Government failing at its only job

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 8, 2025)

Much of the conflict over government stems from different ideas about what its job is— or should be.

If we strip away all the nonsense and propaganda- all the excuses- there's only one justification for government that holds water; it's there to protect the life, liberty, and property- the fundamental human rights- of the people forced to live with it. A job it seems unwilling or unable to do. Anything else it does is a direct betrayal of this purpose.

So much for the notion of a "night watchman" government.

If government were capable of fulfilling this purpose, it might be worthwhile to keep one around. Since government is the main problem we are likely to encounter in our daily lives, it's not worth the expense or the risk. Government is the wolf at the door, demanding you let it in so it can protect you from wolves.

So-called "safety net" programs- welfare, subsidies, and other handouts- are often sold as government's duty, but it's a trick. Every cent funneled through these schemes must first be stolen from the rightful owners through taxation. If government's job is to protect property, picking your pocket to hand the loot to me is a contradiction. You can't protect property by stealing property. You can't protect rights by violating rights.

No one needs bureaucrats taking their money and then deciding who to give it to. Charity is better at filling real needs while correcting for mistakes or scams. Stealing money through taxation, then giving it away (even if they aren't trying to buy votes with it) isn't generosity. It doesn't make for a kinder society. It breeds dependence and resentment, and it undermines the foundations of society. If there were any such thing as a "social contract", this would break it.

If you assume people can't run their own lives, and treat them as if they can't, they'll prove you right. If you try to remove the cost of being irresponsible, no one has any incentive to be responsible. If you insist on governing them, they'll never learn to govern themselves.

If government is to be tolerated, it must stick to its job of protecting your rights. Not violating you in the name of what someone pretends is a right. Not being a nightmarish nanny or a parallel universe Robin Hood who steals from the people to give to the state.

It can't do this, so why put up with it?

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Truth in labeling

I recently watched the movie Soylent Green. It was made in 1973 (“based on” a 1966 novel) and set in 2022.

The movie was not nearly as shocking as I'd been made to think it would be. Which doesn't say good things about how dystopian the world has been turning since the early '70s, or how callous I may be.

It seems to me that the core problem in the movie is a truth-in-labeling issue. Turning a massive glut of corpses into food seems a good use of resources (protein) under the fictional overpopulation scenario depicted in the movie. 

I can't imagine that the people of that world- seeing what they have become accustomed to tolerating- would really have that big an issue eating the processed remains of their fellow humans. 

Maybe Thorn was acting like it was a big deal, but no one else cared. That is where the movie ended, after all. He screamed the truth, the cameras shut off, and people shrugged and went on about their miserable lives, with bigger problems to worry about.

Come to think of it, that feels like the response to most uncomfortable truths about government and lost liberty that I feel people should care about.

-

Thank you for reading.
Thanks to the generous support of readers like you

You're a King

What's better than "No Kings"?

Everyone a king or a queen. Everyone the sovereign individual they were born to be.

8 billion+ kings/queens is better than none. 

If there are none, slimy political criminals will call themselves something else while they take on the king's role and assert illegitimate "authority" over your life. Don't leave a power vacuum; wear your crown- or not. It's your decision as King.

-

Thank you for reading.
Are you not entertained?

Socialist politicians take note

Any "affordability" that doesn't take the cost of taxation and regulation into account is a lie.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations always appreciated

The experimental life

One thing that distinguishes me from the people I know is that I’m always, constantly experimenting.

Looking for better ways to do things. New ways; different ways. 

Even with things that I’ve settled on, if someone suggests another way that seems interesting or possibly better, or if I think of something different, I’ll nearly always try it. 

Maybe it’s a reflection of my lifelong love of science. Or my lack of belief in authority as the final word. Or some combination of the two, or something else entirely.

I don’t personally know anyone else who does this- at least not to the same extent I do. I'm sure there are plenty of people like this, I just don't know any.

I'm also not sure this is a good thing. It seems like it should be, but then I see how content the people who don't feel this need seem to be, and then I'm not certain.

One thing I know for sure is that the liberty to experiment is absolutely essential, not just for me, but for the entire species.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations always appreciated

Long-range economics from a non-economist

October 12, 2017, mBTC price

I feel bad. I’ve been begging friends and family to get precious metals for many years, and to get Bitcoin for the past few years. Most of them have ignored me. Or even laughed at me.

One did finally get some silver and a very small amount of gold about 10 years ago, and a few dollars of Bitcoin about 5 years later. He’s glad he did. The rest are oblivious to what they missed. They still dismiss my suggestions, thinking US fiat dollars are the only money that counts.

They may even feel smart when they hear that Bitcoin is "collapsing". Again. As it regularly does before (and after) hitting new all-time highs. Like is happening now. The reality is that Bitcoin is on sale for a limited time.

