Should I lie so people will feel better?

Of all the topics people have gotten mad at me over, the subject of cops is the only one people have actually cut me out of their lives over.

Perhaps I should take this as a sign I ought to pretend there are good cops. But that would be a lie. Why would I participate in a lie? Especially one as dangerous as that one?

It's painful for them to be exposed to the truth, but sometimes pain is the only way people will take notice. Don't you think family members were desperate to believe their loved ones in the SS, doing Hitler's work, were good guys? Of course!

Except they weren't good, even if they were nice 99.99% of the time. Nice isn't the same as good. 

Most rapists are probably nice to nearly everyone they encounter. Otherwise, they'd rarely survive long enough to violate their next victim.
Same with serial killers, who are often very nice and charming- until they aren't.
Cops are no different, unless they are worse.

Even if you have a cop who has never once helped enforce a counterfeit "law"- an illegitimate rule which violates life, liberty, or property- this cop has allowed others (who are in the same gang) to do so with his/her knowledge. This cop has not stood up and stopped other cops from committing these violations, even though they are equally armed and could have done something. This cop is not good.

Support for cops is a line in the sand. I'm not going to throw rocks at you- or cut you out of my life- if you're standing on the other side of the line, but I'm also not going to play along. If this makes people walk away from me, so be it. I'm not going to lie so they'll feel better.

There is no such thing as a good cop.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Doing more of the wrong thing

If you’re pursuing a path to stop something bad from happening, but the bad thing keeps increasing, what kind of person insists on doing more of the same? People who are hypnotized by politics, that's who.

Anti-gun rules inevitably result in more deaths, injuries, and destruction. But this failure is used as an excuse for more anti-gun rules. So, from the perspective of the anti-gun bigots, is this a failure or a success?

Letting others govern you is supposed to keep you safe and prosperous, and make it so you don't have to worry about how to keep things running. But it always results in less liberty and self-determination. And when things inevitably get worse, this is taken as a sign that the people aren’t yet governed hard enough.

People are scared of crime, so they support police. Cops, being criminals, get away with too much because they can’t be held accountable. So those who want them to be held accountable are said to be the problem. And cop behavior gets worse, and they still aren’t held accountable. Then dumb people say more cops are needed, and we need to respect them so they can do their "job".

Or, you can see through all these statist lies and pursue liberty.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

The filter selects for rule breakers

Of all the statist arguments that I can kind of understand while disagreeing completely with them, the "borders" thing may be the biggest.

I've even seen a lot of otherwise "libertarian" folk get confused about this one. Even those I admire.

I get it. "More criminals" is a bad thing. 

But, statists can't see how their "border rules" select for people who are willing to break counterfeit "laws", and are then more likely to break real Laws because they don't understand the difference.
Just like prohibition selects for violent criminals to enter the freelance drug market. 

Both "border controls" and prohibition are filters; selecting for rule breakers who don't understand the difference between rules that are valid ("don't violate life, liberty, or property") and rules that are illegitimate ("government says don't do this thing you have a natural human right to do").

It can't be otherwise.

If the State would stop violating your right to defend life, liberty, and property from ALL violators, the issue would go away. Maybe this is why they don't stop. They are using migrants, your fear, and your reasonable and rightful response to being violated as excuses to crack down harder on liberty. Liberty is what government hates and fears the most.

It's been going on for a long time. This isn't a Trump thing, although Trump has used it to his advantage and to get support from borderists.
Back in 2010, I was forwarded an email along those same lines. An email that missed the point. It began like this:

BUTTE, MONTANA

Shotgun preteen vs. Home Invaders : Illegal alien Butte,
Montana, November 5 , 2009

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26,
probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old
Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home... read the rest of the story, along with my commentary.

I have no idea if the story is true. Or if it happened when it supposedly happened, where it supposedly happened, to whom it supposedly happened. It doesn't really matter.

I'm always glad when archators are permanently"taken out". I don't care who the archators were, where they were born, why they decided to do what they did, or how they might have been mistreated by someone else in the past. I don't care who took them out or how it was done. I also don't care that they didn't ask a criminal gang for permission to be somewhere.
I care only that they decided to violate life, liberty, or privately-owned property (the only kind). That's what a criminal is.

