You own your life and property

(My FINAL Eastern New Mexico News column- October 28, 2026)

Those who depend on ruling others to make money, secure their position, or to gain power won't let it go. Respecting your natural human rights isn't in their interest. It's up to you to secure your rights- to assume your liberty in the face of all those who want to rule you...read the rest...

--

You read that right. This will be my last column for the Eastern New Mexico News. Details tomorrow. 

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Don't violate others – problem solved

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 23, 2026)

Why are we forced to pretend not to know the solutions? To pretend solutions are mysterious or too hard? Because government doesn't benefit from solved problems. It loses power when problems are solved and people no longer beg to be rescued. Often, getting government out of the way is the solution.

Crime is a solved problem.

To pretend that no one knows how to reduce crime is a lie which only serves the criminals- both freelance and governmental. The solution is to stop criminalizing things everyone has a natural human right to do, including both what they choose to put into their bodies, and defense of person and property with the most effective tools ever invented for the purpose.

If an act doesn't violate the life, liberty, or property of a specific individual, it can't be a real crime. Pretending otherwise is a criminal act which artificially inflates the crime statistics and causes real crime to happen. Think of the crime wave in the 1920s, caused by alcohol prohibition. "Crime" gives government an excuse to violate your life, liberty, and property to make you "safe" from those who would violate those same things, but without a government title. It's not an improvement.

Inflation is a solved problem: stop letting government manipulate the money supply. The more "funny money" the Federal Reserve creates out of thin air, the less each dollar is worth; the more dollars it takes to buy things. If you're blaming businesses, you're blaming the wrong people.

Add to this the disastrous effects of government creating enemies all over the globe with its expensive and wasteful warmongering, which causes supply problems and worse. We can't afford to keep supporting government's addictions.

Every problem can be solved by respecting each individual's equal and identical rights to life, liberty, and property. It's the only solution.

This is only a problem for those who make a habit of violating life, liberty, and property. Either through ordinary crime or through the extraordinary crime of imposing government on the population. The effect is the same.

I've discovered that telling the truth and sharing solutions will get a person censored. Many platforms care more about the feelings and "safety" of the bad guys than about letting the truth be told. This shows beyond any doubt which side they prefer and where their loyalties lie. They don't want problems to be solved; they want them used to control you.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Building a life around politics

I've never met anyone who prioritized politics and was also a genuinely happy person. I suppose if someone gets joy from controlling those around them, and from punishing the ones who don't submit to their control, they might appear happy on the outside- while rotting on the inside. 

This doesn't mean you'll automatically be happy if you reject politics; there are many factors. Sometimes life just stinks, and people using politics against you will usually make things worse. Making politics central to your life isn't going to make anything better. It's a form of self-harm, and it spreads like a contagious cancer to those around you.

Even when politics is a part of nature- such as when wolves fight each other for dominance or over food- it isn't something we should copy. They don't know any better. They also sometimes eat their young. We can do better than that. Only humans- some humans- believe it's a good idea to allow politics to be central in their lives. It isn't.

I would rather not be one of those who makes everything political. It doesn't have to be. Only thieves, murderers, politicians, and other criminals live by politics. 

Politics is what you use when you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. No skills, no goods, no wisdom. Falling back on politics- using force to coerce others to support you while you steal, kidnap, and otherwise violate their natural human rights and try to destroy their liberty- is an admission that you can't make it in the world unless you can use theft, violence, or threats of violence against others. If you use politics, you're cheating, and you've already failed as a human.

You can choose to trade or find other mutually consensual ways to interact with others, or you can be political. There's no third option.

The weather doesn't care about your politics. Neither does your dog- unless you treat it politically by arbitrarily kicking it. Politics is completely meaningless to everything and everyone other than those you target with your toxic political ideas. And all political ideas are toxic.

To those who claim everything humans do is political, I say you've been doing it wrong. You've been a parasite on society rather than a benefit. 

And yet, political people honor other political people with statues and by naming roads and buildings after them. They act as though they are the heart of society; as though the rest of us couldn't survive without their presence. Humanity survives in spite of politics and those who employ it, not because of it.

I'm in favor of showing society how irrelevant and useless politicians and their ilk really are.

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

I appreciate those who make things better

Some people actually work to make the world a better place. I appreciate them.

There's another man in my neighborhood who also feeds the stray cats- some of the same cats I feed, but he has a few regulars who never come to my house. He often has 6 to 10 of them at feeding time. (Maybe it's because he offers raw chicken.) 

We've had several conversations about the strays over the years; worrying when a sickness ravages the neighborhood cats, wiping out some of the cats we have tried to save. Wondering what happened to a regular, discussing the new kittens, or reporting a death the other may not know of. I've seen him chasing off dogs (dogs who won't stay home) who come into his yard to attack the cats. 