The US dollar will eventually collapse, too, and when it does, it won't rebound. It will be worth nothing (some would argue it's already most of the way there). I don't know if it will happen in your lifetime, but it's guaranteed to happen. If it does happen in your lifetime, are you ready? Do you have contingency plans?

I don't have nearly enough of either metals or crypto; I'm not even convinced "enough" is a thing- but at least I understand the importance of having some.

The US dollar's long-term trend is only downward, seeking its intrinsic value of zero. This is the path it has been on since 1913, and it shows no signs of stopping its downhill slide.

I think, with Bitcoin, that the long-term direction will be forever upward. Yeah, there will be bumps and dips, but over the course of decades, if you have even one Bitcoin, you'll be set. Maybe I'm wrong and it has hit its peak, or quantum computing will destroy it, and it will be worthless in 5 years, But I doubt it.  If only I'd trusted it more in the beginning... but let's not think about that! 

Also, food for thought, if the price of Bitcoin increases as much in the next 8 years as it did in the 8 years since the screenshot above was captured, it will be worth somewhere around $1.7 million. Each.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Destroying their own argument

One thing statists constantly do in any discussion is destroy their own argument- and not realize they've done so. Not even when shown what they did. You can hold their hand in some cases, but they'll see nothing that doesn't agree with their preferred superstition.

I encountered one who didn't like what I had to say about "just following orders". I said it didn't work, and he said it worked as long as you were on the winning side. I had to give him that one, but I said it doesn't cut it for me.

His comeback argument was that you have to use the power of government because your enemies will use it against you. I said that, yes, evil works, but you don't need to be evil because you can ethically shoot the bad guys in self-defense.

His rebuttal was, "Power is not evil, it’s just the ability to decide. If you don’t win, you don’t get to decide on anything. 'self defense isn’t evil' is 'I was just following order' in that it’s decided by those in power. A leftist judge and jury will give you 40 years for 'pew-pew' no matter how justified you feel." (He kind of lost me there, with the grammar problems or dropped words, but I think I got the gist of it.)

The sad thing was, he didn't realize what he had just done to his own argument.

I pointed out that such a judge, and his power to harm someone for engaging in self-defense, are evil. This confused him. I don't expect him to ever get it figured out. I know he believes he's being pragmatic- which is another problem, but such is life.

So much discussion with statists is like trying to discuss the color green with someone who insists it's orange, and calls you the problem for not going along.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

You don't want to be government's pet

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 5, 2025)

The SNAP crisis has shown a flaw in encouraging people to become dependent on government for anything essential. If you allow yourself to become dependent on government, it will own you.

Why would you do this to yourself? To your family?..read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Don't be puppet for government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 1, 2025)

If you change your behavior strictly because of what someone you dislike thinks you should or shouldn't do, you are their puppet.

Last week, when government came out with the cautionary advice to not take Tylenol (Acetaminophen) during pregnancy- advice which actually agrees completely with Tylenol's published advice- there were reports of pregnant women on the political Left going against this advice and taking the medicine to spite Robert Kennedy Jr. and President Trump. Some made videos of their act of defiance, just to do the opposite of what the current regime told them they probably shouldn't do.

Again, advice that Tylenol's manufacturer has been giving for years.

That's not rational behavior.

I've also seen people on the political Right do dumb things as a reaction just because the Democrats in power advised them against doing it. Or mandated them to do it.

I knew someone who littered because the "environmentalists" on the Left told her not to. Truthfully, I've known two people who did this- and I picked up after them when I could, because I'm not an irresponsible idiot who is easily manipulated by politics. It's not smart to soil your own nest, even if someone you dislike tells you it's a bad idea.

There are people on the Right who now refuse any vaccinations just because the sketchy Covid shots made vaccinations a Democrat virtue.

This is no more rational than what the Left was apparently doing last week. Truth is truth, no matter who says it.

Long ago, someone pointed out to me that if I alter my behavior for no reason but to defy someone, they are controlling me as surely as if I were obeying their every command. I don't want to be a puppet.

Wouldn't you feel stupid if you ended up damaging your health, the health of your child, or costing yourself extra money simply because you wanted to do the opposite of what some politician told you?

It's smarter to weigh everything someone tells you to do. If it makes sense and is good for you, do it. If it seems like it would be bad for you, do something else. Check with sources you trust- the less political, the better. You might even be wrong sometimes. Make your choices and accept the consequences. Never put yourself in danger for no better reason than to figuratively spit in the face of a politician. Be smarter. Think for yourself.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

"... similar to Communism in how it ignores reality"

Statists love to equate libertarianism and anarchism with communism. They believe this comparison gives them an automatic win. Far from it.