So, when archators get nabbed by archators, or even "deported", it's "Not my circus; not my monkeys". I have a hard time getting too worked up over it.
On the other hand, I don't believe the liars in government when they tell me anyone is guilty of anything. They tell the story they believe will move you in the direction they wish you to be moved. And it's always in the direction of giving government more power over something or someone.

I am also aware that when the government archators get away with doing things like this, it emboldens them to do more of it. And when a large percentage of the population is asking them to do it, even though it's wrong, they'll do more of it with enthusiasm.

The ethically correct position is "property lines, not government borders". But it's a hard sell to people who have been trained to be unable to think about things clearly; without assuming government has "rights" or "authority".

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Don't let your tribe control you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 28, 2025)

Humans are tribal. They'll join or create tribes around anything.

There are tribes around sports teams, clothing styles, music genres, and movie franchises. There are tribes based on careers, vehicle preferences, and phone brands. Tribes are based on diseases, health conditions, and disabilities. There are political tribes. There are tribes based on the country you live in or where you were born. Tribes form around religious beliefs...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Supporting politicians a waste of time

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 23, 2025)

I want you to be free to do everything you have a right to do. That's what liberty is. Even if you'd do something I wouldn't do and don't like.

If I won’t respect your liberty, how can I demand you respect mine?

If you have the right to do it, this means it doesn't violate anyone else in any way. It may offend someone, but that's their problem, not yours. There is no such thing as a "right to not be offended".

However, if someone would be violated by what you want to do, you don't have the right to do it. Not even if the majority sides with you.

You have the right to tell others why you believe their opinions are wrong. You have the right to ridicule bad opinions. Freedom of speech is non-negotiable.

You don’t have the right to threaten anyone, to censor them, to physically attack them, or to damage their property simply because you dislike their opinions.

You have the right to defend yourself from those forcefully imposing bad opinions which become "law". If it isn't dangerous to violate the rights of others, there's no pressure not to do so.

This puts me at odds with those who believe in government and its rules. No government has ever been limited to doing only what its employees have a right to do, or had its rules restricted to those which don't violate anyone. Even the old, mostly ignored US Constitution didn't do this, although it may have gotten closer than most ways to establish a nation-state have managed. Government and legislation are violations of fundamental human rights, even if you agree with what they do.

Supporting liberty seems to be getting more dangerous. People don't like having their opinions challenged. They are happy with you as long as you don't point out the bad things done by the politicians they follow. As soon as you do, you're the devil. Tomorrow, when you point out the good done by a politician they like, they may forget your previous transgression. Or they may not.

No politician is worth following. This is how you waste time you could be using to do things you have a right to do. Things which would make your life richer and fuller. Yet, you're spending your future on a politician. Support and fight for liberty instead. This would make a positive difference.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Don't offend the imbeciles!

I'm not sure if government is composed of imbeciles, or just working for the imbeciles. The result is the same. They hate when people tell the truth!

As do most statists- of whom the same question could be asked.

Either way, truth is their enemy. It offends them.

They don't like it when people are able to think.

They can try to ban thinking. 

It won't work. 

So they'll fall back on censorship and "cancelling" those who continue to tell the truth; those who think outside the lines they are only allowed to "think" inside.

The imbeciles will continue to be offended. Not because of what the intelligent people say, exactly, but because the imbeciles won't understand it, but will "know" it's about them and their delusions and lies.

It's a them problem.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Use your brain

Liberals and conservatives are both wrong. 

Just in (some) different ways.

Both are authoritarian.
Both love prohibitions.
Both are socialists. 
Both fear liberty.

It's only in the minor details where they disagree.

Use your brain. Don't be a statist.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Nothing is truly forgotten

I recently experienced another example of a long-buried memory popping into my brain. Even more buried than the nearly forgotten onions I mentioned a while back.

This time, for no reason I'm aware of, a theme song from a television show that was on the air when I was 3 years old, and that disappeared to never show up in reruns (as far as I know), suddenly started running through my mind. The song brought with it a dim memory of the show.

I hadn't thought of the show since it aired. No one ever mentioned it to me again. But the theme song was in my head and made itself known, and when I looked it up on this electronic wonder, it was just as I remembered. 

