Thursday, February 29, 2024

A little childlike openness would benefit us all

Yesterday I was out and about, and in one business there was a woman with a little girl, about 5 years old, in tow at the register. The little girl was staring at me. I noticed and looked her way, at which point she waved excitedly at me. I waved back and she was so thrilled when I did that she started jumping up and down, yanking on her mom’s jacket. 

Years ago I had a friend whose son, who was around 4 or 5 at the time, would get so excited every time he’d see me that he’d start yelling “My cowboy!” and run to me to show me the toy he was carrying or tell me some important news. 

That sort of thing has been common.

I’ve never been a “kid person”, but they have always been drawn to me anyway. Often when I didn’t think I had the time or inclination to engage with them. 

People have told me that it may be because I don’t talk down to kids. And I’m willing to do things like show them how I make fires without a lighter, pick apart owl pellets to find bones, or look at bugs under a magnifying glass. Things they aren’t normally exposed to by “normal” adults.

The same things that catch the interest of kids have often made adults unable to connect with me. Or so it seems. 

In my experience most adults would rather talk about their team— sportsball or politics. Things I can’t really discuss intelligently (by their standards), and which quickly bore me anyway.

However, that sometimes changes when a kid’s parent sees whatever I’m showing their child through their child’s eyes. Suddenly they are open to something they wouldn’t have been open to before. I’ve made friends this way, when I probably wouldn’t have been able to get to know the parent otherwise.

And, even in other cases, I hope I’ve made some positive impact on the kid. Maybe given them a spark of curiosity they wouldn’t have had otherwise.

Or, even just brightened their day because an adult took notice and waved back.

Here are some of the 

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

The domestic threat

It's true in every country around the world. It's especially true in America: Government is the biggest domestic threat. Yet, government is a foreign power. 

The US government is not American-- even if (bad) Americans are the majority of its workforce. It is an occupying force with interests not aligned with the life, liberty, or property of ordinary Americans.

If Chinese saboteurs replaced every government employee, you probably wouldn't see much difference-- it would still be a foreign power being the biggest domestic threat to America. 

Except that none of your neighbors would care if you defended yourself-- your life and your liberty-- and your property from the replacements. 

The amount of theft, kidnapping, and general archating might even go down because the veil of legitimacy would be gone. There would be nothing for the crooks to hide behind. It's hard to see a downside.

Here are some of the 

Monday, February 26, 2024

Cops vs good people

I am a better person than >95% of police officers, and I'm betting you are, too. 

Depending on how ethical you believe working for the state is. I believe it’s completely unethical, but that’s a discussion we’ve had many times before.

Police departments don't even want good people. Or smart people. 

Good people won't enforce counterfeit "laws", and smart people know when a "law" is counterfeit, and are less likely to obey bad orders. Smart people are also less likely to stick with the job of legislation enforcement, which is why police departments won't hire people with IQs above a certain level (room temperature?). That's not the raw material they want in a recruit. No, they want shining examples like Acorn Cop.

Here are some of the 

Saturday, February 24, 2024

Don't submit to crime of 'gun control'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 21, 2024)

Most politicians remind me of bungling bank robbers who get foiled in their clownish attempts to rob a bank. Rather than being sorry or changing their ways, they decide they'll rob two banks tomorrow.

Instead of robbing banks, though, they keep committing the greater crime of "gun control".

New Mexico's governor Michelle Lujan Grisham seems to want to be on the Most Wanted list for gun law criminals, right up there with the worst dictators in history.

On one hand, how embarrassing for anyone to support such a politician! On the other hand, I prefer when people tell you who they are and what they are plotting to do to you. It's why freedom of speech is non-negotiable. Leave bad people free to incriminate themselves. It's better than a sneak attack by someone you thought was a decent person.

The stack of anti-gun rules perpetually on the agenda-- dishonestly labeled "gun safety laws" today-- always makes things worse. People who won't hesitate to murder anyone who stands in their way aren't going to let another slew of silly laws stop them. Believing it would make a positive difference is a political hallucination which tells more about the believer's mind than about the real world.

People understand this until it comes to politics, then they shut off their brains and parrot the party line.

What about "crime" and "gun violence"?

Crime's solution is known: don't get in the way of anyone trying to defend themselves from those violating their life, liberty, or property. Anything else helps the criminals.

