A specialized generalist?

 

Is it better to be a generalist or a specialist? It depends. 

I'd prefer brain surgeons to be specialists, but for most people, I think it's better to be a generalist. I can even see how it could be bad for a brain surgeon to be too specialized- to the point he misses something that would be obvious to someone else. If your only tool is a hammer, you'll see every problem as a nail. 

I usually prefer to keep my options open by not doing anything that traps me into one course. This blog was birthed by me breaking my own rule. I have paid a price for that, but not an insurmountable price. It is an educational realization.

However, keeping your options open can also backfire. My aversion to focusing too deeply on any one thing prevented me from getting a college degree. I could never declare a major because it felt like a trap. When I get interested in something, I focus on it until I know it well enough to satisfy me, then I'm ready to move on to something else. (I recommend you not do what I have done.)

Probably the best course is to focus deeply on one area that others find useful, then dabble a little in everything else that interests you. That seems like it would work even for brain surgeons. It might make you a well-rounded individual who also has the expertise in one area to support you through life.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Beware The Blob – its mission is creepy

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 20, 2026)

If you give government an inch, it will take a mile. Or, in most countries, 1.60934 kilometers. Some people refer to this as "mission creep"- government's tendency to keep moving the goal posts and grabbing more power over more things; things government has no business having any involvement with...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

The government never stops growing

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 15, 2026)

Why does government continually grow in size and in power? If you look at a roster of things it meddled with a century ago compared to today, you'll notice today's list is much longer and more comprehensive.

Government is never satisfied; it never has enough control. It won't give up control or take "no" for a final answer. If it loses in court (which it controls), it acts as though it didn't. Often, it doubles down on its illegal activities. This is because there are no immediate, painful consequences for its defiant criminality.

It lies, and many people still believe it.

"This new tax will only apply to billionaires"- until it doesn't. Then it will apply to you. "It's only a 3% tax"- until they increase it. Now they are even plotting to tax money you didn't make, but could have made if you'd sold something you didn't sell. They call it an "unrealized capital gains tax", but it's the theft of your hopes for a better future.

"This law bans the purchase" of an imaginary category of firearms ("assault weapons"), but "it doesn't affect the ones you already own". Until next year, when they decide this wasn't enough, and now you're a "criminal" for things the Constitution says government has no say over.

"It's a crime to drive drunk". Until they change the law and say it's now illegal to drive "impaired". Before you know it, it's a crime to think of something that might be intoxicating when you are within one-hundred feet of a car.

Government is your enemy. It's not the only enemy you have, but it is the worst one.

Other criminals rarely affect your entire life. An embezzler won't usually also blackmail you, steal your car, molest your cousin, say which job you are allowed to work, and demand an annual ransom on your house. Government is the all-encompassing criminal enterprise. There's no part of your life it doesn't claim control over. Go on: name one part of your life which remains unaffected by government. You can't, unless you're being dishonest with yourself.

It will only get worse until enough of us have had enough. I don't know how that day will look or when it will occur, but it will come. It always does. Government contains the seeds of its own demise, because its entire existence is focused on taking more.

Liberty is your birthright. Live like it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Rejecting the Tribe has a cost

My feeling has always been that dumb people follow the crowd.

But…

I can see that there’s a utility, maybe even a wisdom, in not standing out.

When the vast majority of those around you believe in politics, fawn over a certain genre of entertainment, or otherwise stay inside the pre-approved set of acceptable interests and beliefs, they don't seem happy with you if you're wandering outside the lines. 

The fewer of their rituals you participate in, the more suspicious of you they become.

If, for example, "everyone" in society has a self-mutilation fetish- piercings and tattoos- then maybe it is safer to join in. To be part of the tribe and show it.

That’s not me; it's never been me, and I can’t do that. I recognize there's a cost to it, though.

I’m admitting I can see why people do those socially "acceptable" things. Or even why some people would play along when they don't feel it in the depths of their being. It's not even necessarily wrong.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

What do "laws" prove?

In a discussion about the effect of self-driving cars on cops and their DWI grift, someone said, "Self driving cars are a fantasy. They do not have the ability. They can assist but cannot drive themselves."

Now, this is objectively not true. Someone else pointed out. "I've seen them driving around downtown, sans human driver."