Brains are kind of amazing!

Again, this gives me hope that things you and I have said to other people, including to our kids when they were young enough to listen, will stay with them far into the future. Maybe pop back into their minds when they least expect it, but when it's needed. 

If you value liberty and have talked about it to anyone, there's a good chance it's still embedded somewhere in their neural network. Maybe long after you and I are gone, words we once spoke will still be doing some work behind the scenes. (That's not counting things we've written down for posterity.) I think liberty gets in your head and makes a home there, waiting to be called up to work. 

Stranger things have happened.

Liberty is a natural human need, even if most people have been brainwashed to think it's not. Keep infecting those around you with the liberty virus. Your great-grandchildren will need it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Either way, you have a part to play

If society is doomed, you and I aren't going to save it. Authoritarianism is too popular. People who don't buy into- and use- political "authority" are at a disadvantage because of this. The best you can do in this case is to resolve to be part of, or encouragement for, The Remnant.

If society isn't doomed; if the problems will work themselves out, then maybe you and I can be a small part of that. Help spread ideas that will help others solve the problems. Keep poking holes in statism's lies. Keep pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy. Keep finding and creating alternatives. 

And decouple from the State.

Keep yourself on course. Do right. Avoid doing things that make things worse. Maybe you'll inspire others to do the same, and if society isn't doomed after all, perhaps your legacy will be to be a part of what keeps it from collapsing.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Decouple from government

Decouple from government. Decouple from the State.

I know it isn't always possible, but it would always be better for you. And, by extension, better for society.

Don't rely on the State. 

Don't be dependent on handouts from the State. This doesn't mean you should feel guilty about using government's roads- you are forced to fund them, and you have a right to use what you pay for, even if you know there are better ways. 

Don't count on government coming to save you when trouble strikes. It's as likely to send its incompetent, drug-addled employees to shoot you as to save you. You're your own security force. Your own emergency response.

Don't work for the State (unless you can monkeywrench it from the inside without joining The Dark Side and fooling yourself about what you're doing). 

Don't get tangled up in worrying about the problems government faces. Especially when it tries to fool you into believing its problems are your problems. Decoupling from the State will make you safer.

Don't base your opinions on the opinions of political criminals. Don't ask whether every little thing you want to do is "legal". Assume liberty.

In every way you can, make sure your fate isn't tied to the fate of the State. It will then be easier to ignore it to death.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Liberty a powerful right you own

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 16, 2025)

Last week, the news of the dire wolf's de-extinction was everywhere. It didn't take long until calmer voices pointed out that these are not really dire wolves, which weren't even wolves, just gray wolves genetically altered to have what someone believes were some dire wolf traits.

The kind of liberty most people offer is similar. It's not real liberty; it's authoritarianism with a few tweaks of what some politicians believe real liberty might be like. They'll claim to support liberty to get votes- until it threatens government power. This isn't liberty at all, but a watered-down version where government allows you to do some things you already have a right to do, as long as you don't bother government too much.

This mutated authoritarianism with a few liberty genes isn't compatible with your birthright as a human being. It's not compatible with the values America was supposedly founded upon. It doesn't look or feel like liberty because it's not liberty. It doesn't get in the way of government's plans for you; things you wouldn't tolerate if you understood liberty.

Practically everyone is familiar with the military's misuse of the word "liberty", where the word is used to mean its opposite: "limited freedom, with permission". This way, they can ensure no one knows what they are supposed to be fighting for. Their loyalty is to the US Federal Government, not to American liberty.

"Freedom" means doing whatever you want, without regard for right or wrong or the rights of others. This may be why most people prefer to use this word. If supporting government is what you want to do, you'll feel "free" while doing so. It's not as scary- or as powerful- as liberty.

"Liberty" means doing anything you have a right to do; nothing else. No one has a right to violate others. Not as part of a majority, not because of a job, and not by hiring a politician to do it for you. The right to violate others can never exist.

Respecting liberty means you sometimes have to stand aside while people do things you don't like, but which violate no one. Few people have a character strong enough for this.

Just like the dire wolf was a distinct animal, and genetically altered gray wolves aren't dire wolves, liberty is a distinct condition. If it relies on politicians and bureaucrats to agree to it, it's not liberty. It's the opposite.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Thanks for the inspiration and aggravation, Scott. Really.