He's had to defend himself from threats by the local cop, who threatened to "fine" him for feeding cats, saying this made the cats his pets, and no one is "allowed" to have more than 3 cats in town, blah blah, blah. He asked if the birds were also his pets since he has a bird feeder. The cop seems to have left him alone since then.

Anyway...

I appreciate him caring for animals who have no one else to count on. 

Besides him, I notice other people making the world a nicer place just by doing what they do.

I love the delivery drivers I see frequently in the neighborhood. They'll often wave as they drive by. 

I love the cashiers I encounter again and again, doing a job which isn't glamorous and doesn't pay enough, but who still manage to do a job that is essential while being pleasant to the customers. (The unpleasant ones are a conversation for another day.) I look forward to seeing the familiar faces, even though I don't really know them.

Anyone who comes to my attention, doing things that make the world a little better with their contributions, without stepping on the life, liberty, or property of others in the process, can elicit the same feeling in me.

No government mandate was required to get these people to do helpful things. In some cases, they are doing it in exchange for a paycheck, but often people do nice things that only cost them. And a paycheck doesn't ensure good service, anyway.

Maybe it's silly and sentimental to feel this kind of connection with those who probably don't feel the same about me. If so, I'll embrace it anyway.

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Angering statists is a strange hobby

Some days it feels like I've said it all before. (Which I know I've said before!)

How many other ways can I explain that to be libertarian (and thus, to be ethical) is to accept the primary human responsibility to not violate the life, liberty, or property of any other person, without exception?
How many times can I explain that calling a violation a "law" and saying it's your job doesn't excuse doing those things?

I got added to some communist's X list of "Nazis", and called "entitled" because I refuted (effectively, it seems) his argument that "land tax", which he differentiates from "property taxes" (yeah, I don't know... communism, I guess), isn't theft, extortion, or a ransom, because you "owe" everyone for any land you occupy. He made many bad arguments for his position. Then he got mad.

Angering bad people feels like a badge of honor. It makes me happy, and I want to do more of it. Yes, it's a personality flaw.

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Alien communication

How can those of us who believe in liberty and individual responsibility have a conversation with those who don't? Often, there seems to be no common ground. It's almost like trying to talk to an alien.

It's hard to communicate with those who believe in the imaginary right to govern others. They believe humans are flawed, but politicians are somehow exempt from this. Or that when these deeply flawed humans join together, their individual flaws cancel out.

It doesn't work that way. When people join together to do something they have no right to do in the first place, their flaws compound and expand-- there's safety in numbers. That's why flash mobs of looters who descend on a store face little risk. Those who seek to govern others enjoy the same protection. They are still looters, but they use "laws" rather than bricks.

It's hard to really communicate with people who see a significant difference between the two; those who believe that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor, rather than just another category of crime. We don't really even speak the same language. I say "theft" or "extortion"; they say "tax" or "fine".

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Life is hard; it's harder if you're political

There's a quote that is commonly misattributed to John Wayne: “Life is hard; it’s harder if you’re stupid”. Whoever originally said it, it's true.

People make their own lives harder by being political. Politics makes people stupid, and it makes life much harder than it needs to be.

When one of the members of the group They Might Be Giants scolded me years ago for saying he should stop making everything political, telling me, "Everything is political", it made me see him, and his band, as stupid. As part of the problem. I had been a fan for years, but with one tweet he exposed himself for what he really was. It wasn't a flattering revelation.

Because the only way "everything is political" is if you make it that way. And only a stupid person would do so.

He was unnecessarily complicating his life, just to earn points by peacocking his irrational political beliefs. He was sabotaging his own life with politics. Making life harder for himself, his bandmate, and for everyone in society. Smart people wouldn't do that.

Life is already hard enough; it's even harder if you make it political.

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

An acceptable way to be a creep?

Anyone who supports any amount of political government at all is just looking for a "socially acceptable" mechanism to use to violate the natural rights of someone else.

They can use all kinds of pretty words to hide it.

They can come up with all manner of excuses to justify it.

They can list all the things they are afraid would happen without it.

They can even recite history to find irrelevant events to rationalize it.

If you want a way to violate others, but you don't want to look like the bad guy, I hate to break it to you, but advocating for a government to do it for you isn't the way. There is no way. If you violate others, you are in the wrong. Every time. Regardless of your chosen method. And government is the most dishonest of the bunch.

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Not always best to follow orders

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 21, 2026)

Most people value obedience more than I do. To me, doing the right thing is what matters...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Authoritarian government weakest of all

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 16, 2026)

Why do so many beg for a big, authoritarian government involving itself in every facet of their lives? Even when it violently destroys their liberty and violates their rights every day? What could possibly be going on in their minds to make this seem like a good thing?

Have these people not seen the results of this over at least the past 25 years? Has a bigger, more authoritarian government made life better or worse?