The Luddite's response. "They are not reliable. Several have ran over pedestrians and they have been the cause of accidents"

I pointed out, "Humans are even less reliable, unfortunately."

So, he responded, "If that is true then why is it required for a person to be at the wheel and paying attention while the vehicle is driving itself?"

My response, which should have ended the debate: "Because laws are archaic and stupid."

That "laws" require something dumb isn't an argument. It proves nothing. It doesn't make the case that statists believe it makes. Most legislation is years behind the curve. And even if it weren't, it would still be stupid (and evil).

Look, I would FEEL unsafe in a self-driving car. I really want to be in control, even though I don't like piloting vehicles very much. But, intellectually, I know they are already safer than human drivers. It doesn't matter whether I want that to be true or not. Mine is an irrational reaction based only on my feelings, not on reality.
Like my disdain for air travel (even without the TSA and security theater making it worse). Feelings aren't reality.

The weak link in traffic safety is the human behind the wheel- and it always has been. Drunk or sober.

The Luddite brought up several more objections, but every single problem he mentioned is also true for human drivers. Probably to a greater degree! Every single one. And, you know he knows it- he just doesn't like the idea of self-driving cars. 

Here's the thing he's ignoring: Self-driving cars will continue to improve in their ability to safely handle real-world conditions and surprises. Humans, not so much.

I don't want legislation (or rules) to either mandate or forbid self-driving cars. I want the State kept out of our vehicles entirely. Government interference is the real danger.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Liberty or money?

Will liberty get you through times without money better than money will get you through times without liberty?

I honestly don't know.

My personal preference would be to have total liberty, regardless of the money situation. A little money along with it would clearly be even better.

Having more money can also do a lot to increase your liberty- to a point.

Plus, it should be obvious that the more liberty you have, the easier it is to make money and to find ways to navigate around the need for money. 

A major function of government is to keep you poor and dependent so that you don't have the energy to devote to exercising liberty. That's why taxation really exists. Statists lie about this, but it's true.

-

Thank you for reading.
Speaking of money... 

Can you imagine it?

People think things can't change- can't end- because they can't imagine it. 

I used to be this way. I once thought the Soviet Union was eternal. It had existed all my life, and I had no reason to think it wouldn't continue to exist long after I was gone.

Then, just like that, it was gone. I learned from that experience. Others don't.

My parents are prime examples.

They simply can't imagine things changing. 

To them, a college degree will always be essential for any non-janitorial job. Any exception shown to them is "well, that's just one instance, and it's probably not even true". Even though there are plenty of examples in the family. Both people with well-paying jobs without a college degree, and people with college degrees having no job at all (or a low-paying job that's "beneath them").

They believe the US dollar will always be worth earning and saving. Even though it has already lost nearly all its trade value. When I've said that at some point, it will no longer be worth it to work for any job that pays in dollars, they said I was wrong, and that you'll always have to take dollars, because what else would you do? 

At least I was finally able to talk them into diversifying into a couple of other options. Maybe they did see the writing on the wall.

They can't imagine the US government becoming so tyrannical that the people have to start openly defending themselves from it and its employees. They still believe cops are the good guys, even though they know of more examples of the "few bad apples" than the "good" cops. Their desire to believe otherwise is so strong!

They believe America will always be a superpower and the dominant military force on the planet. Tangentially, they believe the Israeli government (they confuse it for the country) is "America's" best ally (again, confusing a government for the country and population), ignoring history for what they wish to be true. 

Eventually, the USA will be gone, just like the USSR. I hope America survives the end of the USA, but it may not.

Take nothing for granted. Plan ahead for the unthinkable. Bad guys are planning and plotting; do the same in self-defense.

At their age (or even at mine), there's no guarantee they'll live to see these changes. But the changes are coming. If they aren't here already.

All statists suffer this mindset. They can't imagine life without their god, so they think their god will always reign supreme. That's not guaranteed, though. In fact, the opposite is guaranteed; no one knows the timeframe, though.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Wait... who's "terminally online"?

Besides using the ad hominem of "bot", detractors will often say their object of attention is "terminally online". 

They'll say directly that any opinion you hold that differs from their acceptable opinion is the result of you being "terminally online". 