Some guy got upset that I said "ALL government is The Ancestral Enemy" (in response to an eye-patched political criminal). He thought he had squeezed out a gotcha with his quip that "Libertarianism is anarchy with extra steps", and went on to try to associate it with communism, as they so often try to do.

I asked him to explain. This was his attempt.

"When you decentralize a society and implement what is de facto mob rule, you will always have chaos and crime. Libertarian principles will never save the day, because order must be enforced. The solution is centralized authority, which is why it always comes back in the end."

That's an awful lot of straw men and assumptions in one paragraph.

Let me break it down bit by bit.

"When you decentralize a society and implement what is de facto mob rule, you will always have chaos and crime."

How odd that he believes decentralization is "de facto mob rule". What, like v*ting leads to? He's the one promoting someone ruling others, not me. I want everyone to rule himself. I know some wouldn't, just like they don't under government now. There's an ethical solution to that: defense of life, liberty, and property from all violators.

No matter what, there will always be chaos and crime. Always. Regardless of the "system" you implement. I've never seen an example of a government that doesn't have (or promote) chaos and crime. Not one. An argument that fails this hard shouldn't keep being dredged up. But it's one of their favorites, so they can't let it go. I’ve never heard of even one libertarian who expected liberty to result in Utopia; this is strictly something statists demand of it. And something they would never expect of their own “system “.

"Libertarian principles will never save the day, because order must be enforced."

Non sequitur, and it's wrong anyway.

Libertarian principles save the day all the time. Without them, there's no such thing as society. They provide just the right amount of order- not too much and not too little. 
They work for me every day, in every way. I've never encountered a situation that could be improved by violating libertarian principles.

Do they make life perfect? No. Nothing does. Including government. This is an attempt to excuse violating others just because the alternative you don't like isn't perfect.

Some order must be enforced, yes. Within limits. Too much order is just as deadly as too little. There is a balance, and that balance is anarchy- or libertarianism, if you prefer. Why does he believe a criminal organization that exempts its members from the rules it imposes on the rest of us is the proper way to enforce order? Why is he so addicted to order? It is each individual's responsibility to protect life, liberty, and property- to enforce ethical order. That statists try to abdicate this responsibility to government doesn't change anything. Not a single thing. 

"The solution is centralized authority, which is why it always comes back in the end."

That sounds an awful lot like the communism he was trying to smear libertarianism with. When I mentioned this, he claimed it is a "false equivalency".

"Authority" is The Most Dangerous Superstition. The reason it "comes back in the end" (or has so far) is that humans are superstitious and have been brainwashed to believe in it. But your superstitious beliefs don't obligate me. You do what you want, but I know your "authorities" are nothing more than criminals with a 12+ year indoctrination program to fool people into seeing them as something they aren't. You can't make me believe in the false legitimacy of the illegitimate, no matter how you try to frame it. Even if your thugs murder me, I know they are nothing but criminals.

It's amusing to me how often (like, every single time) their objections apply equally to the "system" they believe they are defending from scary liberty. Dolts.

It seems that they ignore reality to keep believing what they believe.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Space invaders

The right of association is an essential human right; this means you can exclude anyone from your space for any reason, or on a whim. Any "law" saying otherwise is a violation of your basic human rights.

It's a bad feeling to be excluded. I've experienced it and I didn't like it.

It doesn't matter.

People have a right to their exclusive spaces. They can base them on any criteria they choose, or it can be totally arbitrary, based on "I don't like how you look".

Those who have been excluded from some space have the right to establish their own spaces and exclude those who excluded them. Or not.

It doesn't bother me that I am not allowed in a women's dressing room or restroom. I can imagine an emergency situation where I might invade a women's restroom- but I would know I am doing something I have no right to do, and I would be as respectful and contrite as possible. I wouldn't act entitled, but I would be extremely apologetic. If someone punched me for being in there, I would deserve it.

If people of some particular "race" wish to have a club for only "their own people", I would respect that wish. Even if I really wanted to participate. If I liked their club idea, I might establish a similar club for myself and those who want to join- I can't imagine excluding anyone because of something as trivial as "race". Anyone who didn't enter and try to archate would probably be welcome. If they smelled really bad, I might ask them to address that issue before coming back- unless stinking was fundamental to the purpose of the club.

I have never understood those who want to invade other people's spaces. Why insist on being where you aren't welcome? So often, they then ruin those spaces, making them into something even they don't want to be a part of anymore. It's just dumb.

Respect the right of association. If you want to join, try to earn an invitation. If you can't, move on. You'll be OK.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Collectivist "thinking"

I’ve noticed an epidemic of collectivist hatred among too many people who otherwise appear to lean toward liberty. It’s their obsessive hatred of Jews. I'm running into this in places where it has no bearing on the topic; where it seems some ignorant people just feel the need to insert it everywhere, just so you'll see their opinion. Some openly advocate the discredited socialist swastika cult.