I was truly saddened yesterday morning to hear Scott Adams say that he will be dying soon.

Over the years, well before he started commenting on politics, his blog posts, and then his livestreams, made me think. And, of course there was Dilbert, which was something my first wife and I shared an appreciation for.

I've had many disagreements with his views over the years. I even have a blog post label specifically to address how and why he's wrong in his thinking about guns. As I have said in the past, when he's right, he's right. When he's wrong, it's because he's a government supremacist. That doesn't mean I ever hated him.

He influenced me to be a better version of myself by challenging me (without his knowledge) to put into words why I disagree with him when I do. It's not enough to say about someone, "He's wrong". If you can't explain why he's wrong, do you even know he's wrong?

I've written many blog posts where I specifically referenced something he said on his livestream. Even more where something he said made me start thinking along a specific path that resulted in a blog post. Or two. Like this one.

I believe I have benefited greatly, in various ways, because of his influence. And even the aggravation. I expected to be challenged, angered, and inspired by his opinions for years to come. I feel a little cheated.

I'm almost positive he muted me ages ago. Such is life. I'm sincerely sorry this is happening to him, and I wish him the best in the time he has left. 

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Don't like it? Don't ban it, just don't buy it

Banning lab-grown meat* isn't a win for liberty or for the market. 

A Libertarian Party county organization (whatever they are called) pointed this out, saying if you don't want to eat it, don't eat it.

Then, some statist control-freaks decided this was a time to pile on and mock the LP and the principle upon which it is built.

In doing so, they exposed themselves for what they are and demonstrated that they aren't as smart as they believe themselves to be.

Winning elections doesn't show that someone is correct.

Avoiding having principles so you can "win" elections doesn't make you a winner.

Having a clever insult label ("Losertarian") you can always fall back on when you have no point doesn't make you clever.

Appealing to socialism and collectivism is a statist's ploy.

Nonsense like this from "conservatives" is why I can never be a conservative. They are just as authoritarian and socialistic as their opposition on the statist Left, just less honest about it.

I don't believe in banning anything. I believe in speaking out, ridiculing, boycotting, shunning... and there are things I support people's right to use self-defensive violence to prevent happening to themselves or another victim. But banning through legislation is a bad way to do anything.

-

*I am completely open to trying lab-grown meat. Even though I don't believe in "animal rights", I don't want animals to suffer unnecessarily. Industrialized killing facilities horrify me. Shooting something in the wild is usually much more humane. Since not all meat can be obtained that way, I'm in favor of looking for other options. If lab-grown meat is safe and tastes good, I would eat it. I wouldn't force my choice on you, though.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

"86"

So much drama over a number!

What does someone mean when they say something should be "86"ed?

It's not confusing. It doesn't hinge on situational content, but on who's using it. It doesn't even have anything to do with the origin of the term.

If someone's background is restaurant-/food-related. they think "86" means to "get rid of". That's how they'll use it. That's what they'll hear or see when anyone else uses it.

If someone's background is crime/government, they think "86" means to "kill". That's how they'll use it. That's what they'll hear or see when anyone else uses it.

It's simple. 

This is why neither side thinks the other side is using it correctly. It gives plausible deniability.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Smarter than the average bear

From time to time, I get emails in response to my newspaper columns. Most of them (these days) are supportive. In the early days, they usually weren't. (All the "haters" probably learned to avoid my columns.)

But, I get a few emails with regard to my columns that I can't classify. I can't decide if they agree with me or not. Sometimes, I'm not sure what they are trying to convey. I don't think the problem's on my end.

This happens much more often with the newspaper columns than with the blog posts, which I assume has something to do with the literacy and general brilliance of the regular readers of my blog.

Yes, that's a compliment. You're smarter than the average human! Or bear.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

The view from Down Under

There's no such thing as a legitimate weapon ban. Nor is there any such thing as a legitimate weapon restriction. This includes licenses, permits, background checks, and keeping records of who owns what. It includes exempting armed government employees from the illegitimate rules they expect us to be slaves to.

It's not only certain Americans who understand this: some Australians do too. And I'm sure there are others in other places. Stupid and/or crooked people are the only ones who ban or restrict weapons, or support those who do. In every country or region, it's the same. Human rights don't change at the "borders".