"Gun violence" is a lie; a false distinction crafted by political criminals for the purpose of enslaving you. If they can use manufactured fear to control you-- to rob you of your self-ownership-- that's what they'll do. It's not somehow worse to be harmed by a bad guy using a gun than by a bad guy using a fist, a brick, a car, or a law. Only a political liar would want you to believe otherwise.

No one ever calls for you to be disarmed (or inadequately armed) for your benefit. If you believe their lies to the contrary, you've given yourself over to the enemy. The only reason anyone wants you disarmed is so they can do things to you which you wouldn't allow if you were armed. It's your warning a crime is being planned, and you're the intended victim. Don't go along.

Liberty is the greater good!
If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.
Thank you.

Also this or this

Climate assumptions and manipulation

I hear it more and more these days: “As weather threats intensify”, “as the weather gets more extreme”, “as climate change causes more disruption", etc. 

I don’t see intensifying threats, more extreme weather, or more disruption. Do you?

Which of us is most likely to be hallucinating, the one who sees something that isn’t there or the one who doesn’t see what someone else claims is there?

Those who say these things in this way are "thinking past the sale"; making assumptions that they hope you won't notice. 

It's a trick, regardless of whether AGCC is real or imaginary-- I'm agnostic about that-- a dishonest tactic. Just keep in mind what they are doing every time you hear them use one of those phrases. It's not because they are trying to give you correct information. It's because they are trying to manipulate you. 

They want you to give up liberty, or they mean to take it from you by force.

Here are some of the 

Friday, February 23, 2024

The antidote

I intend everything I write to be a therapeutic against the infection of statism. 

Or an antidote for all the shady political poison that has sickened the people tricked into drinking it and damaged the society made up by those poisoned individuals.

If I can rescue just one person, it's all worth it. I'm going to try to help more than that.

I'm obviously not the only one doing what I can to counteract the poisons and fight the infections. There's not just one entity causing the harm; it is going to take more than one person to fight it. It's probably best if people double up. Or take a full complement of treatments, formulated by a wide variety of antipolitical alchemists. There's no such thing as an overdose of liberty.

Here are some of the 

Thursday, February 22, 2024

Invasion of the Howlers

If, every time I walked out my door, I encountered werewolves, I would probably think about them a lot. 

If werewolves put up signs all around my neighborhood and constantly insisted that I structure my life to accommodate them and their wishes, I would grow to hate them. 

I would tell anyone who'd listen that they aren't obligated to let the werewolves control them or eat them.

I would advocate silver bullets for everyone. I would remind people they have a right to use silver bullets against any werewolf that stands in their way, threatening them.

Anyone who complained and told me to stop talking about werewolves would be exposing themselves as on the side of the werewolves.

Now, replace fictional werewolves with government and you'll see the reality of the situation.

*Just a note-- this is my first time to use an AI. This one: pixlr. I used it to generate the picture above. I used the prompt "Werewolf in a ragged business suit, standing on a suburban street at night under a full moon." I probably should have said "aggressively crouching" instead of "standing", but I don't want to use up my entire free trial on one post.

Here are some of the 

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Live free to spite the Rulers

In the course of writing my newspaper column for Sunday, I realized this is a planet of political prisoners.

All of us, everywhere on the planet, are being held as political prisoners.

We are held captive by those who mean to rule us with politics. No escape is allowed; they'll kill anyone who tries and looks like they might succeed.

If you don't believe me, just build your own interplanetary spaceship and launch without getting government permission.

This realization is not nearly as negative or defeatist as it might seem at first glance. It depends on how you respond.

That this is how they see you doesn't mean you have to accept your imprisonment or behave like a prisoner. That's up to you. By living free (embracing your outlawry) in spite of the schemes of the political criminals, you spit in their eyes.

We are better than them. We are more ethical than they are. Show them, if they dare to look.

Here are some of the 

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Dig out the diseased root

When I dig into any social or societal problem, I find government underlying it. Am I hallucinating?

Even if it's true that government is beneath every social or societal problem, this doesn't mean there's not something even more fundamental than government below that. There could be a root cause that expresses itself as government, which then causes the higher-level trouble.

If that's the case, address the disease that causes government.

But government is still a common factor in all the social problems I've looked at. No matter what else people may try to blame. 

It's just not a good strategy to try to govern anyone but yourself. It's going to cause more problems than it solves, every time. You can deny it, you can dispute it, but you can't refute it.