It appears that many people see authoritarianism as strength. I don't. I see it as weakness, relying on bullying tactics to make itself look strong to gullible observers.

If the authoritarians were actually strong, they wouldn't need to be authoritarian. Strength isn't threatened by opposing opinions. Strength can afford to allow people to live different ways; to opt out and take a different path. Strength doesn't try to censor speech. Strength does not need to spy on everyone all the time. Those are signs of weakness, cowardice, and a lack of confidence. They are an acknowledgement of incompetence.

Authoritarianism always chooses the weakest course.

I believe people who secretly see themselves as powerless, who are therefore afraid of almost everything, want a strong bully to defend them from all their hobgoblins. They are attracted to, or they become, authoritarians. Right and wrong are thrown out the window. It becomes acceptable to commit crime to prevent crime.

If you rely on a criminal gang to hold other criminal gangs at bay, you're only making the situation worse. You're shirking your personal responsibility because you don't believe you are "enough" to deal with dangerous things. You make things more dangerous for yourself and everyone around you by empowering authoritarians, believing this fixes your problem.

Whenever there's a situation and a person's first instinct is to call someone else to come save them rather than dealing with it themselves, I lose respect for the person. It's the same whether you're talking about things and events in the neighborhood or across the globe.

Then these people wonder why things keep getting worse.

"Leave it to the professionals" is the advice of someone who wants you weak and scared. Someone who wants you dependent on them, so you'll keep handing them your liberty and your money. I say the "professionals" and their authoritarian desires for control, surveillance, and "safety" are the problem. You, living your liberty to the fullest, are enough. You've got this.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Tomahawk fun

Sic semper tyrannis!

When I'm out throwing my tomahawk and knife, I always enjoy using face cards as my target. The number cards just aren't as inspirational for some reason.

Now, I'm not a French Revolution kind of person. I oppose human sacrifice even when it's the rulers on the receiving end. But a card can be a satisfying proxy for expressing my sentiments.

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Bad rules

The only legitimate justification for a rule is to make life better by protecting life, liberty, or property.

If a rule doesn't do this, or actually makes things worse, either because of the rule itself or how it is enforced, then a change is necessary. Either change how the rule is enforced so it doesn't make things worse, or eliminate the rule entirely.

I'm not opposed to rules. I'm opposed to bad rules. Harmful ones. Stupid ones. Punitive ones. Rules that make life worse.

And I'm opposed to anyone who enforces such rules.

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

"Yeah, but..."

So many people are desperate- absolutely desperate- to keep believing government is good. Or at least "necessary". They'll do all sorts of contortions and gymnastics to defend their belief.

When I point out that inflation is strictly caused by government counterfeiting money, they'll say "Yeah, but even if it didn't, greedy people would still raise their prices." You see what's wrong with that, right?

It keeps playing out the same, no matter the topic.

No matter what evidence they are presented with, they always have a "yeah, but" ready. It doesn't matter how delusional the excuse is, as long as they keep believing it.

And, at their foundation, they still all come back to fear. 

They are afraid of living without being governed.
They are afraid of what will happen if other people aren't governed.
They are afraid of what will happen if "those people" get control of the government. 

They never consider that the main problem is people, like them, who believe government is necessary, or even good. 

They just can't let go. They can't admit it was a scam and has proven to be a complete failure in doing the minimum used to justify it, over and over, throughout ALL of human history, no matter how it is designed or run.

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Unhealthy fear leads to government

Why are so many people so afraid? Why do they embrace their fear and use it to justify horrors?

I am afraid when I encounter a situation I don't feel adequate to handle, and when the consequences seem too big to bear. Medical situations cause me fear more often than any other situations do. This fear doesn't inspire me to violate others, though.

Unlike what I see happening around me, my fear doesn't come from not having the ability or right to control other people. 

I can see how it might happen, as in an active shooter situation. But seeing armed people- as long as they aren't wearing a badge or acting aggressively- doesn't cause me fear, or even stress. There has to also be that credible threat. And I can take measures so that I don't feel quite the helplessness others might. Which means I do have the ability or right to "control" bad guys in this way, so there's less fear than if I were helpless.

I'm not scared of people who are doing what they have a right to do.

I wonder why other people seem so afraid- afraid to the point that they want government there to protect them (even though it can't, or doesn't, do so).

They must be engulfed in feelings of inadequacy and helplessness. They must feel like Big Brother is the answer to their fears.

I wish I had the power to calm their fears. But pointing out that they have options, and that fear doesn't have to rule them, only seems to make them angry. As though they enjoy their fear and don't want to lose it. 

There are better, healthier ways to enjoy fear than imposing a government. Ride a roller coaster- if that's not enough, make sure you're not secured in the seat. Or watch a scary (or gory) movie. Or jump off of bridges- tied to a bungee if you like. Fly a Tesla Roadster over a canyon. None of those fear-inducers violate others. Using your fear to justify a government does. Don't do that.