Attacking people with weapons is unethical; nothing more is needed.
Using weapons in defense is the right thing to do. Punishing defense is evil.
It's never about the weapons; it's about what people do with them. Stupid and/or crooked people will try to make it about the weapons.

Bad guys will always be armed.
Smart good guys who ignore the opinions of political criminals will, too.

"America, Do not give up your guns." Good advice.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Everyone picks a side, whether they intend to or not

If someone is on the side of government, they’re the bad guy.

If the idea of liberty bothers someone more than the idea of authoritarian control, police, and a government military, they're the bad guy.

There is no "Yes, but". There's no excuse. There is no legitimate justification.

Liberty and government don't mix. They are mortal enemies. Everyone picks a side, and anyone who tries to straddle the fence has chosen the government side.

-
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.

If you think it is only a tactic the other side uses, you've fallen for the same scam. Your politics have made it impossible to think clearly or reason.

Part of this is because politics affects the brain just like a drug. It ruins rational thought; it destroys inhibitions.

If you're already inclined to value safety, nationalism, equity, "law and order", diversity, or any other political ideology, you can be made to embrace atrocities as long as you believe the absurdities you're served.

You might be against theft, but if the political side you identify with calls it a "tax" or a "tariff", you will accept it. You won't see the hypocrisy. You may even be enthusiastic, thinking in this case, it's a good thing.

You probably know kidnapping is an evil act, but if politicians call it "arrest" and say the victim did something to deserve it- like violate a rule which no one has the right to impose, against doing something every human has a natural right to do- then you can feel secure about being the good guy. You've lost your natural inhibitions under the influence of an intoxicant.

See what happens if you go into an airport and start groping crotches without calling yourself "TSA"; claiming it's about "security", and wearing their costume. A sexual assault is still a sexual assault, even if a rule makes it mandatory and places the perpetrators above justice. Only political intoxication could blind someone to the truth.

There's probably no crime- no rights violation- that doesn't have a political twin which is accepted because politicians have made it legal or mandatory. Those who support them will ignore the crime because it aligns with their biases.

Political bias prevents you from thinking clearly and makes you easy to manipulate. It causes you to do things you would otherwise know aren't right. It causes you to tolerate things which are intolerable, as long as you are biased toward those things to begin with. No one is a better person because of their political intoxication.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

It raises questions

I spent Monday working on my parents' lawn sprinkler system. I've probably saved them hundreds of dollars over the years. That thing always has problems (which may indicate I'm not very good at fixing it).

This time, there was a broken sprinkler head, weak pressure in one group of sprinklers, a nice little "spring" bubbling up about 6" from another sprinkler head (which accounted for the low pressure), and one sprinkler head that simply refused to work at all, beyond a slow trickle when it was supposed to be spraying.

I got things replaced, dug up, and fixed, until I had only the stubborn trickling head left.

Before digging that one up, I tried backflushing it. It seemed to work for a second or so, then it suddenly shut off again. So I backflushed it a second time. Same result. I got a wire and tried to "snake" out the clog, but it didn't change the situation. It was time to dig.

I dug it up and checked each piece as I took it apart. Everything was in good shape. Then it was time to remove the riser piece that came off the horizontal line. I screwed it out and everything looked good with the horizontal line. Then I flipped over the riser- in the bottom of that pipe, a perfect fit, was a marble. I removed the marble (which was easy to do), reassembled everything, and it worked as it was supposed to.

However, my suspicions have been raised.

My parents had a sprinkler company come work on it a month or so ago when they thought there was a different (major) problem. I think the company fixed the issue without digging or disassembling anything, and they didn't charge much for their work, but... where did the marble come from? 

I helped install this sprinkler system 16 years or so ago. No marbles were used during installation. It hasn't had this issue in all this time. Marbles don't usually pop into existence in sealed systems.

Would an unscrupulous sprinkler repair company place a marble in the line to cause a problem later? One that would be simple to fix, but that they could get a quick service call out of? The marble was small enough to move easily through the horizontal lines, but a perfect fit for shutting off one sprinkler head like a valve. Like it was made or chosen for the purpose. It is slightly smaller than my standard-sized marbles, but only a little. Was it intentional? I don't know, but I have questions.

