm lazy (I am), but because it's still relevant.

____________

I get drawn into these "discussions" with lying anti-liberty, gun-hating bigots.  I know I shouldn't try to reason with them, but I do.  I am tired of pretending that their ideas have any validity, and tired of pretending that they are anything other than mass-murder enablers.  I try to be civil, but they are so incredibly dishonest and ignorant that it is really difficult.

Anyway, here is a recent exchange from Opposing Views/Facebook:

_____________

  "You have a curious concept of the word compromise."

 No, that's the anti-liberty bigots' concept of compromise. My idea of compromise is "I give up something and you give up something". The gun haters have never given up anything at all, but have only demanded "just one more little 'reasonable' law" each time they got gun owners to "compromise". Screw that.

"... the 20K number was completely invented and has no connection to reality"

You're probably right- it is undoubtedly much higher now. And although any single individual might not be subject to all of those "laws"- and many of them are the same "law" imposed on different places- each of those "laws" gets a veil of legitimacy from the existence of all the others, and they ALL hurt everyone. I don't want a person in NYC to be victimized by an anti-gun "law" any more than I want to live under one. Because I value EVERYONE's liberty. Even one anti-gun "law" is too many. The exact number doesn't matter.

"...how about you suggest a few gun laws that you think should be eliminated..."

I want ALL anti-gun "laws" eliminated. "Compromise" is your Trojan Horse. In any compromise between poison and food, or between liberty and oppression, only the poison and oppression win.

"Let's start by closing the gun show loophole."

There is no such thing. Gun sales at gun shows are subject to the *exact same* counterfeit anti-gun "laws" that gun sales anywhere else are subject to. Stop lying.

"I hope we can all agree that felons with a history of violence shouldn't be allowed to buy guns."

No, I don't agree to that at all. Because there is no way to stop violent felons from buying guns, no matter what "the law" is. And if they can't buy them they will steal or build them. Plus if someone can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted, period. Once someone has been released from prison they should not have their rights continuing to be violated. Many "felons" did not even commit acts of violence in the first place. Plus there are plenty of false convictions. Nope. I'll gladly take my chances with other people's liberty, rather than give a criminal gang the "authority" to decide who may or may not exercise a fundamental human right.

"So, why would we allow people to bypass the background checks needed to check if someone is a violent felon?"

"We" don't. Not from gun dealers. What you want to do- the reality of the false "gun show loophole" lie- is to ban ALL private gun sales unless they are government approved. Stop lying.

"Next how about a mental health background check."

Ever thought about who is permitted to decide what constitutes a "mental illness"? I have, and I don't trust them to not use political measures, just like the Soviet Union did. It has already been proposed that the desire to own a gun constitutes a "mental illness". Convenient, huh.

"If this was required 'Batman' shooter would have been unable to buy all of those guns."

Only through gun stores. And wait, wasn't it illegal for him to *shoot* people? Why would he be willing to break that BIG law, but be stopped by some minor "law" that is supposedly about stopping him from buying or possessing a gun? And even if he was somehow magically prevented from possessing a gun, would a crazy person be unable to build explosives? Or grab a machete and start hacking? Why is being murdered by a gunshot supposedly worse than being murdered in some other way? He was a killer with a captive victim pool which was disarmed by "law" and which had limited ability to escape.

"I hope we can agree that he was clearly not mentally stable enough to buy a gun and had a clear history of mental health problems that would have shown up on a check."

Just because he was not mentally stable the day he committed the murders doesn't mean he wasn't mentally stable months before. Things change; people snap.

"There, 2 reasonable gun laws."

Not "reasonable" at all. Try again.

"Of course we can show that places with more permissive gun laws have more gun related deaths so that would indicate that they do prevent tragedies..."

Except that it doesn't work that way. Places with stricter anti-gun "laws" have higher rates of murder and violence. Even with guns. You know this as well as I do. Stop lying.

"How about you tell me some times that gun owners (not the police) have prevented a tragedy with their guns."

I could give you several examples, a couple that I have personal knowledge of. Without a shot being fired, by the way. I could also direct you to websites that collect stories of armed people stopping attacks. It happens more than you know because most of these incidents never get reported to the police. But a lot still do get reported. If you were serious about wanting to know about those you could find them easily. There are lots of them.

"Can you give me any examples of mass shootings that were stopped by a private citizen with a gun?"