It’s wise to hate countries and governments, but not to nurture a blanket hatred of people who share nothing in common about their behavior. I hate behaviors, not generic people. Individuals' behaviors.

I dislike the Somalis who move to America and become politicians, not because they are from Somalia, but because I dislike politicians. Everywhere, no matter who they are or where they were born. Politicians aren't good people because they seek power over others. I am not anti-Somalic; I am pro-liberty.

It's the same with Jewish people. I dislike the ones who seek to rule others, whether as part of an Israeli government or as a US politician. Not because they are Jews, but because they are archators. Jewish people who aren't archators are perfectly fine by me. And that's the vast majority of them- the political element is a small minority of any group (other than the self-selected group comprised of politicians, bureaucrats, and other political parasites). They are the bad apples.

It's smart to be biased against individuals who violate others, and against individuals who choose to join a group based on violating others, but not based on their genes or accidents of birth. Actions are all that matter.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Food as a human right

To be clear:

• You have the right to hunt, gather, and grow your food. Any government rules that make this difficult or impossible violate your human right to acquire food.
• You have the right to barter or buy food from others who hunt, gather, or grow food. Any government rules that make this difficult or impossible violate your human right to acquire food.

Food is a human right. 

Having others provide you with food is not a human right. That’s slavery.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Obeying their lizard brain

I used to see welfare recipients as thieves, but I eventually came to see many of them as victims. They just don't know they are victims, or they imagine some other victimhood. 

Victims who'll blame those who aren't victimizing them when the handouts stop.

I blame those politicians and bureaucrats who steal and redistribute, not the saps who fall into the scam. I can't get too angry at people who are told, "Here's some free stuff- take it", for taking what they are offered. 

Part of this lies in my low estimation of the intelligence of the general population. 

Most people aren't aware enough to see it as a scam; they just hear "free stuff!" without the necessary awareness to realize there's no such thing as "free". Someone always pays, and there's a cost to the recipients, too.

The thieves who steal and redistribute are buying loyalty, and maybe even v*tes.
Those who receive the stolen money are only doing what their lizard brains tell them is good for them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Fatal involvement

The looming food stamp riots show one thing clearly: Government shouldn't be involved. In anything. It doesn't matter what the topic is.

Government shouldn't be involved in food distribution. When it is, look what happens.

That's not all, though.

Government shouldn't be involved in healthcare, justice, security, business/economy, money, making rules, education, transportation, arbitration, defense, or any of the other things government tries to involve itself in.
Even more dangerous are the things which government decides to enforce its artificial monopoly over.

Central planning is always a flop. Every time it is tried, it fails. If you believe it didn't fail in some instance, it's because government got involved in (and destroyed) education.

Also, I have no objection whatsoever to anyone decisively ending a food thief who believes they are entitled to the food in a store. That person can choose whether or not to be a thief, and if that's the choice they make, I have no pity when that choice has deadly consequences. There is ALWAYS a better option than theft.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

This isn't way things have to be

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 29, 2025)

I've discovered that telling people what kind of world you want to live in doesn't get through to anyone. It's not enough to describe a world where everyone is free to live in liberty without waiting for permission from sociopaths who imagine they have the right to run your life. This doesn't resonate.

Perhaps it would be better to describe the world I don't want. The world I'm not willing to tolerate...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Best to reject politics in all forms

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 24, 2025)

One of the main reasons I can't be conservative or "liberal"- Right or Left, Republican or Democrat- is that all of them trust government to some degree. I don't trust it because I can't.

They trust government with different issues; their specific degree of trust depends on which political party holds the most offices this week. I trust government with nothing- based on its actions, not its promises, and its perpetual failure to fulfill the bare minimum justification for government throughout history.

Each political faction also has areas where they doubt government, but I distrust it entirely- especially in critical matters like life, death, ethics, or natural rights. Handing those to government was a mistake.

They believe government can protect them from their fears: "immigrants", guns, disease, poverty, crime, or even their own mistakes. It can’t. It doesn’t try. Being controlled like livestock isn't safety, unless you believe the danger comes from predators outside the fences, while the biggest danger is from those planning to profit from your body and your labor without your consent. Not through mutually agreed-upon deals like civilized people would pursue, but by robbing you of the fruits of those consensual arrangements.

They believe government will provide for them. It won’t, not for long anyway, and always with a catch. Government can only give you what it takes, by force or threats, from others. That’s its nature, and it won’t change.

Government has an enduring history of violating rights.