It's unlikely an elderly couple would have ever discovered the problem themselves- they aren't going to dig it up. If I hadn't done it, what would the company have "found" as the problem when they came back to fix it?

I didn't mention this quasi-suspicion to my parents. I dislike myself for thinking like this, but there are too many questions, and only one obvious answer that comes to mind. 

What do you think? Have you ever heard of this practice or seen a similar experience?

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Legalistic thinking

I believe most people think too legalistically.

I understand why they do it. 

I just don’t think it works well against people who think criminally- politicians, cops, bureaucrats, and other statists. You'd be trying to play a game they invented, by rules they enforce that only bind you. 

I'm sure they're secretly amused by anyone who thinks this is how to beat them at their own game. A game where they are the referees, the rulemakers, the scorekeepers, and "the bank".

This is why agorism is necessary. Make them and their game irrelevant.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

"Give up" your rights to save lives?

I saw an X post that got me to thinking- as is often the case. A guy was saying he'd "give up" his "Second Amendment rights" if it would save lives.

It wouldn't, unless he's evil or criminally irresponsible. I don't know... maybe he is.

And, they aren't "Second Amendment rights"; they are natural human rights that the Second Amendment makes it a crime for government to violate. Not that government ever obeys this law.

I don't believe you can "give up" rights. You can choose to not exercise them, but they are still your rights, unblemished and yours to exercise if you later change your mind. To "give up" something would indicate (to me) that it is gone. Out of reach, forever. You can't get it back without someone else returning it to you. Rights don't work like that.

This is also why I don't believe you can "lose" rights.

Because I'm a toxic individual, I then said something about the right to use heroin. I choose not to exercise this right, but I can't "give up" the right- nor would I want to. Used or not, the right remains. Someday, although I hope it never happens, I might need to use heroin. In that case, I have the right to do so.

The right to use heroine is likely to harm me if I exercise it, so I don't. Nor am I going to criticize anyone else for not exercising that right. But the right is still there. Regardless of the opinions of regional political criminals and their bootlickers. Anyone who thinks rights hinge on how they feel about them is doing it wrong.

The right to own and carry weapons doesn't violate anyone. Including myself. I want you to exercise this right. My respect is diminished for those who won't- unless they are under close government supervision, such that it would result in them being caged or killed. My respect for those in that situation who do so anyway is monumental. Just don't be yapping to me about it if it's not safe to do so.

You and I have the responsibility to not violate innocent people with our weapons, but that's a separate issue. One usually ignored by anti-gun bigots looking to make (what they imagine is) a point.

If you choose, for whatever reason, to not exercise your rights, that's your prerogative. You aren't giving up your rights, though. You don't have the right to make this choice for others, and trying to do so anyway makes you the bad guy. Every time. Spreading the lie that this choice would save lives makes that guy a despicable excuse for a man.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Making life harder than it has to be

So many people make things so much harder than they have to be by making them political.

I'm sure you've seen the old meme, "Life is hard. It's harder if you're stupid". 

Well, politics makes people stupid (and causes them to embrace evil), so it could be said, "Life is hard. It's harder if you're political."

Same true message. Regardless of who said the original quote.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

A cobweb is better than a cord

Centralization is always a bad idea. Even if it "works".

Centralized power grids make everyone vulnerable. If everyone creates or captures their own energy, and I lose mine, my neighbor probably won't. If I have power and my neighbor doesn't, I'm available to help them out. When the whole region blacks out, you'd better have alternatives because no one near you who is dependent on the grid is going to be better off.

Centralized bureaucracies and governments become tyranny. Controlling life through force and ignorance. It's better if everyone can take care of their own stuff.

Centralized defense- police and military- become tools of the tyrants. They defend those who are the problem rather than "the public" they are supposedly responsible for defending. Everyone is better off if they take responsibility for their own defense, and then help others who are helpless or worthless when they can.

If there's only one food distributor, starvation is likely.

If there's only one "approved" source for anything, you're vulnerable to shortages or manipulation.

The more paths to get to where you need to go, the better off you'll be. The inclinations of those who believe in governing is to cut off all paths other than the one they control.  Then, when you need it the most, they can cut that cord, too.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Loose retinas are a pain. Literally.