Yes. Pearl High School, Pearl Mississippi. October 1, 1997. But, like all stopped mass shootings, it was stopped before it became too "massive". And there are many more. Look at all the cases where an armed assailant with lots of ammo and multiple guns is stopped before the body count gets anywhere near where it could potentially go. It never becomes a "mass shooting" precisely because someone with a gun stops it. Therefore the news coverage is muted. But if you want to know, you can find out about them.

"You mention that the second amendment says that the right to bear arms 'shall not be infringed' but you and I both know that's not true."

Read it again if you believe that isn't true.

"We both agree that violent gang members should not be allowed to own guns right?"

I don't agree to that at all. Let them be armed, and let their neighbors be armed, too. They'll either calm down or die. We outnumber the violent bad guys overwhelmingly, and had government not been so successful at convincing people that armed self-defense is somehow "unseemly", and criminalizing it, there wouldn't be a gang problem.

"That's infringement."

Yes, and it's illegal.

"We both agree, I assume, that people should not be allowed to own fully automatic military grade machine guns right?"

No, I don't agree. People CAN own fully automatic military-grade machine guns now; they just have to pay an illegal "tax" and go through an illegal "approval process". The Second Amendment makes it clear that this regulation is illegal. What difference does it make how fast a gun shoots? The bullets still come out of the barrel one at a time. And it's expensive to shoot an automatic. Your petty thug isn't going to use one, and if he does he'll run out of ammo really quick.

"I hope we can both agree that people should not be allowed to own surface to air missiles or RPG's."

Why not? And why bother? How many people would risk abusing them, knowing that those they target would also have access to the same things? The State owns them, and misuses them. "The People" should always be in possession of superior arms over and above what The State possesses. That is why the Second Amendment was written.

"That's infringement of your right to bear arms. In other words, we all agree that the right to bear arms has to be infringed."

No, actually we don't. Yet, even if we did, it would still be illegal to do so.

"It's just a question of where the line is drawn. So, maybe we should have a 'national conversation' to discuss where to draw that line."

Sure. That's very easy. The "line" is drawn at misuse, not possession. Possession of ANYTHING can't be a legitimate "crime". Yes, that includes "drugs", too.

And, I'll fill you in on another inconvenient detail. The right to own and to carry any kind of weapon we desire, everywhere we go, openly or concealed, without ever asking permission from anyone predates the Second Amendment. You could repeal it and the right would still exist just as it has since the first human evolved. It exists in Texas, New York City, Tehran, Beijing, Sydney, Tokyo, BFE, and Washington DC whether the local "authorities" respect the right or not. A right can be respected of violated- there is no other option. I choose to respect everyone else's rights because I only deserve the liberty I respect in others. And because I am not a pathetic, whimpering coward begging Big Brother to save me from all the scary people and their tools.

*** Next comment***

"See, I assumed you were a rational human being with a grip on reality."

Funny how your kind sees "rationality" to mean that I'll give up my liberty to the most murderous gang on the planet. No thanks.

"...but since you were unable to give evidence..."

I did give evidence, but people like you are not worth my time. I am not writing these responses to you, but only to show others how dishonest and evil the anti-liberty bigots truly are. I could give case after case, all day long, and you'd deny it ever happened.

"I could again ask you to give one shred of evidence to the widely spread claim of 20K gun laws in this country but you couldn't before and you can't now because it's a blatant lie."

As I said, the exact number is irrelevant. Even one anti-gun "law" is one too many. You Mass Murderer Fan Club folks would rather see a woman raped in an alley than see her standing over the body of her attacker, a smoking gun in her hand. And if you deny it you are lying again. Each and every one of your "reasonable gun laws" will lead to this inevitable result.

"I could point out that your idea of compromise, that I give up everything and you give up nothing, is the exact opposite of what the word compromise means."

And as I have pointed out, this isn't my idea of compromise, it is the anti-liberty bigots' idea. This is what they have been demanding of gun owners since the first of their kind got the notion to pass the very first anti-gun "law". First it was just that they'd only ban machine guns. Few refused to comply. Then it was any gun that wasn't suited for war. Then it was any gun that could be used in war. Then it was guns by mail, and guns without getting government permission, and then it was sport utility guns- oh, I'm sorry, that would be "assault weapons" to you. Then it was background checks and waiting periods. And cheap revolvers. And normal capacity magazines. And the list goes on and on and on. Each time your kind has said if we just compromise this time... and each time the anti-liberty bigots lied. The goalposts keep being moved away from liberty and closer to a total gun ban. Enough! Not one more inch!