Here are some of the 

Monday, February 19, 2024

Conditioned to accept ridiculous evil

If humanity were free and someone thought up the idea of government today, would anyone fall for it?

I doubt it. It takes a population slowly and relentlessly conditioned over generations to certain absurd beliefs to fall for such an obvious scam. 

Humans have been undergoing this conditioning for thousands of years. Maybe longer. Most members of our species are well conditioned to accept the unacceptable-- to allow someone else to govern them instead of governing themselves like healthy individuals do. Don't judge what healthy humans would accept based on what you see around you. It's not even comparable.

It's interesting to me that the roots of political government reach back to the prehistoric era when people were probably the most superstitious and fearful they have ever been. (Although today's humans seem to be trying to compete for that dubious distinction.)

Unscrupulous characters used this superstition and fear as a way to get their gullible fellow humans to submit to something that wasn't actually good for them, but that they were told was good for them. And necessary.

It must be true because the holy men told them this is what the spirits required. Funny how well this worked out for those holy men.

Just like it works out for the filthy holy men of modern politics. 

This is why I say political government is The Ancestral Enemy. This isn't something new. It has been around as long as there have been crooked people who'd rather govern everyone else than mind their own business-- there's more profit in it. It's ancient. But it has grown and mutated into something with a dishonest veneer of civilization as it becomes more evil in its reach and abilities.

I trust that you see through it; you see it for what it is. If you didn't, you probably wouldn't be reading these words now. Right?

Here are some of the 

Saturday, February 17, 2024

Helping others way to help self

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 14, 2024)

Respecting other people's liberty will go a long way toward freeing you.

If you truly understand liberty you'll know why.

There's no reason to enslave yourself with the desire to control the rightful behavior of others.

By encouraging you to respect other people's liberty, I offer you the chance to increase your own, which eventually increases my liberty. It's like a snowball rolling downhill. So is the opposite effect of looking to restrict-- to violate-- the liberty of others.

Whenever I see someone who wants the liberty of others to be violated in some way I think they must not value their own liberty much. Maybe they don't understand what they are doing, or think it's OK since "everybody else does it". Because political government is accepted as a given at this point in human history, it's likely both.

If you don't want people begging politicians for laws to restrict what you do, within your rights, why would you ask politicians to violate the rights of others? This doesn't mean you have to like what others do. Respecting their right to do certain things isn't condoning them. You can even speak out to show your disapproval. You are within your rights as long as you aren't using force to stop them.

Think how much time and energy gets wasted trying to run the lives of others; how much of your life you waste trying to dictate how other people live. Why would you sabotage yourself in this way?

"Does this mean people should be allowed to...?" However you fill in the blank, if it doesn't violate anyone else's liberty, it's none of your business if they do or if they don't. If it's none of your business, by extension, it's none of any government's business. Once you get it, your own liberty will expand beyond your wildest dreams. It only costs you the illusion of control over others. It removes your option to punish people for doing things you'd rather they didn't do.

Considering the state of society, you'll probably have to go first. You'll have to stand aside and respect the liberty of others more than they'll respect yours. Before they'll respect yours, or in spite of the fact they never will. You can be a good neighbor even to those who aren't. Respect their liberty to show respect for yourself. Helping others is a way to help yourself.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Is "useful" elusive?

What is something I could do that would be useful? 

Not just useful for myself, but for liberty. For you.

I’d like to be more useful— as I’ve always wanted to be. I’m not sure that the ways I’ve tried to be useful have been as useful as I’d hoped.

Is my blogging still useful (assuming it ever was)? Does it seem like I have said everything I have to say (after nearly 17 ½ years) and I'm just repeating myself now? What do you think?

What could I do that would be useful?

I’m not going to promote any politician.
I’m not going to align with any political party.
I’m not going to express support for any government institution.
I’ll never support the police or the military in any way.
I’ll never pretend government is legitimate or good. Or necessary. Or that it protects us, or our liberty. That it is anything other than a criminal organization.

Like so many others do with such enthusiasm.

I don't see those things as useful but as actively harmful. It makes me cringe when I see many prominent social media libertarians (Libertarians) doing those things. 

Sure, you do you, but I see so much pro-government extremism from some of them-- many of whom have "libertarian" in their profile name-- that it makes me wonder how they can reconcile it. To me it looks like wanting a seat at the Big Table, some crumbs to snack on, and a pat on the head from people in positions of political power-- who they frequently pose with, smiling from ear to ear. Unironically!