It's too bad for this claim when those opinions predate the internet, sometimes by decades.

It's also strange when the people grasping for this insult then think you've "run away" from the discussion when it took you "too long" to respond... because you weren't online.

But, when you're a statist, you've got to grasp at any straws you can create, since logic and reason aren't working in your favor.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Angering the minarchists

The people who seem to hate me the most aren't the standard diehard statists, but those who call themselves "libertarian" and hold me up as an example of what a libertarian shouldn't be. Or isn't.

Then, they'll try to insult me by calling me an "anarchist".

They're shooting blanks.

If their idea of "libertarian" means keeping a minimal state around ("minarchy"; the wildest Utopian notion ever) so it can violate life, liberty, and property they don't personally like, count me out. 

They don't really trust liberty, but fear some aspects of it, which they want government to control (violate) for them. They want to distinguish themselves from anyone who isn't saddled with their hangups. So they'll insist libertarians can't be anarchists and anarchists aren't libertarian. Many of them will say that if you're not on board with the Libertarian Party, you're not a libertarian.

Just like the awful person I know who once told people who asked about me, "I don't believe like him", I'm glad they've distanced themselves from me. They're doing me a favor. Thank you!

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

No good reason to reject liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 13, 2026)

People find many reasons to reject liberty. Fear. Envy. Ignorance. Tradition. In fact, there are probably as many reasons to reject liberty as there are people on this planet...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Trust marketplace, not the government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 8, 2026)

I trust the market more than I trust government. It's easy since I don't trust government at all.

I want everyone to be free to sell what they want to sell, and free to buy what they want to buy. All regulated, not by government rules, but by the hand of the market.

You may say, "But what about human trafficking?" Maybe you haven't noticed, but government isn't able to stop it. In fact, government seems more concerned with protecting the guilty than with protecting their victims. You can probably think of better ways to solve the problem yourself.

No one has a right to violate the rights of others- which selling people does. Everyone everywhere has the absolute human right to do whatever it takes to prevent someone's rights from being violated. Government doesn't like this fact and hopes you forget I reminded you.

Even in more mundane situations, I still trust the market.

Businesses don't want to harm their customers. That's no way to stay in business. When a new restaurant opens, people rush to stand in line to try it out. They don't worry that the restaurant will poison them, and it's not because of the licenses and permits the owners got from government. Government would love for you to believe this is what keeps you safe, but again, government works harder to protect dishonest businesses than to protect their victims.

If a business owner is greedy but can't use government to force you to trade with him or her, this greed is motivation to satisfy you; to draw you back to be their customer over and over again, and to tell others how well the business met your needs. Otherwise, their greed is wasted as they'll go out of business soon.

It's only when a crooked business owner has government connections that satisfying the customer loses its importance. You don't need happy customers if government forces people to trade with a particular business or industry. Either with a mandate or by licensing schemes which crush competition. When this happens, it's not a failure of the market, but a consequence of allowing government to interfere in the market- a situation known as "socialism" or "fascism".

Bad guys stick together and stand up for each other unless something causes a rift between them. In such cases, your welfare doesn't count, and it's already too late for you.

Trust the market; reject government control.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

"Maintaining" anarchy in the face of statists

A statist asked someone else this question:

"Explain how anarchy will be maintained and nobody will make governments, absent compulsion. Hint: You can't. And that's the crux for why anarchism is utopian thinking. It just magically assumes everyone will agree." (profanity edited out)

That's how statists, conditioned to think only inside the coercive government box, look at the world. It's tragic and sick. And there's that misguided "Utopian" claim again.

I've seen variations of this same question many times over the years, and I have addressed them when I encountered them. I guess it's time to address this here (if I haven't already).

Once you realize governments are simply criminal gangs, the question- and the solution- are easier to understand. The veil of legitimacy doesn't change their true nature even a little.

Anarchy doesn't need to be "maintained", at least not in the sense the statist insists. It can't be. It simply is. Already. Trying to "maintain" something in this sense means to govern it. If you try to govern anarchy, you're doing it wrong. "F'ing for virginity", as they say.

Bad people will always try to establish governments, just like bad people murder, rape, kidnap, steal, and trespass. Bad people do bad things, and they won't stop just because you point out that they have no right to do those things. You will have to stop them. It's your responsibility.