"I could even re-post the link that shows that gun deaths are considerably more common in places with more lax gun laws but you clearly ignored it the first time so why bother this time?"

A lie from a well-known anti-liberty organization is still a lie no matter how many times you post it. And the results have been the same for hundreds of years- places where the people are armed are safer than places where only the government is armed.

"...anybody who thinks that any individual, whether they be a criminal, a terrorist or mentally insane, should be able to walk into a store and, with no background check whatsoever walk out with surface to air missiles is a f***ing moron who is so disconnected from reality that clearly having a rational discussion about gun rights in this country will be impossible."

The rational discussion is: Not one more inch. You try to take our guns and we will defend ourselves to the death. Are you ready? How many guns will you personally try to steal? Or will you only send thugs with guns to steal the guns? Bring it on, Liberty Haters.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 
Thank you.

My favorite kind of DEI

I mean Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated; the original DEI.

Both kinds of DEI are supposedly evil, but Doofenshmirtz fails to be truly evil. At least he isn't associated with any governmental goons. Quite unlike corporate "DEI" pushers. And I think he could be reasoned out of his mission. If his opposition had any good arguments on their side-- and presented them.

His archnemesis, Perry the Platypus, is the real villain. He works directly for the Military Industrial Complex.

The world would be a better place if corporate/governmental DEI were replaced with Doofenshmirtz Evil Inc. Replacing the real harm of "DEI" with fake "evil" would be an improvement. The less of the dishonest kind of "equity", the better. The less "diversity" and "inclusion" for the sake of diversity and inclusion, when it makes no actual sense at all, the better. 

I'd take Doofenshmirtz over any bureaucrat or politician any day. After all, if he can be thwarted by a platypus, I'm not going to worry much about his "evil" schemes.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 
Thank you.

Our lying minds

Our brains, and more specifically our minds, are always lying to us. 

Our eyes are parts of our brains that stick out of the front of our heads, exposed to the light, giving input to our minds. Our eyes deceive us pretty often, so the input going from them into our minds isn't always trustworthy.

Our ears are tunnels through our skull to our brain; funneling air vibrations right into our brain for our mind to interpret and use. But how often have your ears played tricks on you? Or, is your mind only making you believe your ears are at fault?

Then our brains, probably through a process of spontaneous order, give rise to our minds which create our perceived reality. With all the possible issues along that pathway, how can we be sure we are on track?

The only way we can catch our minds in a lie is by using our minds. Including the sketchy input from our eyes and ears and our mind's questionable reason and rationality.

This doesn't seem like an optimal situation.

Generally, though, we somehow make it work. We cobble together a picture of reality that's good enough to keep us alive for a while.

I think it's better to respect other people's liberty. And this works really well for me.

Someone else obviously thinks it's better to stomp on others to get what they want, and I'd be lying if I said this never works out for them. They usually end up ahead of people like me.

I believe their mind is lying to them more than mine is lying to me-- in this example, anyway. Even if I'm wrong, my logic and ethics make it impossible for me to live as they do. I can see the consequences that would result if everyone acted like them and I don't see it as a good world to live in. 

Whereas, if everyone lived as I think is better, I don't see any real unsolvable problem arising. At least, that's what my mind tells me. Is this a lie my mind is telling?

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 
Thank you.

Running others' lives wrong choice

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 16, 2023)

You've probably been told you should try to make a difference in the world. This is stated, especially to the young, as if it were undeniably true. Who pauses to clarify that it's vital to make the right difference?

Before you try to make a difference you need to think about whether the difference you want to make would be helpful.

Every mass-murdering head of state has unquestionably made a difference. Millions dead, and millions more enslaved to an authoritarian government isn't a difference I endorse.

Few people get into politics intending to make things worse. The problem is, politics makes people worse.

Getting into politics changes good people into bad people. I would never encourage anyone I respected or liked to run for office. A person's ethical core is destroyed by governing others. You won't clean up sewage by pouring a bucket of clean water into it.

Author J.R.R. Tolkien observed, “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.” Getting involved in politics is the fastest way to turn a saint into a demon.