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

A bitter old Scold

 

A long time ago (in internet terms), someone invited me to join the Nextdoor site. Supposedly, it lets you connect with local people to see what's going on in your town. I never get notifications or news about this town; only Clovis.

When I comment, usually taking the side of liberty and against the police state, there's this petti old karen who scolds me, saying I don't live in Clovis, so I need to mind my own business.

She treats the site as her own little fiefdom, threatening to ban anyone who expresses an opinion she doesn’t like- especially one about cops.

She is an unrepentant copsucker; apparently on a first-name basis with the police chief and whichever officers make the news on any given day. She reposts all the press releases the cops put out, as though it's her mission in life. She praises the cops whenever they do anything, and thanks them individually in her posts. She completely ignored the cop who recently caused a traffic accident and lied about it (but was found out and disciplined for lying)- as though it never happened. She defends Flock spyware relentlessly, because "crime". She gets angry and encourages people to report people to the cops for having any fun she doesn't approve of- and there's an awful lot she doesn't approve of. And, of course, she's afraid of almost everything she doesn't like or understand (which is nearly everything).

She's a busybody of epic proportions, inserting herself into almost anything, whether it's her business or not. It seems like the things that are none of her business excite her the most.

She's a really nasty piece of work.

Usually I ignore her, because she's not worth my time. (I've tried to mute her so I don't see any of her posts, but that hasn't worked.)

Recently, she got her panties in a wad because there's a "pot farm" next to the hospital, using "major water". (She's probably upset she can't report them to the cops!) I'll bet she doesn't have an issue with any Big Government project using even more water. Fortunately, several people knocked her down a notch, but I chimed in anyway. 

I asked, "Why is this any less legitimate than anything you do with water? There’s nothing unethical about farming."

I guarantee you that if she responds, she will be snotty about it and have some excuse about "the children", or that it used to be illegal, that she believes it's immoral, or that her cop buddies don't like it. (Even though the cop I knew best used to steal it from people and smoke it with his friends.)

I just can't relate to people like her. She disgusts me in almost every way possible. People like her are the reason America doesn't have liberty.

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

The Statist fraud

Government is supposedly established to secure the rights to life, liberty, property, and "the pursuit of happiness".

It didn't work. Government has become the primary violator of those rights.

Abolish it.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary", but somehow we're to imagine that those same non-angels become better individuals when given the power to "legally" violate others with very little risk to themselves. 

That doesn't work. The worst people among us are drawn to positions of government power. Government isn't necessary, but is clearly contraindicated under the same conditions used to justify it.

Abolish it.

"But if you'd just read this treatise, laying out why government is good and essential, you'll see why you have to accept it and work with it to get whatever scraps of liberty it is willing to let you have."

No. Delusional people writing down justifications for their delusions hold no interest for me. Liberty is superior to any system seeking to violate it. Even if it's a government you like and want to excuse.

Abolish it.

I know, abolishing government is hard. Maybe impossible (for now). So, in the meantime, at least stop pretending it has any legitimacy. Treat it as you would treat any freelance criminal gang. Do what you must to avoid being murdered by it. Protect your property from it in whatever way you can. Exercise your liberty in secret if it's too dangerous to exercise openly.

And don't buy the justifications that the statists are trying to sell you. It's fraud. It's a scam. Buyer beware.

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Feel free to assume your liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 14, 2026)

Assume liberty.

Most people have been trained to automatically ask what government allows; what the rules say. They assume they don't have liberty; otherwise, they wouldn't wait to see what someone says they are allowed to do...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

You know what's best for you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 9, 2026)

I don’t know.

What don't I know? I don't know exactly how you should live or every detail of your situation. I don't know how to solve every possible random problem in the world. I don't know what complications might arise. I don't know solutions I can’t see or haven’t thought of. All the variables; the consequences of any potential solution. I don't know how, or if, society should be run.

I don’t know, and I accept it.

While I'm comfortable saying I don't know, there are also things I do know.

I know that no one else knows those answers, either. If they claim to, they are being dishonest. Those who make up legislation are often even more ignorant about the topics they legislate on than the rest of us. They are imposing a bad solution, forged on an anvil of ignorance with a hammer of imaginary political authority, and they'll hurt you if you choose your own path. They will punish you for knowing your own situation better than they do, and acting on the knowledge.

What kind of horrible person would do that?

I also know that no one has the right to govern another. I know there's no justification for violating other people's natural human rights.

I know real rights don't conflict. When they appear to clash, it's because someone is advocating so-called "positive rights"- the belief that someone owes you simply because you exist. Health care, for example, is a human right only if you're talking about treating yourself or reaching a deal with a provider. No one, including the DEA, FDA, or other government regulatory agencies, has the right or imaginary authority to interfere. Nor is healthcare something you can ethically force others to provide for you; that's slavery.