The solution is self-defense from ALL archators. With the specific evil of  "making" a government, you have to nip it in the bud before it grows too large to decisively defeat. This was our forbears' mistake, and it's too late to address the problem as they should have done. But there's still a way. Or two.

Theirs is a mistake that needs to be recorded and remembered, so it is never repeated. Crush any newborn government in its crib before it is strong enough to fight back and win. It's your responsibility, and responsibility is half of liberty.

Statists will complain. They'll try to recategorize self-defense as "compulsion" because they are liars. They want to be safe while violating society. That's not my problem.

Just like the person who complained to me that if I didn't allow her to control me, that meant I was controlling her by taking away her ability to control me. Nope. That's a lie, and I'm not buying it.

No one has a right to govern anyone but himself, and anyone who tries is a threat to life, liberty, and property, and fighting back- to the death- is a perfectly legitimate response to this type of criminal. It's also perfectly acceptable to join together with others, voluntarily, for defense- as long as there's no penalty for opting out and the defense is not funded through theft. 

Here's one of the best parts: not everyone has to agree. But those who don't agree to refrain from violating life, liberty, or property- using any justification- will know they are doing something the rest of us recognize they have no right to do, and that their targets have the right to fight back with whatever amount of force it takes. They are just like the freelance criminals of the government era. "Force" isn't the problem; "initiation of force" is. Establishing a government is an initiation of force; fighting back is defensive force.

The best thing about libertarianism, and by extension, anarchy, is that it doesn't rely on "everyone" agreeing. The bad guys have been told how we will respond if they try to violate us. It's their choice to either live in peace or try to cheat to get their way. Without a strong government protecting them from their victims, the ones who don't learn to get along will Darwinize themselves out of the gene pool. Their choice; their consequences.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Don't get distracted

Sometimes, it's easy to get distracted and make stupid mistakes. You lose focus for just a second, and suboptimal things happen.

Such as the event in the picture above.

Fortunately, some of those mistakes are merely irritating and inconvenient rather than disastrous. I've barely missed disasters* on occasion, so I can appreciate the merely unpleasant.

-

*There was this one time that involved a burning candle, a full powder horn, and a distracted brain...

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Minarchy

Minarchy is the idea that humans need, and can maintain, a minimal State. A "night watchman" state. But it rejects that "minimal" can mean "none". If there's more than zero, that amount can be minimized further, which means it is not "minimal".

Minarchists love to call anarchy "Utopian". That's rich coming from followers of the most Utopian idea ever!

Government will never allow itself to be limited. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

Every attempt to limit government has failed.

The Constitution may have been the final proof of the futility of that desire. It failed, and those who don't want to admit it failed will blame you and me for its failure. As if we could somehow, by some time-traveling magic, stop a failure that occurred well over a hundred years before we were born. It failed almost before the ink was dry.

Don't accept the blame for something that isn't your fault.

Those who advocate for a "night watchman state" seem to be unaware of how states work.

To be an effective night watchman, that state needs to steal. It needs to spy. It needs to determine for you what rights you have, and which rights it is allowed to ignore. It needs the power to punish and to carry out revenge. For this, it demands a monopoly on force. Once it has these powers, there's nothing anyone can do to stop it from growing out of control and seeking more power over more parts of your life.

Minarchy is statism-lite, but it is still statism. Maybe, in very early stages, it is "libertarian-leaning", but it loses this tilt almost immediately, becoming ever more statist as time goes on. Libertarians who then continue to argue in favor of minarchy lose all claims to libertarianism. Anyone pointing this out angers them and makes them lash out at the consistent libertarians- the anarchists.

As someone pointed out to me, "Any society capable of maintaining a minarchy doesn't need one."

What I don't understand in all such cases is, if you believe that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor, why get so angry at having this pointed out?... unless you feel guilty and know you're wrong.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Envy

Why are some people so susceptible to envy? To the point where it becomes a poison.

I am happy for others when things go well for them. 

The friend who found $41,000 in a woodstove in his house? I was thrilled to hear that story as many times as he wanted to tell it. I felt good for him.

When someone gets their dream job, I'm genuinely happy for them.

Even when someone is excited about a new tattoo. I hate tattoos (when excessive), but I can be happy along with someone who is happy about getting yet another one.

