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?

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?

"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?

The desperation of statists

The statists are getting desperate.

"If you don't v*te for our side, the other side will win!"

Yeah, so? Both of you are the problem. 

Both sides are socialists.
Both sides are authoritarian archators.
Both sides lie to get the v*tes, then do what they were always planning to do regardless.
Can they really be considered "sides" when they are no more different than they are?

Sure, there are differences. But they are both creeps who seek to rule. They both want to violate your individual sovereignty. They both want to impose their desires on you through counterfeit "laws". Both are despicable enemies of liberty.

I see what you DO, not what you SAY. It doesn't work to call your loyal opposition names- even if those names are accurate- while you behave in ways that are just as bad for liberty, but occasionally in slightly different ways.

It's not going to be different this time. 

Yes, I hate the thought of "their guy" getting elected, but I hate the idea of "your guy" getting elected, too. I hate them both. I don't need to be governed, I don't need anyone else governed on my behalf, and I don't appreciate you forcing your chosen political criminals onto my back.

You statists could choose to not be the problem, but instead, you choose to whine that I don't support your creeps, and you fabricate the fantasy that this helps the other creeps. Statists are delusional.

Politics makes people stupid, and usually at least a little bit evil (UT7). This is never more obvious than when they are campaigning.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Be unreasonable

If it's unreasonable to expect government to abide by the rules that apply to it, then I'm happy to be unreasonable.

If it's unreasonable to demand that government not violate the very rights it supposedly exists to protect, then I'm unashamedly unreasonable.

If government doesn't do this bare minimum, then I want it abolished. If that's unreasonable, I'm OK with that.

If it's unreasonable to expect that natural human rights be respected, even if inconvenient, then I'm fine with being thought of as unreasonable.

If it's unreasonable to support the right of everyone to defend their life, liberty, and property from all violators, freelance and governmental, then I'm glad I'm unreasonable.

If refusing to go along with the weak and fearful crowd is unreasonable, so be it.

I've seen what passes for "reasonable" and I want no part of it.

If unwavering advocacy of liberty is unreasonable, then I'll be unreasonable forever.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Feeling "safe"

I have a conundrum.

I feel utter contempt for people who support the existence of government because it makes them feel "safe".

But... part of the reason I hate government so much is that I know it makes us less safe. It's the primary violator of our rights; therefore, having it around makes me feel less safe.

So, am I as contemptible as those who want to govern me so they'll "feel safe"?

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

The hobby of not collecting stamps

The Statanist call to prayer is blaring across America again: "Not voting is voting."

OK. Fine. I will do so by refusing to v*te for one of your anointed, pre-selected political criminals.

In this way, I will cast my v*te for liberty instead of for the status quo.

I choose to reject your options, which amount to more of the same.
I refuse to give my consent to your bad guy as a way to stick it to the "other side's" bad guy.
I don't need to be governed, and I don't need you governed on my behalf; to protect me from what you might do.

The criminal institution known as "government" will declare someone or something the "winner", with or without my help or consent. Nothing I do will change that. That "winner" will work hard to make all our lives worse.

Whichever "side" gets the offices, Americans are screwed until government is abolished and our rights and liberty are respected again; something no government will ever do. Respected because we have the will and ability to defend them from ALL violators. This is the only way they'll ever be respected. Government and its "laws" have been abject failures in that department, and so will it always be. That's because no matter how bad freelance criminals are, government is always the Prime Violator.

So, if someone is going to consider a refusal to play their rigged game as a play in their rigged game, that's a problem with their brain. Do what you want, but don't accept blame that isn't yours.

-

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...read the rest...

-

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

Actions more important than words

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 19, 2026)

To discover who someone is, you have to pay attention to what they do, not what they say. Words are cheap, and lies come easy.

This goes triple for government.

A government which talks about your safety but does things which will make you less safe is not on your side.

Sending an adventurous military abroad makes Americans less safe at home, and especially when they travel. People who have been displaced and lost relatives due to the US military conducting terror campaigns against terrorism will blame innocent Americans as much as they'll blame the US government. They don't distinguish between the two. This has resulted in many tragedies. This government behavior isn't for our safety.

Spy cameras installed to track you are not for your safety; they are for the convenience of those who want to find something they can call a crime and use against you. How is this safe for you? It isn't. The safety is a lie.

A government which talks about your rights, but violates them at every opportunity is not your friend. If a government continues violating your rights after being told to stop, it's not a government of the people, for the people, or by the people. It's an out-of-control occupying force of domestic enemies.

Never forget that freelance criminals are far less dangerous than government employees, especially unaccountable government employees who enjoy "qualified immunity" or who are the ones writing the legislation they'll apply to us and exempt themselves from.

Government promotes the myth of "consent of the governed", but when there is no consent, they govern anyway. You haven't taken up arms yet, so they'll take that as a sign that you consent to it. Whatever "it" may be. It's a dangerous standard for government to apply. Dangerous for the people and for the government which enslaves them for their own supposed good.

Observe how Congress names legislation, and you'll see that it matters more what they do than what they say. They could make up legislation mandating that kittens be killed at birth and call it the "Saving Kittens Act". It wouldn't even be the first time they've done something like this, as every anti-gun rule demonstrates.

