The fewer the better

The fewer government employees, the better. Zero being the best number of them to have.

The next-best situation, if government is allowed to exist at all, is only one government "employee", even if it's a lone dictator.

What can a dictator do if he has no underlings- government employees- to impose his will on the people? You can't have a police state without police, nor can you have a military state without a military.

Would the lonely dictator be killed, or would he be ignored because he would be irrelevant? 

His Supreme Potentate, General Dick Tater, would be utterly powerless. If he did start to find a way to impose his will on others, he'd either end up with more people helping him for favors, money, or power (more government employees, which is always bad), or he'd be eliminated the minute he became a threat. 

One way leads back to where we keep ending up; the other to a potential for liberty

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

A trashy pirate fleet

One super easy and accurate way to know a cop is not on the side of the public (or liberty) is if it drives a car with those stealth markings. 

That shows it is unambiguously part of a theft ring, targeting people who are simply trying to travel around doing their daily business. A pirate, but not the cool kind. Just the trashy kind.

About half of the local cop cars (and sheriff vehicles) are of this type. They aren't the good guys. Neither are those who support them and excuse their crimes.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

"You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy"- MAGA edition

A "conservative" in my sphere started talking about tariffs. He told me that you can avoid the higher prices by only buying American-made products. 

I pointed out that this isn't true.

I told him that if a foreign product goes up in price, it will give the American product room to raise its price as well. If the foreign product goes up by 25%, why wouldn't the American product's price go up by 20% - or by whatever amount keeps it just slightly below the competitor's price? Who wouldn't raise their prices if the competition has to? Tariffs are anticompetition.

He admitted that this may be true, but you can still avoid the higher prices by not buying anything. He said there wasn't anything he needed to buy that much, and he could do without it.

I said, in other words, "You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy"- MAGA edition.

When I quoted Communist Klaus as my only reply, he had no response at all. He was speechless and changed the subject.

This isn't hard to understand, and if you're not brainwashed by Keynesian fake economics you will be able to understand. Otherwise, you probably won't understand.

Appendix:
I openly disagree with Right-statists in this way all the time, because they are all around me, and they can take it. Occasionally, they even admit I'm right.
On the other hand, I don't usually say anything to the Left-statists around me when they are wrong, because they can't handle it. They are too fragile and lose their minds (and shut me out) when challenged on anything. There's no debate.
This is just my experience, based on a small sample size in the few geographical regions where I've lived. Maybe it means something; maybe it doesn't.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Nice doggy

I'm biased. If you have the chance to bring back an extinct animal, DO IT!

Maybe not if it's an extinct species of louse or flea, but if it's cool and impressive, yes, please! If it's potentially dangerous, that's even better.

I'm more than skeptical of the "de-extincted Dire Wolves". As far as I know, no one knows what Dire Wolves actually looked like, and they weren't closely related to Gray Wolves (and not even technically wolves), so I'm not seeing how they can figure that Gray Wolves are the closest living species to use in the gene manipulation. I think that's just the species they had handy, so they went with it.

I want to be wrong about this (I sure say that a lot!).

Whatever they are, the new wolves are still cool and interesting. 

I'm still waiting for the Woolly mammoth to be brought back. That's first in a long list of things I'd like to see roaming the earth again. And, yeah, that list includes some non-avian dinosaurs.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Politics compromises rational thought

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 9, 2025)

If you know someone's biases, you can fool them into believing almost anything as long as it aligns with those biases. Politicians are good at this because their victims self-select to listen to the politicians who appeal to their biases. People who are emotionally invested in a specific political ideology are particularly susceptible to influence.

They are primed to be manipulated...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Democracy no more than mob rule

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

Has your democracy been lost yet? Has someone stolen it?

Silly questions for a silly era asked of silly people who worship mob rule as long as they are on the majority side. They have no problem ignoring the will of those who disagree with them; they only wring their hands when they end up on the losing side.

America was never supposed to be a democracy. It was set up as a republic, limited in scope by a constitution which defined exactly what government is allowed to do to the population, regardless of what the majority wants. This failed.

Republics, including those defined and limited by a constitution, turn into democracies because people, in overwhelming numbers, want to violate the rights of others and vote themselves goodies paid for with taxes. With no one in power willing to say, "Hey, you can't do that no matter how popular it is because the Constitution doesn't permit it", things go haywire. You end up with a de facto democracy.

Democracies turn into authoritarian tyrannies since the push is to regulate what people are allowed to do a little more with each passing year.

Now we find ourselves in a situation where there isn't any part of our lives that isn't subject to arbitrary and absurd government rules which a majority of voters, or their elected representatives, thought were a good idea. 

Those rules were not good ideas. They were tyranny wrapped in democracy and shoved down our throats because we are outnumbered. As long as people believe they have to keep voting for "their side" no matter how badly it behaves, it will get worse.

Democracy is mob rule. It is "might (through superior numbers) makes 'right'". It means you are prohibited from exercising your rights if the majority of voters and their elected political criminals choose to ignore your rights.

Democracy is a lie. The choices you are allowed to choose between are selected by people who want to rule you and seize your property. Losing democracy wouldn't be the worst thing. It only matters what, if anything, replaces it.