When anyone gets a new car, a new house, a good relationship, another gun, or when their missing pet returns, I'm happier for having heard about it. Envy doesn't control me, even if I lack what they have.

It doesn't mean I wouldn't like to experience similar good things. But trying to rob someone else of their joy, or minimizing it to bring them down, doesn't make me any happier. I can't even imagine being like that.

The existence of billionaires doesn't hurt me.
Someone else's good luck doesn't cause me to have bad luck.
Someone else's happiness- as long as they don't get happy by violating the rights of others (and I have met those people)- doesn't take away from my own happiness.

I would never seek to use the political means to bring someone else down just because they have something I lack. That's the politics of envy.

Yet, this sometimes seems like the foundation of political government.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

"Bots"

I've discovered that when anyone feels like they are losing a debate to you, the trendy new ad hominem is to call you a "bot".

I guess when your logic and rational thinking skills appear to the other person to be superhuman, compared to their own ability, they just assume you're a computer.

It also seems to me that these people put the bar very low, so as to make themselves feel better.

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Yes, machine guns, too.

If you're not in favor of getting rid of the government's illegal rules against machine guns, you: 

1. Don't really believe in the plain words of the Second Amendment.
2. Don't believe in the natural human right to own and carry arms, which exists regardless of the Second Amendment.
3. Allow your fears to determine what rights others exercise.
4. Favor letting political criminals determine what rights you have and are allowed to exercise.

It doesn't matter if you think machine guns are scary and don't want "those people" (whoever they may be) to have them. The worst people already have them.

I was disturbed to talk to someone who is generally pro-gun and find out he draws the line at machine guns. His reasoning is that he's scared of criminals having them, and because of this, he doesn't care what the Second Amendment says about the matter.

It's disappointing. 

It's the same when someone believes "felons" lose rights.

-

Thank you for reading.
Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Liberty not subject to majority rule

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 6, 2026)

My experience, gained from years of talking with many people, suggests that when most people talk about freedom, they mean "the freedom to do as I please, and the freedom to prevent others from doing the same"...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Fish don't need bicycles, or government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 1, 2026)

I don’t like things which are bothersome, unnecessary, and intrusive. It's even worse when those same things are harmful and are forced into our lives.

Like government is.

It’s said a man needs a government like a fish needs a bicycle. I think it’s worse than that. The situation is more akin to telling the fish he can't survive without the bicycle, forcing him to buy one, tacking him to its seat to force him to ride it, and then demanding he thank you for the bike you've provided.

It’s crazy.

If that’s what you want, that’s your business, but don’t force it on the rest of us. It's bothersome, unnecessary, intrusive, and harmful to life, liberty, and property.

America's founders, who fought for the liberty of Americans, would be fighting again today. There's no way they'd tolerate what the US government, with its subordinate governments all across America, has become. The levels of taxation piled on top of taxation, and the meddling in every aspect of our lives. The constant control, intrusion, and surveillance. They'd find it intolerable; much worse than a mere 3% tax on tea.

The British government of King George was far less tyrannical and annoying than the US government has become today. An ordinary American during those days could have gone months- or longer- without noticing there was a government ruling his life. Now you can't go a day without having to comply with some arbitrary governmental annoyance.

Yet, I'm supposed to pretend that the people who see nothing fundamentally wrong with this, who only think they need to elect "better" people and enforce different rules, are the patriots? Nonsense!

Those who support this all-encompassing government and want it to have even more control are as functionally anti-American as any Iranian Ayatollah or old Soviet Premier. Or worse, because they don't realize it and would never admit it.

It's frightening that so many confuse the US government with America, and have chosen to support government instead of the principles America was founded upon. Principles their government is scrambling to make illegal.

Liberty is essential to America, and it's time to ditch the bothersome things which get in liberty's way.

For those who still crave a police state, there are plenty of options for you around the world. Liberty is harder to find, and it's time to stand up for it in America before it's lost forever.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Socialistic hate and envy is stupid

Socialists are dumb and/or dishonest. 

They are having seizures over Elon Musk saying he wants to reach a net-worth of $10,000,000,000,000. They pretend this means he wants a Scrooge McDuck vault full of gold.