Similarly, I don't encourage people to vote because voting won't make a positive difference, either; it isn't allowed to. At best the election swaps out one monster for a different monster. Anything which would make a positive difference isn't allowed on the ballot. This is why "None of the above-- abolish the office" isn't the default option at the top of every ballot.

Maybe you suppose I'm promoting apathy. Not at all, although setting out to make a political difference is often worse in the long run. Sometimes making a difference is worse than doing nothing at all.

Apathetic people, by definition, don't seek to make a difference. You may blame them for sitting by while passionate people make terrible differences, but if so you'd be blaming the wrong people.

Passionate people, when they are passionate about imposing their will on everyone else through government and legislation, are far worse for society than apathetic people. The world would be a better place if those who want to make a difference by ruling others would adopt a little apathy instead. Running other people's lives is never the right difference to make.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

One of the finest explanations of liberty

Soon after I first discovered the liberty community, I ran across this video, posted by someone somewhere as a tribute to the artist who had just died. 

It embedded itself deeply into my mind. 

It's one of the best explanations of liberty and self-ownership I've ever run across. Even to this day. It gets the point across in a simple way. I've never seen anyone able to refute it with counterarguments, no matter how they try. It just is.

Yes, the animation and music are dated now. I've seen updated versions, but this is still my favorite just because it's the one I first encountered.

I'm sure you've seen it before, but enjoy it again.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 

Thank you.

Cops as victims

Most cops are victims. Victims of brainwashing and bad information.

I suspect most cops honestly believe they have rights above and beyond the rights possessed by everyone who isn't a cop. They don't, and if they believe this it is a clear sign that they were misinformed.

A typical cop believes he is the only one with the right to wear his gun into a post office or a courthouse. This is the result of bad education resulting in a lack of understanding of what rights are.

A typical cop believes he has the right to stop travelers who are going faster than some arbitrary speed and extort money from them. And shoot them if they resist the attempted robbery. A cop won't keep his "job" if he questions this extra "right" that he's told is his.

Being a victim doesn't excuse their behavior, but it can explain it somewhat and help us understand why they act as they do. 

There is still no such thing as a "good" cop.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 

Thank you.

The v*ter's criticism

If you don't v*te, are you "sitting out the fight"? 

Or, are you fighting the wrong fight by participating in a rigged, illegitimate system if you do v*te?

I can see both sides. Even if I currently lean more toward one particular side.

If you believe you should v*te, go ahead. Feel free to make your case for doing so-- you might even convince me.

But don't pretend those who refuse to v*te are not in the fight or are helping the bad guys win. They are simply fighting on a different front.

--

I really need money for expenses. 

PayPal and Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. 

Thank you.

The grief entitlement

Residents of Maui are telling visitors to stay away, "with one angry resident telling the BBC she saw visitors swimming in the water that 'our people just died in three days ago'.” [link]

You don’t get to shut down the world because "someone died".

It would have been unreasonable of me to demand that the section of road where my daughter died be shut down for a month or so to keep people from going anywhere they might have enjoyed. I didn't have that right.

It's unreasonable for anti-gun bigots to demand new gun rules because some evil loser used a gun to murder people. They have no such right.

Your pain and grief doesn't give you the right to shut down the world. It doesn't give you the right to control others. It just doesn't.

I can understand if locals tell visitors they'd rather they not come now. Or warn them of the situation and how amenities may be unavailable. I could even see locals simply refusing to do business with visitors, and instead focusing on their neighbors. But, you don't control others. You can refuse service, but to scold them for being in the ocean, when they were apparently already on the island, is too far.

--

I really need money for some unexpected expenses on top of the expected ones. 

PayPal and Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. 

Thank you.

Seeing a difference where none exists

If a mob boss controls an area, extorting "protection" money in exchange for not burning down a business and breaking the owner's legs, I think anyone in that area would be completely within their rights to sneak up behind the mob boss and shoot him in the head. Even as he sits "peaceably" in a theater. 

Even though the mob boss may never do any of his thuggish activity himself, employing underlings to carry out his will. He is still the aggressor, right at this moment. Shooting him is an act of self-defense, not revenge. 

It may or may not be smart to shoot him. It could well be a suicide mission. But it isn't unethical to do so. 

His continued existence in that "job" is harming the shooter's life, liberty, and property in the current moment and into the future as long as he continues to do what he does. 