Both of the mainstream factions push for government censorship against the other side. Either directly or through pressure on licensed platforms. Whichever side has the power uses it, and the other side screams in protest, pretending they didn't do the same when they had control. This is the best argument for abolishing obsolete agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); government has no business licensing anyone's rights.

The Left has become the most hateful side, but the Right's calls for censorship are wrong. It can sometimes feel good to make the other side play by the rules they've been using against you. On the other hand, Republicans Abraham Lincoln and Joseph McCarthy both had a hand in setting this censorship table long ago, and political people are going to do what political people do when given the opportunity.

This is why I reject politics entirely. Trusting government, no matter who’s in charge, is a dead end.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Need more evidence that communists are dumb or dishonest?

"Profit" is not a dirty word, nor is it wrong to make a profit. It’s the motivation to do things that are necessary, but that you might not choose to do otherwise. 

I ran across a dumb "meme" from a communist that said, "The only reason people go hungry... It's because food is grown to make profit instead of feeding people."

Yeah, commies don't understand how things work. It's why they are communists.

Profit from growing food? The horrors! But, that profit is the incentive that gets the farmer to make the effort to grow more food than his family needs. He works more so that others can eat; to feed many others! 

Growing food in quantity isn't a cheap endeavor. When I was a kid, I was amazed to find out just how much money went through my farmer relatives' hands- it didn't make them rich because they didn't keep it, but it was a huge amount that they took in and sent right back out to keep the farm going. That's capitalism in action.

This is why communism always results in starvation, sooner or later. And why the profit motive has reduced poverty and hunger to the lowest levels since humans made the agriculture mistake.

Commies prefer slavery, where people are forced to work, then hand their goods to others in exchange for what government believes is their "fair share" (after the parasitic government takes its prime cut). It never works. It isn't compassionate. It results in mass starvation, every time it is tried, so the lie that "The only reason people go hungry..." doesn't work for them. Communism results in far more hunger.

And it requires a police state to make sure no one "profits" and tries to keep their family alive "unfairly". Communism is barbaric.

I saw another post by an ignoramus (or maybe a troll) saying that farmers would be replaced by UberEats within 3 years. But why would someone go to the effort of delivering food and putting that wear and tear on their car and use the fuel, if they didn't get some profit to help support themselves? Even if food appeared by magic somewhere along the supply chain (which isn't a chain, but a cobweb) without anyone actually producing it, someone has to prepare it and deliver it. Or, maybe urbanites believe food appears in the delivery vehicle for no reason at all, other than that they ordered it.

Even if everything were free, you'd have to incentivize people to work to provide "everything". Unless you can find a way that playing video games or watching TikTok somehow powers robots that do all the work- but who's going to bother to invent, program, and manufacture those robots if they don't get anything extra from it? It doesn't work like that.

Profit isn't poison, it's the fuel that powers humans to do things they might not do otherwise.

Communists fail because they are lazy, ignorant slavers who refuse to accept reality and who don't understand human motivation.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Mamdani and foreign-born v*ters

I saw a graph showing the breakdown in v*ter support for Commie Mamdani in NYC. 

The vast majority of his support comes from foreign-born v*ters. 

This was used as an argument against foreign-born people being allowed to v*te in America. 

You know what my first thought was? Why is anyone allowed to impose a politician- of any stripe- on others? It's a bad idea, and it's unethical. If you tolerate such nonsense, this is what you'll get. Maybe not every time, but eventually.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Dangerous, entitled parasites

Have you seen the entitled morons complaining, “If I don't get my food stamps, I’ll just steal the food and nobody better try to stop me as I walk out the door!”

Then there are the people, some are store employees, who say they’ll look the other way, because "hunger" or "compassion". "It's Trump's fault!"

They are no better than the thieves.

This illustrates why handouts are a bad idea. Why it's a bad idea to even start feeding the wildlife. I understand why some would want to, but it isn't really helping most of them.

People get entitled. And they enslave themselves to whoever holds the purse. They are handing control over their life to people who don't actually care what happens to them. I addressed this 19 years ago in my post titled MountainMan wisdom.

They also get dangerous if the handouts get shut off.
Well, no store owner has to tolerate that nonsense.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

"I'll do whatever I want"

A year or so ago, the guy my daughter was seeing told me he was a libertarian. I tried to make sure he knew what the word meant, but it doesn't seem to have gotten through.

He also claimed to be "Punk". Desperate to distinguish himself from the crowd, as so many young people seem to be.

He has a distinguishing characteristic now. He got a tooth knocked out in a fight with my daughter's new boyfriend a few days ago, after stalking him and confronting him at home, just minutes after getting caught at our house and fleeing into the night.

Now the ex is threatening to shoot the new boyfriend. 