I want to be more useful than that, but at least useful and not harmful.

Any suggestions?

Liberty is the greatest good!
If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.
Thank you.

Also this or this

Friday, February 16, 2024

Government = crime

Government is crime. 

If you v*te for more government, you’re v*ting for more crime. 

If you side with government, you're siding with criminals. 

If you want more taxes, you're wanting to force people to fund crime and support the criminals.

If you beg for more "laws", you're asking for criminals to have more power over regular people.

If you want more "gun control" [sic] you're saying you prefer the criminals to have all the guns.

If you demand people "respect the office", you're demanding respect for the criminals in those offices.

If you "back the blue" and "support the troops", you are worshiping the hitmen of the criminal gang.

If you support govschool teachers, you're supporting the criminal gang's recruiters and propagandists.

When is any of this ever the right thing to do?

If you love the Constitution, you love the document that criminals wrote to give the crime gang permission to organize. Yes, it supposedly put limits on what the criminals of the future were allowed to do, but as is so often pointed out, when do criminals obey the rules? It's a straw to grasp at, but it's not going to solve the underlying problem. 

To allow government-- run by anyone-- to exist and function is to embrace crime.

Liberty is the greater good!
If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.
Thank you.

Also this or this

Thursday, February 15, 2024

Truth can hurt but lies don't help... unless...

Free speech is non-negotiable. But it can and will hurt.

This is not a good reason to censor yourself or others. 

Free true speech is even more valuable.

If you say things just to be polite or to not hurt someone's feelings, you're lying. You should at least say nothing at all if you don't think you should say truthful things in the moment.

But this is when you're dealing with regular people.

The exception is if you're lying to an archator to save his/her victims. In that case, you've done exactly the right thing. Archators aren't ever owed the truth, but since any lie takes something out of you, feel free to lay it on them anyway-- if you're up to it, and if the truth doesn't put innocent people in extra danger. 

Speech, true or lies, has a cost. Free speech isn't free, but it's never as expensive as censorship.

Liberty  is the greater good!
If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.
Thank you.

Also this or this

Wednesday, February 14, 2024

Love and hate

I love this glorious, beautiful planet. All of it. 

I hate the governments which infest and despoil this planet. Every single one of them without exception. The governments which pretend to own all the living things and all the natural wonders, and every square inch of the planet. And beyond.

Liberty is the greater good!
If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.
Thank you.

Also this or this

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

You know it

People seem to instinctively know that authoritarianism— government— is evil. It’s a recurring theme in the most inspiring fiction. 

We know it. We feel it. 

Yet too many people join forces with it because it pays them.

Liberty is the greater good!
If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.
Thank you.

Also this or this

Monday, February 12, 2024

Do you believe in fairy tales?

No election that seeks to impose a ruler (to "fill a political office") or enact any type of liberty-rationing legislation.policy is legitimate. Never.

It doesn't matter who v*tes, who counts the v*tes, or how lopsided the results appear to be. It doesn't matter what the results are

No one has any right to gang up and decide to violate someone else's rights. Not even if they know that by doing so they are allowing government to violate their own rights that they don't value.

I'm not going to act as though I believe this fairy tale. Because I don't. It's ridiculous.

Liberty is the greater good!
If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.
Thank you.

Also this or this

Saturday, February 10, 2024

No one has permission to violate rights

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 7, 2024)

You are never obligated to cooperate with anyone trying to violate your rights. Never, for any reason.

It will be dangerous to refuse to help them violate you, but in such circumstances, cooperation is just as dangerous. Once someone has decided to harm you, you're not going to escape without a scratch. Especially when they claim to have the imaginary, magical quality they call "authority".

They'll try to make you sorry you didn't help them hurt you. They'll do their best to punish you. This only shows them to be the bad guys. A defining feature of bad guys-- criminals-- is their willingness to violate the rights-- the life, liberty, or property-- of others.

What are your rights? The Bill of Rights is a start, but not the whole picture. The Ninth Amendment hints at this by stating the other amendments are not a comprehensive list of the rights placed beyond the authority of government. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Government hates, studiously ignores, and violates this law with nearly everything it does.

You have a right to do everything-- absolutely anything-- which doesn't violate someone else's equal and identical rights, regardless of the opinion of the regional political powers.