You have a right to govern yourself, as an individual. You have no right to govern even one other person, nor can you elect someone to do something you have no right to do. Doing things you have no right to do is the wrong choice and puts everyone in peril. Choose to do right instead.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate your support.

Yes, they v*ted for this

Those who v*ted for Trump are not bothered by the things their opposition believes they should be bothered by.

It's wishful thinking and probably a lot of projection.

The anti-Trumpers are trying hard to push the narrative that there's regret over v*ting for Trump, but I haven't seen it. I suspect all those who they find to express regret are fake. Well, I'm sure there are a few out there, but I think they are rare and are the dumbest of the dumb.

Even the one in my family who lost her nice cushy govjob hasn't turned. This is what they v*ted for, and they knew there would be some pain. Plus, they knew Harris was a disaster, and they knew what Trump was like. They'd seen both in action for years- there were no mysteries either way.

Those looking for regretful Trump v*ters are the same people who watched Biden rotting in real time for well over four years and said he was fine; "sharp as a tack". Very few are willing even now to admit they were wrong or lying.

I don't support politicians, but I'm not shocked by what is happening. And, if I had supported the things Trump had said he would do (or try to do), I wouldn't be angry with him now. It seems odd to believe (or hope) otherwise.

Politicians always believe the answer is More Government- and that's literally never the solution to anything. Not when that government is "Right", "Left", or any other flavor. But if More Government is what they want, as long as it leans somewhat in their general direction, the supporters aren't going to regret v*ting for it. They'll always say the other outcome would have been worse.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

How to make everything worse

Government “solutions” invariably make things worse. Statists will spend a lot of time saying this isn’t true, because… well, mumble-mumble something.

Any real solution requires government to back off; to give up power and control. To be less meddlesome and intrusive. This goes against every instinct statists have. It kills them to even contemplate such horrors.

They believe everything can be solved with extra coercion, theft, authoritarianism, mass murder, and other things government is particularly good at doing. Just listen to them for a couple of minutes and you'll know it's true!

Leaving things alone goes against everything they believe and everything they want. No matter what they say to try to get you on their team.

So they advocate for "taxes", "tariffs", war, "law and order", legislation, borders, policies, interference, rules, rules, and more rules. Along with these barbarities, Left-statists also call for human trafficking, domestic terrorism, vandalism, and murder because they are trying hard to be worse than the rest (and right now, they may be succeeding).

People who understand and value liberty are caught in the middle. The statists can't be bothered to leave us alone.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Choosing your target

I may be wrong, but I have noticed a pattern that seems to delineate the big difference between the political "Right" and the political "Left":
The "Left" is self-destructive, and the "Right" prefers to destroy others.

The "Left" focuses their hate inward; the "Right" focuses it outward. But it's still hate.

Of course, there's some overlap, some exceptions, and some interpretation involved, I'm just saying it looks that way in general. To me.

Often, the Left's self-destructiveness harms others (how could it not?), and often, the Right's penchant for destroying others ricochets and hurts them (again, what would anyone expect?).

Politics makes people stupid, and usually at least a little bit evil, too.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

A house divided

Living in a country infested with politics is like living in a house with people who hate each other. Even if you're not part of their drama, the others will make sure you're as unhappy as they can make you. You will be in danger.

It's an act of defiance to not play along- if you have the personality to give you that option.
If you have, or can develop, that personality it's an act of self-preservation, too. 

If they won't listen to you and start destroying each other, your primary responsibility is to make sure you come through it. The world will need you and people like you when the smoke clears.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Under the influence... of politics

I often say politics makes people stupid, and usually a little evil, too. It's not a joke. For politicians, politics makes them evil; regular people are made stupid.

Politics is an intoxicant. In the long term, it poisons the mind as surely as alcohol or other drugs.

There have been people I liked, but who I didn't want to be around when they were drunk or drugged.
Politics is exactly the same. It can turn a decent person into a mean drunk. Into an abuser.

You can often tell by looking when a person is under the influence of a chemical intoxicant.
You can also usually tell by looking if a person is under the influence of politics.

Long-term chemical abuse leaves signs on the face and body.
So does long-term politics abuse. Both are addictive and can destroy you from the inside out.

You're not an addict if you're warning people of the dangers of alcohol or other drugs.
You're not being political when warning people of the dangers of politics.

Believing in political "authority" is just a facet of being under the influence. To molest people for being under the influence while you are under the influence of something just as destructive makes you a bad guy. Cops are hypocrites in more ways than one.

It's your choice to make. You have the right to put chemicals in your body, even if it kills you. If you kill or harm others, including while under the influence, you owe restitution you may not be able to pay.
If, while under the influence of politics, you harm or kill others, you owe restitution. Government may protect you, being a purely political monstrosity that seeks to exempt its abusers from consequences. But you are still in debt. The Universe won't forget or forgive. Whether the people do remains to be seen, but don't bank on it.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Is it really a right?

I've noticed that when a lot of people mention "rights", they are just telling you how they want to violate you.