Those who hate the thought of everyone's liberty being fully respected will often ask me to explain, in minute detail, how to solve every possible situation which might arise. I can't. I don't know. The problem is, their favored solution fails if put to this test, too. They are careful to never let it be examined, but quick to turn the tables to hide the failure of the system they prefer.

It's dishonest, but you should now be able to see through it.

It's OK to not know everything, and to admit it. You can still know when something is wrong. These are two complementary sides of self-awareness.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

"Not logical or based in reality"

Typical interaction with a statist, copied and pasted:

(Story about some dire consequence of the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.)

Drug abuse is stupid; prohibition is evil. Anyone supporting this has lost their compass.

“Your solution to such societal blight and expense upon the taxpayer for crime and welfare costs is what?”

Stop taxing people, and there’s no more expense upon the taxvictims.
End welfare for the same reason. (Charity works; welfare destroys.)
And what do you consider “societal blight”? I think if the stupid and evil War on Some Drugs is ended, a lot of the worst addicts will die off. The rest will either figure out how to be productive while abusing substances, or they’ll have to stop.
There’s really no downside unless you’re addicted to government and its “solutions”.

“You're an idiot and your village wants you back.”

That’s exactly the kind of response I expected. Thank you for confirming my hypothesis.

“You're living proof of your low IQ. Clearly you're told that often.”

And…

“Nothing to respond to. Your options are not logical or based in reality.”

-----------------
You be the judge. 

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Immune response

Hating government is not my personality.

Unless someone brings up government (or other career archators), especially in a fond way, they'll never know. I just don't think, or care, about it that much. 

Other than writing to try to break people out of the spell, I mean.

It's only when someone starts trying to impose it on me- or on bystanders- that I express my opinion on the matter. And that is often only after I've tried to change the subject.

It's like a form of self-defense. Or an immune response.

That happens more than I'd like. But don't say dumb things, and it won't come up. There are so many other things I'd rather talk and think about. Literally thousands of better topics! I can't figure out why so many people try to make everything political. It's a sick way to live.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Living in the Age of Lies

It feels like society runs on lies. Ignoring or even repeating the lies is rewarded. You are certainly not to refute the lies with reason or reality! Telling the truth is seen as antisocial behavior. 

That doesn't sit well with me. 

So, I sometimes get in trouble for openly rejecting the social lies. I've even made other libertarians mad this way.

It's worth it.

If you can't be the one saying "The emperor has no clothes", then what good are you? 

It doesn't mean you have to call out every lie. That would be exhausting. But when you are expected to repeat a social lie, or to nod along when the lie is told, don't. Sure, you could say it's not true, and that would be the most powerful thing to do, but it's not always necessary. Sometimes your silence is enough to shock a social liar into fumbling with his train of thought. I've seen it happen.

This Age of Lies is an opportunity for the hero who values the truth, wherever it leads.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Don't miss the "not"

Some of the strangest criticisms I get are from people who misread what I wrote and then think they disagree with me.

The picture I posted above was making the rounds without the second line, saying "Landlord is not a job". Well, that's not true!

I may not always like all landlords, but I've seen how hard a job it can be. I've always done my best not to be a problem renter. I've had great landlords, and I've had terrible ones, but the problem isn't that they are landlords. Sometimes the trouble was that the property was difficult to maintain. It happens.

So anyway, I had Grok add the second line to the picture above, and then I posted it in comments under some of the posts. I got a lot of agreement. 

But I had a few people jump on me for it- but not from the side you'd think. In every case, they just skipped the word "not" and thought I was making the argument that landlords are lazy. That's the opposite of what I was saying. I corrected them, pointing out that I'm on the same side, with a comment about reading comprehension, because I'm not perfect.

So, if you read something and think you disagree, read it again more carefully, just to be sure before you make an angry comment. It could save you embarrassment.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

A fan of the classics

I admit it. I am biased towards old methods, materials, and designs. Unless a modern improvement exists that’s better in ways that are important to me. 

Then, even though I'll admit their superiority, I'll still usually prefer the appearance of the old materials and designs. There's just something classic about them.

If there's a brass and glass version of something that's now usually made of various types of plastic, I'll probably prefer the brass and glass version unless the plastic version is a whole lot better. And some of them are.

I'm a big fan of my polymer and steel guns, but for style, they can't hold a candle to my wood, steel, and brass guns. I understand the pros and cons of each. But I like what I like, and not always for rational reasons.

One thing that bothers me is when they try to make plastic look like wood and brass- that's lying, and it looks bad. At least they don't do that with guns as much as they do with other products (although I do have a 1940s shotgun with an original "wood-like" plastic stock). I hated the old TVs that had a plastic case that had a "wood-grain pattern"- if you're going to make it out of plastic, just do it and don't try to make it look like something else. When they stopped doing that and just left the plastic black, it was an improvement.