Obviously, the mob will say you aren't allowed to kill mob bosses, and it will punish those who try.

Will shooting one mob boss, while the mob continues to exist, make any real difference? No. He'll just be replaced by the next in line. So it's pointless and dangerous to do so. But it can't be wrong.

Some people see politicians as somehow meaningfully different from mob bosses. Those people aren't me.

--

I really need an infusion of money for some unexpected expenses, on top of the expected ones. 

PayPal and Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. 

Thank you.

The Greatest Evil

Government isn’t just evil, it’s evil beyond anything you can comprehend. Worse than whatever or whoever comes to mind when you try to picture the greatest evil you can imagine. Picturing something evil? Yes, worse than even that.

How could anyone still support it?

Maybe you still believe government is established as a protector of natural human rights. If so it has proved itself utterly incapable of fulfilling that responsibility. It has become the primary violator of human rights. Clinging to the hope that government can somehow protect rights (and has any interest in doing so) is the most Utopian wish possible.

You can have liberty or you can have government; you can't have both since they are mutually exclusive. They don't mix any better than matter and anti-matter.

"But, if only we can root out the corruption."

Government’s not corrupt, since it’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. It's just evil. Those who established government were either delusional or lying if they claimed it would protect your rights. Don't fall for the lie, and see for yourself the reality of how government works.

"But the government is us; we the people".

If so, you are committing wrong. You have the right to govern yourself-- your own individual life-- and not one other person. You can't delegate a right you don't have to someone else. That's not a thing-- it's a superstition.

One thing I find interesting, that I’m seeing a lot, is conservatives trying desperately to hang onto their belief in government. The way they are twisting in the wind, recognizing the evil of political government, while doing their best to not give it up. I'm guessing it's just because they don't want to be associated with the word "anarchist".

That's understandable since government (and its useful tools) have made anarchism out to be something it's not. Nihilistic socialists (self-proclaimed "anarchists" [sic] who are totally in favor of government they control) are doing the same. Have they fallen for the lies?

That or conservatives are just hoping the tide will turn and they'll find themselves in power again, so they can do evil things to those they don't like who have been doing evil things to those of us they don't like. Liberty-destroying things. Similar things to, but mirror images of, the evil things the "other side" has been doing while they have the power.

If you don't want to support evil, you can't be a supporter of political government. If you don't like the word "anarchist", have never heard the word "voluntaryist", think "libertarian" is a political party, or have never considered yourself an "abolitionist", call yourself what you like. Just as long as you don't support, or make excuses for, political government.

Government won't save you. It doesn't protect you. Not from crime, disease, invaders, or Hawaiian wildfires. It's much more likely to forbid you from taking the responsible actions necessary to protect yourself. It gets in your way and endangers your life, liberty, and property.

Separate yourself from government in every way possible. It will be an improvement.

--

I really need an infusion of money for some unexpected expenses on top of the expected ones. PayPal and Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. Thank you.

Good people don't violate others

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 9, 2023)

Sometimes the ignorance and childishness of those living among us shocks me. It probably shouldn't after this many years of life, but it still can.

I don't believe the phrase "hate crime" has any real meaning. It means whatever those who use it want it to mean; to serve a purpose they want served. It's a government fiction used to justify extra punishments-- in other words, additional revenge. Some things called "hate crimes" aren't even actual crimes at all. An act has to be a violation of life, liberty, or property to qualify as a real crime, government opinions notwithstanding.

When a crime is committed I only care that someone has been violated, not why the bad guys chose to do what they did. Anyone who violates another person is a real-life villain, regardless of how they'd like to see themselves.

Plus, I seriously doubt any crimes are committed out of love, or even ambivalence. Even if they were, they would be just as evil as acts motivated by hatred. The reasons don't matter, only the actions do. Nor should the motivation affect the consequences. Full restitution is owed when someone has been violated; nothing less and nothing more.

Those who vandalized the Portales Islamic Center trespassed and damaged property. That's enough for me to stand against them and stand up for their victims. Decent people simply don't violate property rights. No one has the right to do so for any reason.

Maybe they vandalized the property for religious reasons. Maybe they didn't and only wanted it to look like this was their reason. Either way, they owe restitution.

If they were decent people who had an ethical lapse in spite of being raised right and being given a good moral foundation, they would come forward, apologize, and set up a payment plan. If they don't, then they are on the wrong side.