If a politician speaks, assume it's a lie. Don't believe it. Government lies. Its lies are exposed by what it does. So, watch government's actions, but don't forget to live your life in the fullness of liberty.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Of two minds

I have two brains inside of me- well, we all do, but I notice it a lot.

Half of me gets really mad at all the stupid governing and bullying that goes on. At the spyware the regime is paying to have track us and (soon) read our lips. I hate that so many are so opposed to liberty. I'm frustrated over the monumental cowardice that leads to government. 

I want it all to fail, no matter the consequences.

The other half of me wonders how much it really matters. How real is any of this?

Do those who see themselves as "in control" and "running things" really have any control? Are they running anything? It doesn't look like it. What do they believe they are controlling and running? To me, it looks like they are flailing around, and the only people who see them as "leaders" are the weak-minded followers who'd insist on following someone, regardless.

Evil humans have been trying to govern others for a very long time. Eventually, the people being governed always have enough, and then heads roll. People find a way to exercise their liberty in spite of the best efforts of the evil government addicts. This arms race isn't going to stop- the tighter they grasp, the more of us who'll slip through their Imperial fingers.

I feel bad about how many innocents will end up harmed or dead before things settle down. But I'm not the one insisting that this path must be followed. 

I'm saying we should all respect each other's equal and identical rights to avoid this. If statist clowns demand otherwise, I'm afraid they'll get what they've asked for. 

Get good at ducking, sneaking, hiding, and/or sniping. 

With the second half of my brain, I think liberty will prevail in the end, but it might get very interesting on the way to that end. For us, and for the bad guys.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Normalize self-defense

If you hide the solution, the problem will keep getting worse. Guaranteed. It can't go any other way.

If you don't allow people to say what the solution is, you are actively hiding the solution, and fewer people will understand; the situation will get worse. Every single time. You're the bad guy causing the problem to escalate.

Yes, the solution is sometimes violence- but never aggression.

This is the reality that needs to be spoken. Expressing it needs to be normalized, not punished.

If you punish people for saying so- for telling the truth- you're empowering the bad guys. You're picking the wrong side to defend.

I understand that the thought of being violent upsets many decent people. They want to see themselves as "peaceful" for some odd reason. They think suggesting violence, even when that's not really what was done, needs to be stopped. They confuse violence with aggression.

The thought of their intended victims being violent to stop a crime scares the bad guys and upsets political criminals and those trained to think like they do. There's a lot of overlap in that Venn diagram; it's basically a circle unless you go microscopic.

Find ways to speak the truth, even as the bad guys try to stop you. It's necessary. Normalize self-defense so completely that bad guys- freelance, governmental, and corporate- can't silence us all. Stop letting them hide the solution.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

There's no excuse; Self-defense isn't a crime

One of the most humiliating crimes government commits is stealing someone's gun after they defend themselves or others from a criminal. It's a crime on top of a crime.

This treats the defender as the criminal. And often, they never get their property back.

There’s never a reason for government to steal the defender’s gun after an act of self-defense. 

It's not "evidence". Letting government steal someone's defensive weapon as "evidence" in a crime they didn't commit, but stopped, is nothing but a lie told to disarm them. Any legitimate "evidence" could be collected at the scene without stealing anyone's weapon. 

Treating self-defense as a crime is the real crime.

It's a punishment for doing the right thing. A punishment for demonstrating that the cops were useless and unnecessary, and that "laws" don't protect the innocent from freelance criminals. It gives government criminals a foot in the door.

Sometimes, the criminals of the state add other punishments on top of "only" stealing the gun. This is the opposite of justice, and should come with tar and feathers, ropes and light poles, for the crooked judge, cops, and prosecutors.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

You can't starve the Beast or bleed it dry

There is no connection between the money government spends and the money it steals through taxation.

Before the Federal Reserve scam began, perhaps there was a connection, but not anymore.

The tax rate could be 100% or 0%, and government would spend the exact same amount. It simply counterfeits, through the Federal Reserve, all the money it uses. 

Even if government stopped spending money altogether, it would keep taxing. Taxation isn't for funding government; it's for impoverishing you, controlling your behavior, and getting you to incriminate yourself- all useful for government power.

The Federal Reserve's counterfeiting operation achieves the same result by inflating the money supply and stealing the value of the money you already have or are getting, while enriching those who get the first counterfeited dollars.

If you are hurting financially, and government offers you money or "benefits", it can control your behavior and get you to accept the lie that government is "essential". You might oppose any reduction in government, afraid that you'll lose the handout.

The biggest problem with taking "givernment's" handouts ("entitlements" and promised $ 5,000 bribes, for example) isn't that you're taking money stolen from someone else, but that it weakens you and might buy misplaced loyalty to the giver. If you are immune to this, congratulations- you are a better person than most.

The issue with accepting "government money" in exchange for a "job" or a government contract is that it strengthens and perpetuates government. 

Government is the arch-enemy of liberty. Government goes away when no one is willing to debase themselves by working for it anymore. If you value liberty, you shouldn't settle for anything other than no one working for government in any capacity. Not even to monkeywrench.

The understandable position that money handed out by government was stolen from someone else just isn't as true as it once was. It's no longer possible to starve the Beast, or to bleed it dry. Its "money" is disconnected from taxation, for whatever that's worth. Do with that what you will.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?