The flip side of this is the acknowledgment that no one can have a right to violate your rights. It doesn't work that way. This means you aren't obligated to cooperate with anyone who is trying to violate your rights or to prevent you from doing things you have a natural human right to do.

I won't deny this is dangerous knowledge to have and act upon.

Once you know this, you'll see anyone who is trying to violate you in the same light: as a criminal, nothing more. It doesn't mean you'll always prevail-- sometimes the criminals have the drop on you. Their gang may outnumber you. They may have given themselves permission to do what they do, and they may even claim you and your neighbors gave them this permission.

Funny thing, though: there is no hocus-pocus by which you can give someone permission to do things on your behalf which you-- as an individual-- have no right to do on your own. The myths saying otherwise are convenient for power-hungry bad guys, but lack any basis in reality or ethics. Now you know.
I couldn't do this without your support.

Newcomers bring change

There are things I don't like, but that I know I have no right to use force to prevent. A huge influx of migrants is one of those things.

This might be surprising considering I spend so much effort defending the right of people to go where they want, as long as they aren't violating anyone's property. And because I don't believe in government "borders". But personally, I'm generally against mass migration (and the conditions that cause it).

It's not even a matter of where those migrants originate.

I saw the damage done to Colorado by the influx of people from California. I don't think I could handle living in the place I love the most, not anymore, with the changes the newcomers brought. 

I think Texas faces the same risk.

The same could happen to any place that gets a large number of new people who don't value the things the current residents value. That's not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the current residents' attitude toward archation

Newcomers who love and understand liberty, even if the long-time residents don't, are a good thing for any population. 

If, though, the newcomers bring an enthusiasm for archation-- either through crime or legislation-- then they are a net negative. The place would be better off without them.

The character of the newcomers matters; government's opinion of them doesn't.

Liberty is the greater good!
If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.
Thank you.

Also this or this

Friday, February 09, 2024

Weapons are designed to save lives

Those who celebrate criminals get very upset that good people don't want to give up their weapons to make bad guys safer. 

The purpose of weapons in the average person’s hands is to save lives. It’s what they are designed to do.

Sometimes they accomplish this by taking the life of someone who is endangering the innocent.

This isn’t hypocritical nor does it bother me in the slightest.

Bad guys have the final responsibility in this situation. If they choose to sacrifice themselves to their greed and evil, we should support their choice.

Liberty is the greater good!
If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.
Thank you.

Also this or this

Thursday, February 08, 2024

Not for me, but you go ahead

Recently, Smith & Wesson introduced their new rifle, the 1854. It's a modern lever-action rifle. This is one gun I have no interest in owning.

I'm sure this new rifle is a great gun in many ways, but it's not for me.  I love my more traditional lever-action rifles.

However, I'm glad Smith & Wesson is making this new rifle and I hope it sells well. I hope lots of people like it and want it. More guns in the right hands is good for everyone... except for the crooks and creeps among us. I can't bring myself to worry too much about their welfare.

Just because something isn't for me doesn't mean I'm going to try to keep others from enjoying it.

What other people like is of no concern to me, unless it violates life, liberty, or property. This doesn't. This is the heart of libertarianism.

This is a concept that it's obvious the "former libertarians" out there don't get. Probably because they are actively avoiding "getting it". Why? Obviously, it's because they want an excuse to violate someone in some way-- to do something they have no right to do-- but they don't want to admit (or feel like) they are the problem. So they grasp at "reasons". Some cite religion, some reference safety, some use culture, others find other excuses. It really doesn't matter what excuse or justification they torture a reason out of.

They are wrong. As wrong as it is humanly possible to be. But they'll gloat in their wrongness. It's quite the spectacle.

Liberty is the greater good!
If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.
Thank you.

Also this or this

Wednesday, February 07, 2024

When an "expert" at identifying cognitive dissonance falls into it

Scott Adams seems to harbor a deep-rooted hostility against libertarians. As do all who want to reserve the option of archating (and worshiping The State) without feeling like the bad guy.

Years ago he claimed to be "libertarian, without the crazy stuff"; and he defined the "crazy stuff" as anything that defined libertarians, which he has never understood. Let me say that again: All his anti-libertarian opinions show he doesn't understand the first thing about liberty, and it doesn't seem as though he wants to. It would destroy his bubble if he did, and it's easier to attack the straw men he creates.

A couple of days ago he went on a rather strange rant against comic Dave Smith, a political libertarian who is probably always more correct than Adams on the topic of government.