It doesn't matter which religion you follow, good people don't violate others. If this is something your religion excuses or encourages, it's not worth following. You can do better.

If this is something your religion would disavow, you are smearing your faith and your fellow believers by your actions when you behave this way. Should you be doing such things? Of course not!

I'll be watching to see if the vandals grow some worthwhile "ethics" and come forward to do the right thing. But I won't be holding my breath.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Vipers among us

First, a little ad to pay the bills-- I really need an infusion of money for some unexpected expenses (including car repairs), on top of the expected ones. PayPal and Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. Thank you, and onward to the content. 

 -- 

What's so bad about government supremacists and other statists?

Well...

Government supremacists constantly say "our" (democracy, elections, borders, president, government, laws. etc.) when talking about things I am not responsible for and want no share of the blame in. They are collectivists in the worst way possible.

Government supremacists worry endlessly about what is "legal". They confuse "legal" for what's right.

Government supremacists pretend that government has rights and political "authority". This means they don't understand rights or authority-- not even a little.

Government supremacists won't recognize that politicians are always the ones throwing the first punch by being a politician; by governing and imposing legislation. Anything a resident does to a politician is self-defensive. John Wilkes Booth was right. If politicians don't like this they always have the option to stop being the bad guy and quit politics. But then who would government supremacists have to worship?

No matter how seriously they take themselves and the spoiled toddlers' game they play, government supremacists are buffoons. Just know they'll act as it is their nature to act, don't trust them to respect your rights, and keep them at arm's length so you don't get bitten by their venomous cult.

 - 

Thank you!

A "low opinion" doesn't begin to describe it

First, a little ad to pay the bills-- I really need an infusion of money for some unexpected expenses (including car repairs) on top of the expected ones. PayPal and Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. Thank you, and onward to the content.

 --

Every time a politician proposes new legislation, or encourages others to propose new legislation on his/her behalf, or allows a bureaucracy to make a new rule that will be enforced as if it were legislation, that politician is making a credible threat to murder you and your family. Every time.

You might claim some new "tax", licensing scheme, or prohibition isn't a threat to commit murder, but if that were your claim you would be wrong.

And, of course, it is "illegal" to defend yourself from those posing this kind of threat-- or to even declare your intention to do so. Because the bad guys control what is and isn't "illegal".

Yet, some people still have the gall to pretend to be confused over my opposition to government. However low you believe my opinion of political government to be, I assure you it's lower than that. Probably much lower.

-

Surgery fund

Thank you!

Statists aren't flies, but they are attracted to the same thing

First, a little ad to pay the bills-- I really need an infusion of money for some unexpected expenses (including car repairs), on top of the expected ones. PayPal and Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. Thank you, and onward to the content.

--

If you're doing the unthinkable and telling someone a harsh truth they don't want to hear, you may be told "You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". 

It's true I've never seen flies drawn to vinegar, but I've never seen them attracted to honey. either. Generally, when I've encountered a congress of flies, they were either convening around something dead and rotting or a smelly pile of politician paste.

Also, I've rarely been interested in catching or attracting flies, anyway. I prefer to kill them. Shooting them with rubber bands being my favorite method of dispatching the little nuisances.

When you shock a government supremacist with the harsh news that he or she is advocating evil, you aren't offering them honey or vinegar. Neither are you offering them what flies want. Nothing you offer is going to appeal to them because nothing can compete, in their mind, with the evil they want to keep supporting. 

You have no bait because you can't ethically offer them the filth that attracts them.

Still, they imagine they need it, and they think they are entitled to force it on you.

So, you might as well tell them the bitter truth. At least, that way won't be able to say they weren't warned if they force you to act in defense as a response to their political abominations.

-

Surgery fund

Thank you!

When "the system" is wrong

First, a little ad to pay the bills-- I really need an infusion of money for some unexpected expenses (including car repairs, on top of the expected ones). PayPal and Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. Thank you, and onward to the content. 

 --

When the system is wrong— when it is the problem— you have no obligation to work within the system. 

You can, if you believe there's a chance it will work, but that's up to you. You certainly aren't obligated to work within it. You aren't wrong to discard it and work against it if that's what you think you need to do to make real progress on solving an issue.

If you've figured out that the system isn't going to solve anything, or will continue making it worse, make the smart move and stop trying to work within the system or to preserve it.