The new boyfriend (who has plenty of issues of his own) went to "the authorities" about the threat, and now he's in legal trouble for the fight, and the ex seems to be facing no consequences whatsoever. Typical.

The police chief supposedly said, "It's not my problem" when told about the threat.

Anyway...

I knew the ex didn't get what "libertarian" means, and that he didn't listen to a thing I said. Not that I'm surprised.

Libertarian doesn’t mean "I’ll do whatever I want", because it’s grounded in liberty- freedom tempered with responsibility. Claiming you're libertarian because you like the freedom to do whatever, but ignoring your responsibility to not archate, doesn't cut it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Hyperbolic Hillary

Oh, to be Hillary, the hyperbolic alcoholic (allegedly).

Could someone please "destroy" part of my house and build me an addition I'd enjoy? 

I'd really like an indoor (underground!) shooting range, just in case anyone is looking for ideas.

As for the White House, I have an idea what the entire facility could be better used for... if it's really my house. Hillary wouldn't lie about that, would she?

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

It's true: Democracy is mob rule

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 22, 2025)

There is no such thing as a "right to vote".

This may be shocking, but it's true. No one has the right to impose politicians or policies on others; to govern them. Not by being king nor by voting...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Killing over opinions is depraved

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 17, 2025)

If you are on the side that believes it's justifiable to kill people over their opinions, you're on the bad side.

If your ideas are so fragile and empty that you'll resort to censorship or murder to prevent someone from continuing to dismantle them with reasoned debate, you've already lost. You've admitted you have no counterargument.

When you feel you have to silence the opposition with a bullet instead of presenting better ideas of your own, you've broadcast to the world that you have no better ideas. Even if the one you silenced was wrong. Especially if they were wrong.

It's why I'm a free speech absolutist: let the bad guys reveal themselves and their schemes openly. Those who resort to threats, intimidation, censorship, or murder in an attempt to silence their opposition do so because it's all they have.

I don't always agree with any individual. Not even fellow liberty lovers. As for the rest, some people have opinions I find repugnant. I don't need to kill them, even if I were so pathetic I thought it was acceptable, because I trust the strength of my arguments. Always.

Sometimes I'll choose not to engage in debate with someone because it's obvious they are simply reciting a script, completely devoid of thought. Anti-gun advocates are particularly prone to this nearly every time you engage with them. In this case, I may toy with them for a while, giving them enough rope to entangle themselves, realize their mistake, and run away. Or they may double down, which is even funnier.

If, during a debate, I realize the other person has a stronger argument with valid points, I will change my mind. I'd rather be on the right side than "win" an argument, even if it means adopting a new perspective. I'm never afraid to engage with those who disagree with me, as long as their disagreement remains civil.

I've received credible death threats over these columns. It's been a few years, but it raised my awareness of the risks involved in expressing opinions which some people- especially those radicalized into aggression by their influencers- despise. I'm completely empathetic to anyone who speaks out and gets unhinged people angry enough to act with aggression, either personally or by hiring someone to do it on their behalf.

Murdering a person over their opinions is vile; something only a depraved, evil loser would even think of doing.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

The opposite of pragmatism

The opposite of pragmatism isn't Utopianism, as so many pragmatism addicts want to pretend. You have to do what works, but within the limits of what you have a right to do. Deciding you're not going to violate others isn't "Utopian".

I hate those who justify evil on pragmatic grounds more than just about anyone.

I understand why they do it- evil frequently works, so it’s obviously “pragmatic”. But it’s still wrong. If your argument is for being pragmatic, without considering whether it's ethical or not, I'm not going to respect your opinion at all. Nor will I cooperate with your schemes.

Pragmatism of some sort is a nearly universal political trait. It forms the basis for justifying anything a politically minded person wants to justify. The only counterargument would be if this evil had never "worked" anywhere at any time. But of course it has. Archation "works", it's just unethical.

Museum robberies can get you the crown jewels.
A mugging can get you some money.
Killing someone will stop them from saying things you don't like- although this is less effective in the age of video recording.

Governing others, and extorting money from them, will fund "services".

But, it's wrong to do any of that. Doing it anyway makes you the bad guy- the real criminal, even if your criminal acts have been "legalized" by the criminal gang you work for.

Crime can be pragmatic if you've set up a system to make sure it "works" and no one can effectively opt out. It's still wrong.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Quite a pickle

The Left calls us "Far-Right Nazis" because we don’t go along with their insane authoritarianism, and the Right says we "only help Democrats" because we won’t v*te for their worst candidates and support their worst policies.

Neither has the self-awareness of a pickle.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Foam weapons, plastic beads, and "Ron Swanson libertarians"

I used to be involved in "buckskinning"; recreating the pre-1840 mountain man Rocky Mountain fur trade era. I still hold it dear.