A few highlights from his video (you can watch the whole thing at the link above): “you don’t need a libertarian country”… "there never has been one and it can’t work"… “Argentina… to me that just looks like capitalism”.

Then we get to the part where he really went off the rails: “you can fairly easily trigger them (libertarians) into cognitive dissonance”.

To demonstrate his point, he showed the opposite happening. 

He quoted Dave Smith as saying, “Netanyahu did not sufficiently defend Israel from the October 7 attack and that perhaps that was intentional as well”. Adams says this is "too far", and is “mind reading”.

Sorry, Scott, your government supremacism is showing. You don't need to read any minds, just look at the actions taken.

Did the Israeli government impose anti-weapon legislation? Yes. They did. This is the opposite of "defending Israel" from such an attack. The residents were made easy prey for criminal scum so they'd be easier to govern. It was intentional-- legislation always is-- and it was demonstrably disastrous. Netanyahu and his minions are guilty, as Smith charged. Facts are facts, like them or not. 

Then Adams allowed it may have been intentional on Netanyahu’s part, to give him an excuse to destroy Hamas at the cost of losing a few hundred innocent people. Smith said this was a bad thing. Adams says if this was the plan, the plan worked. Adams wants to wait and see how it turns out, not considering the human costs in the present, because it might be worth the deaths and suffering in the long run.

Which is a typically disgusting example of pragmatism.

He asked, “Was I making a good point or not?” No, Scott, you were being evil and pragmatic. Slavery was very pragmatic. Democide is pragmatic. They both "work", from a certain point of view. You can excuse anything by saying it "works".

Then Adams starts slipping into his own trap.

Smith replied, “Adams sees no evidence an unprovable counter-factual wouldn’t be worse”. Adams claimed this was "word salad" because he couldn’t understand it. This is not the first time he's claimed "word salad" for something easily understandable by anyone without the motivation to be unable to understand it. I understood Dave's sentence, accurate or not. Yet he claims this shows Smith suffering "cognitive dissonance".

Scott is the one in cognitive dissonance. And can’t see it. Partly because he’s so brainwashed by statism. Partly because he’s being dishonest. Again.

He also claimed this sentence was a quintuple negative (demonstrating an inability to count to five). Maybe he has difficulty reading words-- he dislikes words and their definitions, anyway, calling that "word-thinking". How convenient for him. 

He then started trying to insult Dave Smith for not understanding costs and benefits. I guess Smith isn't pragmatic enough. Would Dave Smith refuse to consider the costs and benefits of slavery before standing up and denouncing it? I doubt it. Adams? I don't think he would denounce slavery if others hadn't already made it safe for him to take that position. Or unsafe to debate the costs and benefits before taking a position on it.

He kept calling Smith a progressive, even after initially admitting he wasn’t one. He then said libertarians and progressives were really the same thing because their ideas can't work in the real world. Well, not in the real world Adams promotes, where rights aren't real; only power matters. Where government can do anything it wants, using whatever excuse dumb people will accept.

It’s interesting to me that anyone who tries to ridicule the libertarian position has to either try hard to not understand or they have to lie. Or both.

Statism is stupid and evil. And statists seem to love acting patronizing to those who are smarter and more ethical than they are.  It's like a spoiled toddler being patronizing toward his dad.

When Adams is right, he’s right. When he’s wrong, it’s generally because he’s a vile statist who is suffering from cognitive dissonance while seeing it in everyone who disagrees with him.

Liberty is the greater good!
If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.
Thank you.

Also this or this

Tuesday, February 06, 2024

"Against violence"

Whenever I hear someone say they are "against violence" I roll my eyes. It's a reflex.

People who say they are against violence are not credible. They are probably saying that to sound "moral" to others who are equally ignorant. And they never seem to be against violence by government-- frequently they are big fans of that violence.

Often, they conflate "violence" (force) and "aggression" (initiated force). Those aren't the same thing. Aggression is something you never have the right to do, and violence is something you can have the right to do when it's purely defensive. 

So, when I hear someone say they are against violence, I wonder if they'd really stand by and watch an innocent person-- maybe a family member-- be attacked, or if they are lying and would use violence to defend the innocent like a decent person would do. 

I hope it's the second one. And I wish they'd stop bowing toward the vile altar of pacifism.

Liberty is the greater good!
If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.
Thank you.

Also this or this