I don't even mind honest modern reproductions of old things as long as they are made of the real materials and work like the originals did. (I'd prefer an original, but that's not always practical.)

Liberty is the original original. It existed from the beginning- long before crooked, power-hungry humans invented the warped idea that someone should govern others. None of the modern plastic substitutes for genuine liberty are worth anything. They are cheap (yet excessively expensive), ugly, and broken from the beginning. They are not an improvement on liberty.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

What? No new arguments?

It's insulting!

Statists seem to assume I haven't already heard all their justifications for government, and to believe that if they can just bring up the right one, I'll suddenly see the error of my ways and love Big Brother like they do.

No.

Maybe if they could come up with something new, but not when they just dredge up the same ones I first considered and rejected decades ago. And many times since. 

Repeating the same excuses isn't going to make me change my mind. Especially when those excuses can't stand up to scrutiny.

Maybe it's really an acknowledgement that they've got nothing, so they go ahead with their weak arguments, knowing they're firing blanks. Just to appear to others in their tribe like they at least tried.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Another AmmoSquared promotion

AmmoSquared is doing another one of their special deals.

Refer a friend and you’ll both get $35 in ammo credit. That’s a $10 bump, now through December 31. 

Join through my referral link (also at the top right of this blog's desktop webpage), spend at least $20, and you and I both get an additional $35 in ammo! It's a good deal; they actually follow through, and I've gotten free ammo from past deals. It adds up. Give it a try.

Don't believe government necessary

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 7, 2026)

I can understand why so many people believe they need government. Many of them seem unwilling or unable to govern themselves.

Grocery stores are a good example of these bad examples...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Services can be provided sans government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 2, 2026)

I don't want or need to be governed, but I still want a few of the things people claim government does or provides.

The difference is, I want these things provided voluntarily, without taxation or other forms of coercion. If something isn't essential enough for people to chip in and fund, it needs to go away. Forever, or until enough people decide to pay for it without being forced.

I want children to be educated. I don't want schools run by government, funded by taxation, or their standards established by government. A century and a half of this mistake has resulted in a population of functional illiterates.

Even if you support centralized schooling, there are better ways to do it. Come up with what works best for you. The only limit: you can't force others to pay for it, or force them to send their children to it just because you believe it's best.

Justice for crime victims is important. America doesn't have a credible system for providing justice. Governments have punishment systems, which they've fooled the population into confusing for justice. Justice means restitution, or a best effort at restitution. Government is good at punishment- less good at punishing only the guilty, and terrible at facilitating restitution. Restitution doesn't give government money or power.

Keeping accurate records of who owns what, in case of disagreements over ownership, is an essential service. It's a disservice to keep records of ownership so you can tax those belongings, or so you can later deprive someone of their property because a political criminal has written a rule making this property illegal. If you can't imagine a way to keep records without violating rights, you aren't trying.

Defending liberty is critically important, but government has proven itself utterly incapable or unwilling. It's too busy looking for loopholes around liberty. It's nearly impossible to find a government employee, including those tasked with defending liberty, who could give an accurate definition and explanation of the concept. They'd probably spend the time trying to justify their own job, instead.

I even want robotic probes, explorers, and colonists sent to other planets, but not enough to force you to pay for it. I can wait for a billionaire to find a reason to send them.

If there's something you want, why do you believe it's not popular enough that others would join you in paying for it voluntarily?

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Likes, dislikes, agreements, disagreements, and picnics

There are those I disagree with because they are too far Left.
There are those I disagree with because they are too far Right.

I like some individuals in both groups, depending on how they present their views and how they propose to act on them. 

Disagreement isn’t an automatic nail in the coffin.

Weirdly, I dislike some who basically agree with me on everything important, but their personality grates on me for some reason. That's a problem with me more than them. 

I'll readily support what they do and say because they are correct. I certainly don't wish them ill. I just probably won't be going to a picnic with them.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Liberty- costly and worth it

Liberty isn’t free.

I don’t mean this the way statists usually do. 

What I mean is that I understand that liberty comes at a price. It’s dangerous. 

You can stand for the right to own and carry guns and get killed by an evil loser with a gun.
You can oppose mandatory vaccination and die of a disease.
You might oppose prohibition and sobriety checkpoints and lose a family member to an impaired driver.
You can oppose mass surveillance and be the victim of a crime that could be solved with more spyware.
You can oppose censorship and get called rude names.

Statists will laugh, because they don't get it. They can't see past their ignorance.

Bad guys aren't violating you because of liberty. Liberty doesn't include the "right" to violate others, and it doesn't shield you from random bad things happening. Life and death happen. The Universe isn't fair.

The price of liberty is that if you're consistent, you might find yourself facing a situation that slavery might have made less likely. 