One big principle in that hobby- at least while in camp- is "no plastic" and nothing that is obviously anachronistic for that time period. Even things like cameras/phones and necessary medical equipment are supposed to be kept hidden or disguised in a period-correct manner. You couldn't wear a naugahyde fringed jacket and microfiber suede pants and expect to get any respect in camp.

That's why my eyeglasses were always an antique style. Plus, I just prefer the look and feel of the old stuff.

When I moved here, there were no local buckshinning groups. I'm much too broke to travel anymore, so I can't get to their rendezvous, and my tipi is damaged, plus my lodgepoles were stolen years ago.

So, I was looking for another hobby. 

I dabbled in the local SCA group a few years ago, and I had high hopes. It didn't work out. It just felt too fake for my tastes. Their focus wasn't on living, but fighting. And they used fake swords and plastic armor. I tried to get into it, but it just wasn't for me. 

There's nothing wrong with it, and if I hadn't been involved in buckskinning first, I might have fit in better.

It's the same feeling I get when I run across a "Ron Swanson libertarian"- someone's idea of what a libertarian might be, played by an actor, to seem libertarian to people who don’t understand the concept of being libertarian. 

I like the"Ron Swanson" character. He's funny, and I agree with him a lot of the time. On other things, he's just not libertarian (even if it's still funny).

Like a lot of the "libertarians" I see online. Some are just "conservatives" who prefer a little more liberty/less government in specific areas, and some are Leftists who lean a little bit toward liberty in some areas. But they seem to be wearing plastic armor and carrying foam weapons. They are giving a performance for an audience.

They may be sincere, and they are probably better than those who don't even make an effort, but they just feel too fake for my tastes. I rarely call them out, because I'd rather not alienate them. My hope is that they'll keep growing if given a chance. I also wonder how they'll ever have that chance if no one points out how off-course they are.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

No Kings-- no, not yours, either.

Just in case you imagine I'm giving "the Right" a pass recently, here's a list of some of the tyranny of the Right:

• Unconstitutional "border" enforcement and "immigrant" crackdowns.
• Anti-gun enforcement and trying hard to keep both the NFA and GCA, and all their unconstitutional crimes, intact and enforced.
• Supporting police, even when they enforce counterfeit "laws".
• Prohibition.
• Military bases in nearly every country on Earth.
• Taxing you for things they want.
• Governing others.

All these anti-liberty things are reprehensible, and I give their supporters no leeway whatsoever.

But, I'm not so stupid as to hallucinate that the only threat, the only "kings", are the rulers on the Right. That's just pathetic. I oppose their prospective kings, too.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

"Needs" or "Wants"- You don't necessarily know the difference

Anyone who argues “No one needs…” is just wrong.

Maybe no one needs a gold-plated AK-47. Some people might want one. (I don't, but some people undeniably do.)

If you only have what others say you need, you wouldn’t have a satisfying life. You could have all your biological needs met in a cage. Some people die from captivity regardless.

Everyone needs at least some of their wants met, too. Otherwise, I don’t think they can survive. They certainly won't thrive.

So to argue over whether something is a "want" or a "need" is dishonest. You don't know for sure what all the needs of another person may be-- especially not whether they'll survive if you deny them this mere "want".

No one is obligated to provide others with these wants (or needs), but everyone is obligated to stay out of your way as you provide them for yourself. Including not interfering with a background check if what you want is the gold-plated AK-47 that some people will say “No one needs”.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

The only real solution

When people discuss that troublesome region known as "The Middle East", one common debate is whether to pursue a "One State Solution" or a "Two State Solution" for the troublemakers of both sides.

Those plans are both wrong because the only sustainable solution is the No State Solution: No one gets to govern their neighbors or their enemies. States are the problem.

Will this result in regional peace? No, because the people in that area don't want peace. If they did, peace would be easily attainable. 

What it does is return aggression to a private matter between individuals. It removes any veil of legitimacy from either side in the conflict. Aggressors are just aggressors, with no justification.

If you, as an individual, wish to send your money or weapons to anyone over there, at your own expense, you should be free to do so. It is within your rights.

If you wish to buy a ticket and go there to fight against individuals you dislike, I'm not going to stop you. You may be the aggressor or the defender, but that's on you. No governments or political criminals, anywhere, for you to shift the blame to. Which is how I already see it anyway.

-

Thank you for reading.
I'm in need of some donations.

Let's shut down government for real

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 15, 2025)

Recently, everyone has been up in arms over a supposed government shutdown. The same way they were over the last few and will be when the next regularly scheduled shutdowns roll around. Some act as if this hasn't become normal political theatrics. I'm not sure which rock they've been hiding under for the past few decades, but it must be a remote one.