I had my retina appointment yesterday.

I did have a small tear and an area that was in the process of detaching (the scan looked to me like it was already detached). He fixed it with a laser in the office. That was more painful than it sounds, and today my eye still hurts- although I think it's mainly the muscles around my eye that are hurting now.

Blindness averted yet again. I have a follow-up appointment next month.

He indicated that my insurance will "cover" this, or at least approve it- although I probably won't really know for a while. I'm not sure what the difference is, or if he's just being hopeful on my behalf.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

"Tough on crime" criminals

You can’t be "tough on crime" and also pro-government (pro-police, pro-military, etc.) because government is the biggest criminal the world has ever seen.

Yet, so many government supremacists love to position themselves as "tough on crime". It would be funny if it didn't have such disastrous consequences/

The way they get away with this deception and diversion is by misdefining crime as something government forbids, rather than as an act which violates someone's rights. It's dishonest, yet many people fall for it completely.

Owning a machine gun without government permission isn't a real crime. Enforcing a counterfeit "law" against the person who owns a machine gun without government permission is a crime. But it's a crime government loves to commit, with the approval of these lying "tough on crime" types.

You could find myriad examples. If there's not a specific, individual victim, it's not a crime. To treat it as though it is a crime is criminal. "Tough on crime" people need to suck on that for a while.

-

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".

"Consent of the governed" is a lie. You can consent for government to violate your rights; you can't consent for others to have their rights violated.

If you look at the news on any typical day, how much of it concerns government violating some segment of the population? I'd guess at least eighty percent. Only a natural disaster or major accident can change the focus for a while. Yet, most people consider this normal and look askance at those trying to keep their life, liberty, or property out of the hands of political criminals. This is upside down.

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of political criminals and against the Constitution's Second Amendment in yet another gun case. The Bill of Rights doesn't list what you are allowed to do; it lists some of the things placed out of reach of any legislation or politician's opinions. Any interpretation which gets this wrong is illegitimate, no matter where it comes from.

Owning and carrying weapons isn't political-- trying to allow government to illegally put limits and conditions on a natural human right is entirely political. When the Supreme Court rules in defense of government power and against the people and their right to not be burdened with government, it is wrong. Every time.

All government is against you and your rights; it is never on your side. Especially if being on your side would take away some illegitimate power government currently enjoys. It doesn't matter which party is in power or what encouraging words the politicians whisper in your ear. Government is your enemy because government fears your liberty and always seeks to place limits on it.

Liberty has only one limit. Liberty is the right to do everything that doesn't violate any other person's life, liberty, or property-- their equal and identical rights. This leaves no room for government interpretation or exception. Liberty and government are mortal enemies. If you value liberty, government considers you its enemy.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Leftist "intellectuals"

It’s interesting that Leftist “intellectuals” notice that reality has a “liberal bias” but imagine that Leftism is in any way “liberal”. 

It shows that the Leftist "intellectuals" aren’t as smart as they believe they are. 

They are, however, very confident in their superiority and very committed to remaining wrong. They can see so clearly where "conservatives" go astray, but are completely blind to their own cognitive errors and biases.

"Liberal" is on the side of liberty; it is generous and respects the rights of all. This is as far from modern Leftism as it is from modern "conservatism", both of which are entirely authoritarian. It's a shame that the Leftists have co-opted the word "liberal" and made it mean the opposite of what its root, historical meaning was.

It takes a view from a higher dimension to see it clearly.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

People and their flags

People seem to love flags. I have a fondness for a certain one, myself.

But I don't fly it alongside other flags that negate its message.

Whenever I see a Gadsden flag flying beside Holy Pole Quilt or a disgusting Blue Line Mafia flag, I can't help but shake my head.

Or Holy Pole Quilt and a Christian flag together.

A few miles out of town, there's a house that flies Holy Pole Quilt, a Texas flag, and a "Confederate" flag. All together, every day. It's weird! That's like flying an Israeli flag and a Nazi or Palestinian flag together, or a Ukrainian flag with a Russian flag. Make up your mind what you're supporting here!

I guess the message a flag sends to the world gets lost on some people.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.