So? Liberty is always worth the cost.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

"Just doing my job"

When a federal, state, or local government employee, doing government's bidding, violates life, liberty, or property, they should be held personally responsible for paying restitution. (They are responsible; they just aren't currently held responsible.)

They should pay the full price; not the tax cattle.

Or, if you believe in punishment/revenge as a facet of justice, they should be subject to whatever someone else, not working on behalf of any government, would face if they'd done the same sort of thing.

A government "job" doesn't absolve a violator of their responsibility or guilt. It never has. It's weird that anyone would believe otherwise.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

I've seen what makes them cheer.

I don't fit in.

I know that's not shocking news to anyone. 

Plus, when I see what passes for "normal", I'm not sure fitting in is a good thing. What others view as "normal" is nightmare fuel to me. Murder, war, revenge, slavery, obedience, surveillance, theft, and all the other things we're expected to accept as a normal price of living in a "civilized society". Yuck!

It's like that saying: "Your 'boos' mean nothing; I've seen what makes you cheer."

I have a hard time not recoiling at how horrible many people can be. ESPECIALLY when they get political. Especially when they let their feelings take the wheel. Especially when they get trapped in a false dichotomy. Especially when they form hard opinions based on a complete lack of understanding.

I don't fit in, and it sometimes makes me sad and lonely. But a little sadness is a small price to pay for not letting myself be a horrible person just so I'll be accepted by horrible people.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

I oppose human sacrifice

It needs to be repeated.

The ONLY ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack by the intended victim or a bystander. I'd be thrilled if this were the outcome every single time.

Killing the killer later is revenge- it's even in the name: "capital punishment". Punishment is revenge, the opposite of justice. It's a capitulation to feelings, not rationality.

Restitution isn't possible in such a case, which feels unsatisfying to people who want revenge, but it's true.

It doesn't stop future murderers from murdering. They never think they'll get caught, or they act in the heat of the moment where conscious thought doesn't figure in. There is no preventative effect.

If you "execute" for the state, you are part of a conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. You are ethically identical to the person you murder. The threat has already been neutralized: they are in a cage. Murdering them won't bring their victim back. Legalistic word games like claiming "you can't murder a murderer" don't change the reality. (Try that line if you get caught doing it on your own and see how well it works.) Working for the state doesn't erase the individual responsibility.

I understand the lust for revenge- for punishment- because I've felt it myself. But I can't support it being institutionalized and made into a quasi-religious cleansing ritual of human sacrifice. Not on my behalf!

I don't trust government with the power to murder people. Unlike a lot of statists. Unlike some "libertarians".

I'm so serious about this that I don't even support this fate for politicians/police.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Statism has consequences

If people don't get smarter- less political- things are going to continue to get "interesting" at an accelerating rate.

Just a few minutes of scrolling around on various websites has exposed me to many concerning opinions.

Many people want to:

Make it illegal to make "too much" money, and take the excess (or take it all) for government to use.
Limit how much you can own- of anything.
Punish success and subsidize failure.
Make sure no one but government has any effective weapons.
Track us all 24/7.
Punish us for any rule we violate.
Censor everything we say, write, and read.
Expand government's power in every area.
Make sure our vehicles (if we are allowed to have them at all) don't go "too fast" and don't allow us to do things with them that government would like to prohibit ("kill switches").
Make us all dependent on government handouts.
Control ALL money.
Allow only government to define and administer justice.
Turn the whole country into a big maximum-security prison.
Let government say where you are allowed to live, while it also imports people who want to kill you and forbids self-defense.
Keep raising the age at which people are still considered "children" when that benefits the government agenda, and keep lowering this barrier when that benefits the government agenda.
Marginalize normal human behavior as "outdated" and no longer acceptable.
Force racism and other bigotries into all our social and business interactions, in order to advance some and hold others back.
Pretend that one flavor of tyranny is good while the other flavor is bad.
Redefine "liberty", "freedom", "justice", "ethical", and whatever other concepts might become a problem for them.
Make us slaves to the whims of cops, ready to fall to our knees no matter what demand they make.
Pretend there's a way to v*te ourselves out of all this.

Statism is a disease. You can vaccinate your mind against it, but like a zombie virus, that only means you are less likely to catch it; not that you won't be devoured bit by bit by someone who is infected. 

Yeah, things could get more interesting than you'd like. Since I don't expect people to get smarter, I'm preparing for the worst (while hoping I'm wrong). I'll also do what I can to vaccinate people against statism- even if it feels like a fool's task.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Avoid the unsafe, dark places

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 30, 2026)

The wish to feel safe is natural.

My desire to feel safe is why you won't find me wandering drunk down the middle of the highway on a moonless night. Or any other time. It's smart to adapt your own behavior for the sake of your safety.