Government is such a system. As is every piece of it-- legislation creation and enforcement, courts, "national defense", and even its record-keeping "services". There is none of it worth saving or keeping.

You could do better without this broken system-- a system that is wrong from top to bottom-- holding you down.

-

Surgery fund

Thank you!

It's your responsibility

First, a little ad to pay the bills-- I really need an infusion of money for some unexpected expenses (on top of the expected ones). PayPal or Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. Thank you, and onward to the content.

--

If "average people" aren't interested in liberty because it requires responsibility, I can't help but wonder if they think responsibility is harder than it is.

What do you consider your responsibility?

I would say your responsibility is to not violate any other person’s rights; to not interfere with their liberty in any way. Really, nothing could be simpler.

A statist might believe your responsibility is to obey the government and its “laws”. Regardless of whether they are right. This is upside down. 

If government and its legislation are wrong, it is your responsibility to ignore them; to break those "laws" and thumb your nose at government's opinion. Especially if by obeying them you would violate another person's rights and thus their liberty.

-

Thank you!

I love (actual) science

From Bryan Hyde

First, a little ad to pay the bills-- I really need an infusion of money for some unexpected expenses (on top of the expected ones). PayPal and Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable.
Thank you, and onward to the content.

--

I absolutely love science. I always have. I had a reputation as a mad scientist when I was in school-- I'm not sure if it was deserved, but I did love experimenting (and I don't mean with drugs).

But, this thing being called "science" today isn't science.

Science isn't written on stone tablets. It doesn't get handed down from On High. It isn't based on a person, or even on a particular result. It isn't consensus and it doesn't discourage inquiry. Questioning the current theory is how it advances. Science is never settled, even if some ideas have been so thoroughly falsified it's probably a waste of time to keep trying to make them fit the facts. Or force the facts to fit your wishes. That doesn't mean you can't tweak the ideas that are left after you discard what definitely isn't true if it keeps getting you closer to fitting your good observations. 

Science isn't imposed on anyone and no one gets punished (by anything other than reality) if they don't "believe in" science. You don't have to believe in gravity for it to work on you and cause you to suffer the consequences if you ignore it. No "Bureau of Gravitation" is necessary to punish non-believers.

Science is the process. It is the exploration; the experiments. It is designed to get you closer to understanding reality. It doesn't dictate reality.

Carl Sagan warned us of this type of thing before he died. I suspect he was sure the threat would come from the Right-statists, but it didn't. Not this time. But, again, once you mix in politics of any variety, science is destroyed. His biases prevented even him from thinking clearly about politics.

Just like everything else, once you mix politics with science you no longer have science. You only have politics at that point.

Sometimes if I'm in the library I'll pick up a science magazine; the quality of which has suffered greatly in the past several years. Now politics infuses nearly every article. To the detriment of science.

"Everything is political" only if you foolishly make everything political.

Please don't confuse politics for science. That's how science dies. And that wouldn't be good for any of us in the long run.

-

Could I get some love for my surgery fund?

Or PayPal?

Thank you!

Liberty missing from July 4 holiday

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 2, 2023)

I miss Independence Day.

Independence Day was once a celebration of liberty; a tribute to revolution, insurrection, and secession. It has mutated into a day to worship government and its employees. It has become a parody of itself.

Maybe this is why it is more commonly known today as "the Fourth of July". This downplays its anti-government roots and dismisses independence.

Of course, most of this happened before I was born, so what I miss is the idea of an Independence Day I've never really known, at least not in mainstream society. One I celebrate by myself if no one else joins me.

For a watered-down Fourth of July we are distracted with firework displays presented by government, and often told we aren't allowed to independently shoot off fireworks.

We are encouraged to celebrate government employees rather than the people who declared independence by violently defying government and its employees.

Where is liberty in this holiday? It's missing.

No one even notices liberty isn't welcome at the celebration. Perhaps this is because people neither understand nor want liberty.

Why wouldn't people want liberty?

I suspect it's because they are satisfied with freedom. It may also be because responsibility is half of liberty and they aren't interested in that part.

Freedom means doing what you want. If what you want to do fits within what government allows, you are free enough-- you may even incorrectly imagine you are enjoying liberty.

Liberty is the freedom to do everything you have a right to do, regardless of government's opinions on the matter. Liberty is freedom tempered with responsibility-- you only have the responsibility to not violate other people's rights.