These same people are trying to decide who's to blame. Blame?...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Your liberty just as important as mine

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 10, 2025)

Caring about people means caring about their liberty.

Liberty is a universal principle. It isn’t just for me, those I like, or those who agree with me. It’s for everyone or it’s not liberty at all. If I didn’t care about people, I would demand my rights while trampling yours; anything to get my way. But that’s not liberty; it’s tyranny dressed up with moralizing words.

Liberty is the foundation of a life worth living. It’s the ability to make your own choices, pursue your own happiness, protect your own property, and build your future without anyone’s boot on your neck. It’s a two-way street. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. If I claim my liberty while ignoring yours, I’m not defending liberty- I’m being selfish; a bully. True liberty means recognizing that your rights matter as much as mine do, no matter how deeply we might disagree.

Consider how this plays out. If I want to speak my mind, but I demand someone censors you, I’m not defending liberty- I’m undermining it. Or property rights. I can’t demand the right to use my land as I see fit while ignoring your right to do the same. When government steps in to control one of us, it’s not just an attack on them- it’s a threat to us all. Liberty is interconnected; erode it for one, and it crumbles for everyone.

This isn’t theoretical philosophy- it’s practical reality. In every state in America, we see how government overreach stifles liberty. From burdensome regulations on small businesses to rules that chip away at self-defense rights, the pattern is clear. When someone’s liberty is violated, it sets a precedent for everyone else to be violated. If I'm smug when the “other guy” has his rights violated because I don’t like him, I’m giving government a pass to use against me next.

Caring about liberty means standing up for people you might not even like. It’s defending the rights of the loudmouth you can’t stand, the annoying neighbor, or the stranger whose choices you don’t understand. Why? Because their liberty protects yours. If I let yours be trampled, I’m inviting the same fate for myself.

So, no, I won’t demand my rights at the expense of yours. I’ll fight for both, because liberty isn’t a zero-sum game. It’s the only way we all thrive. Anything less is just selfishness cosplaying as principle.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

A throwback to the crazy year

I was going through some saved items, while looking for something else, and came across a screenshot of someone's "face-mask flip out" from early July 2020. I won't share the details or name the commenter (who I recognize from my liberty circle*) because I didn't save the context- I don't know if it was in response to something I wrote, or to something else. But it was a magnificent meltdown.

I only saved it because the person came completely unhinged that someone might oppose mandatory masking, which I thought was weird. And he was flipping out over the suspicion that masks might reduce the blood oxygen levels in wearers. It was interesting at the time. Maybe more so now, in hindsight.

I did my own breathing experiment later, so that wasn't what triggered him, but his outburst is probably what inspired me to test it for myself.

I have saved other things of this sort over the years, and when I run across them, I always wonder if the person stands by it, if they changed their mind, or if they've rewritten their personal history to remove the insanity. "That was my position all along!"

--

*I found him on FB. He apparently now hates all of us because if we aren't on board with the Left-wing authoritarianism he prefers, then we are Right-wing authoritarians. Wingism is terribly seductive. So he probably still stands by it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

War anywhere isn't good for me

It’s not good for me when the US government assists the Ukrainian government in its war.

It’s not good for me when the US government assists the Israeli government in its war.

It might be good for me if the US government negotiated an end to a war, or chose to stop being involved with these regional wars in any capacity.

Might.

If wars keep government focused outwardly, and an end to these distractions caused it to shift all that attention domestically, it could end up being bad for me. And all of us.

I still want the US government to stay out of other people's wars. And everything else. And disband.

Government is such a loser institution.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Don't nurture your anxieties

How did it happen that so large a segment of the population decided to flaunt all their anxieties and try to shame the rest of us into coddling them?

I don't like crowds. I don't feel the need to wear a pin proclaiming this "problem", nor to discuss it with strangers, or to expect everyone to coddle me because I don't like crowds.

The same with heights, big dogs, and most carnival rides.

It is what it is, and I adjust. I either avoid those situations or I suck it up and deal with it, knowing the problem is mine, not yours.

The same goes for everyone I've been around most of my life. Everyone has their preferences and they adjust, too.

This isn't good enough for so many (generally younger) people now. They want you to know every issue they have. They have no intention of working them out, but they want the world to bend to accommodate them.

If it does, it's not doing them any favors. In fact, treating them this way is probably only going to make their anxieties grow bigger and more numerous. They're never expected to grow up, so why would they? It's easier to wear a pin and talk about how awful it is that they have to have this issue.

And, if you hang out with a crowd that makes you believe wearing a pin that says "Ask before hugging" is necessary, then you're obviously hanging out with the wrong people. Maybe not wrong for everyone, but wrong for you. You have the right to be that way, but why would you? 

Push your boundaries a little. Allow yourself to experience discomfort. It will be good for you.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?