That's not what "net worth" is.

That's how much the companies he owns are worth to us. The value he provides. His private property and bank accounts are a small part of the picture, and those don't even seem to concern him very much.

I like spaceships, Cybertrucks, and Starlink. If these socialists have their way, we'd have none of that. They are envious turds.

I have my issues with Musk, and I have detailed them many times, here and on "social" media. But I'm not so ignorant or dishonest that I make the socialists' mistake.

Their bigger mistake is that they want government to steal his money for itself. That would be an absolute waste. Every cent government gets and spends is wasted. I wouldn't want my worst enemy taxed, because government is worse than any individual. Any individual!

How much money does Elon Musk owe me? None.
How much does he owe the State? None.
I'm better off if he keeps his money out of the State's grubby claws. Even if I get zero direct benefit from his money. At least, in that case, it isn't funding The Ancestral Enemy.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Worse than useless

The latest wanna-be assassin demonstrated a truth I've been preaching all along. 

Metal detectors don't stop evil losers; they encourage them to run through and start shooting immediately. They don't care if the alarm is ringing and the lights are flashing as they start their rampage.

Metal detectors don't stop evil losers from having and using their weapons to harm the innocent; they stop the good people from being armed where their guns are essential.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Make a new argument, or be dismissed

Am I close-minded if I stop entertaining the arguments in favor of slavery? Even though there are no new ones being presented? (And haven't been for hundreds of years.)

I do believe I should keep an open mind about everything. But I’ve already heard all the arguments people make in favor of slavery. I’m not going to waste my time reconsidering the same old arguments as though I haven’t heard and dismissed them all before.

I’ve heard all the arguments in favor of government. Hundreds of times or more. Present a new one, and I’ll honestly consider it. Otherwise, no. It has been weighed, measured, and found deficient. Try again, with something new, or be dismissed.

You don’t need to keep evaluating the same old arguments as though they are new. I don't think that makes you close-minded; it's a better use of your finite time.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

"But that would be inconvenient!"

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." 

I can't tell you how many times the objections people have made to my advocacy of liberty boil down to "But that would inconvenience me!"

The other version is, "But I don't want to be bothered to do that!" when I point out that something is their responsibility, not government's. That's just another form of "inconvenience" mixed with a little cowardice.

Modern humans are scared of liberty and willing to sacrifice it so they won’t be inconvenienced. Slavery is comforting to them. It's easier. No responsibility. No effort. It’s sick and pathetic.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Liberty and "safety" both have costs

Whenever anyone calls for "common sense gun regulation" to "keep people safe", then whips out the zinger that if you don't agree with them, you "don't care if children die", a thought starts forming in my head. This is my attempt to flesh it out.

When my daughter Cheyenne was killed by a drug-impaired driver, I was devastated. But I didn't start being in favor of prohibition, checkpoints, or vehicle kill-switches to make sure no one is allowed to drive impaired. Those measures also kill people, destroy individual liberty, and violate individual rights. The trade-off isn't worth it. (Plus, none of the liberty-killing measures that are already imposed saved her anyway.)

Weak, unethical people advocate violating the rights of others because tragedy has touched them personally. They disgust me more than I can express. It's personal.

I am sad that my daughter was killed, but life in a police state isn't worth living. Liberty is dangerous. The dangers of liberty are obvious. The dangers of "safety" are often hidden from you until it's too late.

There are those who respect your liberty and your rights, and there are those who want you controlled. They may say it's for your own good, for the good of society, for the safety of children, or for the good of the nation. It's not.

There is no "good" in those excuses, and any "safety" is counterbalanced by the dangers and deaths they'll pretend don't happen. Or, that the victim "deserved" for not surrendering their autonomy to the State.

Yes, if you respect people's rights, some innocent people will die. Imposing "safety" on society just shifts the deaths somewhat; it doesn't prevent them. Some different people will die as a result. But you won't be guilty of violating everyone's rights in a misguided attempt to "save" some while sacrificing others.

It's easier to find (and lie about) the actual deaths which have occurred; it's harder to come up with realistic numbers of how many will die in the future from your "safety" rules. 

It's also easy for them to ignore those who have died in the past through the enforcement of that type of rule.

Liberty is worth the costs; slavery... not so much.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.