Government wants your freedom limited by its rules, instead. This isn't liberty, but is more like being a pet; dependent on the kindness and tolerance of your master. Living only at his whim.

Are most people so attached to government that they aren't interested in liberty? It seems so. Liberty and political government are completely incompatible. Government can allow a certain amount of freedom to exist, but liberty is an all-or-nothing deal. Liberty can't be restrained by government rules without being destroyed. There is no liberty when government is allowed to exist. Most people apparently love Big Brother and his false promise of safety more than liberty.

Not me. I have no use for Big Brother. I love liberty and I miss Independence Day.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Real "Gun crimes" are committed by government

First, a little ad to pay the bills-- I really need an infusion of money for some unexpected expenses (on top of the expected ones). PayPal or Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. Thank you, and onward to the content.

--

Every single gun "law" is unconstitutional. Every one of them, from 1934's National Firearms Act, to the Gun Control Act of 1968, to whatever new rule gets imposed next year. Or 100 years from now. They are all unconstitutional in every detail.

Examples? Rules against machine guns, rules imposing background check requirements and Form 4473, forcing gun sellers to get government Federal Firearms Licenses and keep records of sales, saying who can (and can't) manufacture weapons or what kind, any rule that allows a cop to take your gun when others wouldn't have the right to do so. No one has the right to disarm anyone who isn't posing a credible threat at this moment. There is no such thing as a constitutional "law" concerning restricting weapons for individuals. Not even one example. 

Either the courts agree or the courts are wrong. That's just the way it is.

Maybe the "justices" are cowards or maybe they are crooks who want to ensure government power, but either way, they are wrong. The same goes for the quisling surrender-monkeys of the NRA who repeatedly sell out gun owners in exchange for a place at the table and a pat on the head by the political criminals (including police) they fawn over.

The right to own and to carry weapons doesn't come from the Constitution-- the Constitution simply recognizes a right that has always existed everywhere and made it a crime to violate that right.

The Second Amendment doesn't "apply" to guns; it restricts what government is allowed to do. And restricting guns or other weapons in any way is completely off the table. Long guns, short guns, sawed-off guns, braced pistols, semi-automatic, fully-automatic, metal projectile or plasma blast, suppressed, with any attachment, in any configuration. Bullet types, feeding device capacity or function, caliber, construction method or material. detectability or invisibility, "silencers", or any alteration to any of the same. Government is prohibited from expressing an opinion, in legislation or by rule, on weapons owned and/or carried by the population. Including inside government facilities. Point to where the Second Amendment makes an exception when some government employee somewhere is scared or thinks it is a "common sense" policy.

If the courts allow any such anti-gun rule to stand, the courts are wrong.

There is no wiggle room. There are no exceptions. There is no justification that survives scrutiny. None.

And, as always, natural human rights are superior to any document. Such as the natural human right to own and to carry weapons of any kind, everywhere, without asking government permission, or even letting government know. 

If the Constitution actually permitted any government anti-gun rule (which it doesn't) the Constitution would be wrong. Just as it is wrong when it "authorizes" taxation. Government can't be "authorized" to violate rights. No one, and no collective, can be.

The anti-gun bigots (in government, in government's corporate media, or freelance) will lie, argue, and try to shame us, They will make up historical "facts" to prove their case. They are forced to lie to prop up their side because the truth isn't with them. They will cherry-pick statistics, or point to what other governments have done and gotten away with. They will cry and get melodramatic over the innocent deaths their anti-gun/anti-defense policies guarantee, and try to blame the people who didn't do it. Their crocodile tears don't sway me. They are the villains. No matter if they have good intentions and really believe they are right. It is never right to violate the rights of individuals. I don't care about a villain's opinion on what I should be "allowed" to do. I am not government property. The lowest individual is superior to any government employee or agent. Governments have no rights; only individuals do. And the "right" to violate the rights of individuals doesn't exist... it can't exist. Government thugs can believe otherwise, but it won't change the truth.

The power to commit evil and get away with it doesn't prove the evildoer is in the right. It just proves that sometimes evil has power.

If you run across any anti-gun bigot doing what they tend to do, feel free to copy and paste any part of this to tell her to jump in a lake. It won't change her mind, but maybe some onlookers will see it and be empowered to resist her lies and calls for enslavement.

-

Could I get some love for my surgery fund? 

Or PayPal?

Thank you!