"____ rights are human rights". Well, OK, but in that case, there doesn't need to be a modifier. All humans alive have equal and identical rights. If what you're really demanding is an imaginary "right" to do things to other people that you have no right to do, an "extra right" beyond those shared by all, you can jump right off a cliff. And it does seem like this is what they are usually demanding.

Someone asked how to explain the concept that "food is a human right". It isn't, not the way they want it to be. 

Here is how food is a human right: You have the right to grow, harvest, hunt, and prepare your own food. Any government rules that get in the way of this are illegitimate. That includes "hunting licenses" and barring people from foraging and hunting for food on "public" (unowned) land. It includes property codes that demand you grow a grass lawn instead of edible vegetables. It includes property codes that ban you from raising livestock. It includes any rule that prevents you from (or licenses) engaging in trade so you can buy food. Government is the primary criminal preventing access to food.

Here is how food is NOT a human right: You don't have the right to go to a store and demand they give you the specific kind of food you'd prefer, nor to rob someone and use their money to buy food. It's the same as forcing someone to work in the fields and grow crops for you. 

You may not get exactly the kind of food you like. You may be eating "weeds" and sparrows rather than Twinkies and Big Macs. But that's as far as the right to food gets you.

You do have the right to ask for food or money with which to buy food. Again, it may not be exactly what you wanted to eat, but as long as it is food, your right is respected.

A right doesn't obligate anyone to do anything or give you anything. It doesn't entitle someone to anyone else's labor or property. It obligates them to not violate this right, just as you are obligated to not violate their equal and identical right. It's really not that hard, and most people who don't seem to understand don't want to understand or they would understand.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Liberty: Mortal enemy of government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 2, 2025)

It isn't "political" to keep government-- its employees, agencies, and rules-- out of our lives. Politics imposes those things on others. Liberty isn't political, but violating liberty is.

If you want to be governed, I'll respect your right to act like you have no rights. If you want someone else to be governed, you're on the side of slavery and tyranny. You're doing something no one has a right to do, which is a better definition of crime than "breaking laws"...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

True libertarians not on the Trump Train

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 26, 2025)

I'm disappointed with how many former libertarians are now fans of big government just because Donald Trump is the president. Some have abandoned all pretense of supporting liberty.

If this is all it takes to make someone turn their back on liberty, were they libertarian to begin with? To me, it matters what you do, not what you say you are.

This includes some highly influential "libertarian" social media accounts which now seem to be nothing more than Republicans using "libertarian" in the name.

Some are even spending their time and energy to insult those who haven't tossed principles aside and jumped on the Trump Train. The insults fall flat, but they try.

"Libertarian" has a specific meaning; it means you reject the initiation of force, property rights violations, and fraud as ways of dealing with others; those are things no one has a right to do. Never, under any circumstances. It means you recognize that without liberty, humans are enslaved to some degree. How much slavery is acceptable to you? The correct answer is always "none".

It doesn't mean you hate those in power because the power is being used to violate rights, until you suddenly love those in power when they violate others in a different way.

I get caught in the middle because I neither suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome nor am I a Trump fan. He's just a politician like any other, who happens to be doing some good things no one else has been willing to consider, while doing some bad things which are not better in some way simply because he's the one doing them. He's neither a messiah nor a devil.

If you aren't able to acknowledge the good things someone does while condemning the bad they do, you're not thinking it through. It's the same if all you do is condemn them. Either way, you're jumping on a bandwagon. It's the easier path.

No one should have the power to govern others. It's never a legitimate power. As long as the majority believes in the most dangerous superstition-- political authority-- there will be people taking advantage of their belief and grabbing the reins of power. Everyone who wields this power will get some things right and get other things wrong. These days it's like a superpower to be able to see both sides. It's a superpower that is within your reach. Use this power well.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate your support.

Battle scars

I have scars. Some of those scars are from surgeries. Others are from living life. I prefer those I didn't get from scalpels.

I have a scar on my shoulder from a scuffle with an armadillo I had chased down. I have a long scar on my wrist from a cat who suddenly decided she needed to be on the other side of the house immediately and lept from my lap. I had scars from animal bites, but most have faded.

I have many scars on my left hand- because the knife was always in my right hand.
I have scars from getting injured while doing worthwhile things, like building stuff, exploring, and having fun. 

I don't try to hide my scars, not that most would notice them anyway.

These are my battle scars; signs I didn't just sit in a padded room dreaming of what I could be doing instead.

I also have psychological scars, but we won't talk about those.

If I drove a Tesla Cybertruck (or a lesser, pointless Tesla), I wouldn't have it refinished if it got scratched by members of the Mental Illness Drama Club acting out their issues and delusions. 

I would leave the scratched in swastikas, insults, and lines. If it got dents from being rammed with a scooter or kicked, they can stay. If it got set on fire but not destroyed, I would repair just enough to get it functional again, but I'd leave the scars. They are earned.

Those scars would be battle scars in the battle between the Far Left and literally everyone else. They would testify against those who believe it's OK to damage other people's property because the corporate media gave them their marching orders. NPCs carrying out their programming because they can't do otherwise. They are losers of the most useless sort.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.