What I won't be doing is looking for ways to control you and violate your liberty so I can feel safe. I know violating people's rights won't make me safe. It would also be wrong. And weak...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Don't cave to fear of (freedom from) government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 26, 2026)

I used to wonder how people could still support the existence of government. It has failed its most basic supposed mandate for over 6000 years. It has never protected the rights of the people it ruled, or made their lives better than they would have been without it. It does have a skilled and dishonest public relations team working to convince its victims otherwise, though.

Government is obviously a criminal gang; unaccountable to the people it rules, and refusing to be limited by the rules which apply to it. Like in all criminal gangs, there is infighting. Sometimes the opposing factions fight and focus on someone who is also in government, but they'll ignore those who have done worse to punish someone who has stepped across a line the other politicians somehow notice and care about.

I used to wonder how people could be so blind to the situation and keep supporting the existence of government in spite of the evidence right under their noses.

I used to wonder, but I don't anymore.

It's fear.

Some openly admit it. They are afraid of what other people might do if their liberty is truly respected, or afraid of what will happen to them, personally, if government isn't there to dictate the allowable boundaries. They are afraid of what might happen without a government routinely violating their rights and their property for the stated purpose of protecting their rights and property.

They are scared of living without the largely imaginary government safety net propped up with coercion and theft, instead of a superior, and completely voluntary, social and cultural safety net. They prefer government "welfare" over charity. I guess consent isn't important to them after all.

The smarter government supporters will frame this desire for being governed in some way that sounds nice if you don't think about it too much. They hide the fear under pretty excuses and noble words. If you bother to examine it, it's still fear.

Everyone feels fear. No matter what you're afraid of, your fear doesn't give you any right to violate the rights of others in an attempt to feel safer. Doing so anyway doesn't make you a mature, reasonable, or good person. It makes you part of the problem.

Government uses your fear and works hard to create fear and fan the flames. Fear is government's most useful weapon against you. Don't sacrifice yourself to fear. Bravery and liberty look better on you.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

The dumbest thing "those people" say

"Libertarians ignore human nature."

Which human nature would that be, specifically?

Are libertarians ignoring the nature of humans to be dishonest? I'm sure the solution to this is to create government "jobs" where dishonesty pays by orders of magnitude better than freelance dishonesty could ever dream of. And where it can be more easily hidden. And where, even if discovered, it rarely comes with restitution for the victims. This is a reality of human nature.

Are we ignoring the natural "sinful nature" of humans? I'm sure the solution to this is to set up an institution where they can harm, or even kill, others without much risk of being stopped in self-defense- since it's "illegal" to stop them in any meaningful way. Humans sin, so is it essential to put some of these sinful people in positions where their sins can harm a vast number of people?

If people were angels, no government would be necessary. Because they aren't angels, they can't be allowed to govern others. No one is qualified for this "job". And that's a reality of human nature.

Is the human nature being ignored the nature of humans to fight- individually or in large groups- and try to take what's not theirs through wars? Statists think the solution is to gather large groups together, pay them with money stolen from the local population, go out and attack others, and then cry about needing to defend ourselves when the other groups fight back. Libertarians know that every individual has the right to own and carry weapons for defense against ALL violators, including governments who want to "tax" or "conscript" you, and that the human tendency to come together for mutual defense isn't created out of thin air by government. The warlords already took over, and they're lying to you; telling you their way is the best way, when they cause the problem they try to scare you with. This is human nature too obvious to ignore.

Do libertarians ignore the fact that humans can be really stupid? I'm sure the solution to that is to allow a group of stupid humans to make rules over things they know nothing about, and then use those rules to punish the people who know more about those things and wisely choose to ignore the dumb rules imposed by stupid people. Believing you know more about another's situation is human nature, and statists ignore it for their own twisted agenda.

Is this human nature that libertarians ignore the tendency of humans to work toward their own benefit? I'm sure the solution to this is to make it harder for people to help themselves by providing products and services that others want and need. Establish a system that punishes success. Libertarians know that when a system makes it possible to benefit yourself most by benefiting others, you've found a good balance. It's a reality of human nature that statists ignore because it doesn't give them power.

Maybe libertarians ignore the human nature to feel inadequate and beg for kings and presidents to take their burden of responsibility off them. It works so much "better" to give them what they want than to expect them to grow up and take responsibility for themselves. Next time a toddler wants a bottle of whiskey, you'd better just give it to her, because otherwise you're ignoring human nature to want to feel the buzz. Who ignores this human nature?

If you give people what they want, because they are lazy, fearful, or ignorant, and you expect nothing more from them, they'll keep fulfilling your low expectations. If you expect more of them, they'll disappoint you. But they'll either learn or be Darwinized out of the gene pool (and, empathy aside, this isn't a bad thing). And YOU won't be contributing to or perpetuating the problem.

Libertarians are the only ones out there paying attention to, and acting on, human nature. Despite what statists may endlessly parrot. As in so many other things, this is statists projecting their own character flaws onto others. Don't buy it.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?