Politics is Mr. Hyde without Dr. Jekyll

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

Politics- and specifically political opinions- can turn people into monsters. It's almost guaranteed. No one is ever a better person because of their political opinions or because they're involved in politics.

In his story, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson was writing a morality tale about the good and evil within each individual and the dangers of drug abuse, but it could apply just as well to politics. Politics is a powerful drug, and it brings the evil within each individual to the surface.

Someone may be a decent person, but add some political opinions and they can turn into beasts who want people robbed, caged, or killed because they don't have a compatible political opinion.

The more I see it happen, the less I want politics near me. I wish I could inoculate people against politics. Political addicts are hard to reach and harder to help.

Politics comes down to fighting over how best to govern other people. Since no one has a right to govern even one other person, this is a fight over how to do something no one has a right to do; an imaginary right that can't be created. It's like arguing over the best way to run your slave market. The best way is not to be involved in slavery at all; to be an abolitionist.

Well, I'm an abolitionist.

You have the right to run your life as you see fit, as long as you don't violate anyone else's life, liberty, or property. You have the right to defend yourself from anyone who tries to violate you. Anything else invariably ends up violating someone's rights.

You can't change the nature of a rights violation by framing it as a political opinion. You can't make armed extortion ethical by calling it a tax. You can't excuse censorship in the name of safety without making it political. Politics can make someone accept unethical acts as if they are necessary or desirable.

You have the right to live your liberty to the fullest. The other half of liberty, alongside freedom, is your responsibility to not violate anyone's rights. No political opinion can change this. Nor does your fear of what they might do unless you violate them first.

Don't let politics turn you into something you wouldn't want to become. The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

See how I've grown?

Yesterday was the annual family reunion.

It's a stressful day for me. But I go anyway- I don't always avoid doing things outside my comfort zone. I think it's good exercise.

It was fine. Lots of food, and too many people. But I think I did well.

There's only one relative I can't bring myself to speak to. Years ago, back in the MySpace age, I had reached an agreement with his siblings to rent a house that their parents had lived in (their mom was in a nursing home). Everything was set, and I was happy because the house was far out of town- just like I prefer (or need).

But then this clown found out about the deal and chimed in. He didn't like my MySpace page. He said that because I was anti-government, I would be cooking meth in the home. So, since he was the eldest sibling, the deal was pulled out from under me at the last minute. 

Yes, it was partly his property, but we had a deal.

It caused me problems and cost me. But he imagined himself the Good Guy in his white hat.

I'm still angry about it (if I see him). I sometimes wonder if he now realizes he was wrong, or if he even remembers breaking the deal. Either way, he's not worth my time. I never think about him unless I see him, and I only see him at these reunions. He can go in peace- as long as he goes.

-

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

Yankee Doodle stuck a feather in his cap and the State called it a felony

Yankee Doodle went to town
A-ridin' on a pony.
Stuck a feather in his hat
And called it 'macaroni'.

Then a Blue Line Mafia goon, commonly called a "police officer", alerted to a possible "sovereign citizen" [sic] by the Flock cameras he was watching his ex with, rushed to the scene to cause trouble.

Cop: "License, registration, and the animal's health certificate and vaccination records."

Yankee Doodle: "What?"

Cop: "You heard me. Are you resisting?"

Yankee Doodle: "...?"

Cop: "Where are you going, what is your business there, and where are you coming from?"

Yankee Doodle: "Why?"

Cop: "I need your identification."

Yankee Doodle: "My name is Yankee Doodle."

Cop: "That's obviously an alias, and that gives me reasonable suspicion to arrest you."

Yankee Doodle: "What's going on?"

Cop: "Do you have anything on you that I need to know about?"

Yankee Doodle: "No."

Cop: "I smell marijuana- possibly alcohol, too, and is that a gun?"

Yankee Doodle: "I don't understand the questions. This is America."

Cop: "Hey, that looks like an eagle feather in your cap. You're going to prison, boy!"

Yankee Doodle: "I found this feather on the ground, but I don't know what kind it is. I call it my 'macaroni'." 

Cop: "So, you are on drugs... "

Yankee Doodle: "What? No, 'macaroni' means..."

Cop: "Stop resisting! DON'T MOVE! PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR AND HAND ME YOUR PAPERS!!"

In the scuffle, while attacking an innocent traveler and dragging him from his horse, the cop manages to shoot himself in the foot because of the extraordinarily dangerous situation he created. 

Cop: "SHOTS FIRED! Officer down! Send backup NOW!!!!!!"

FOX News reports that a probable Antifa-affiliated Democratic Socialist commie attacked and injured a heroic officer who was just trying to keep us all safe. "He should have complied faster." Fortunately for the sake of "lawn odor", he was neutralized by the responding thugscrum. Two officers were injured in the firefight, but it isn't clear who fired those shots. The department promises to "thoroughly investigate" itself before finding that none of its officers did anything wrong.

CNN reports that another "white nationalist" has committed "gun violence", which shows again that only government employees can be trusted to have guns.

MSNBC, or whatever it calls itself now, sat and drooled while eating crayons and paste.

-

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

Fear

I'm more and more convinced that fear is the foundation of statism. Not evil intentions, not ignorance, not greed. Fear.

I asked the question, "What justifies government?", and got a lot of input from Statists. I did my best to ask the question in a non-biased way, and even to ask unbiased (as possible) follow-up questions of those who answered flippantly. It’s hard because I’m obviously biased for liberty, and after I had the answers I sought, I let my bias shine.

A pattern emerged in those answers. 

Fear is the most common excuse I see used to justify government. It's what every justification I've encountered distills down to, even when they try to frame it otherwise. They are scared and feel safer under government.

Don't want the government taking its "laws" off of machine guns, even though you acknowledge all such rules are illegal under the Second Amendment, because you're afraid of criminals having machine guns? That's advocating statism because of fear. (The most dangerous criminals already have machine guns if they want them, and always will.)

Justify "borders" because you're scared of what migrants do or might do? That's advocating statism because of fear.

Over and over again, I watch the same thing.

Maybe you're afraid that poor people would die without government help. There it is: fear. 

Maybe you're afraid children would remain ignorant without govschooling.
Maybe you're scared that without government, children would be exploited, violated, and killed.
Maybe you're afraid the natural environment would be wiped out without government making up rules protecting it.
Maybe you're afraid that corporations- a government creation- would take over the world without government stopping them.
Maybe you're afraid criminals would run rampant without "laws", police, and a "justice system".
Maybe you're afraid people would drive dangerously without government traffic enforcement.
Maybe you're afraid there would be no roads to drive on at all; all we'd have are cow paths and potholes.
Maybe you're scared your culture will be eradicated without government propping it up in some way.
Maybe you're afraid radio signals would overlap, and the airwaves would be nothing but unintelligible gibberish without government allocating frequencies.
Maybe you're scared of drugs, and think that without prohibition, people would die of overdoses and contaminated drugs.
Maybe you're scared of being invaded and having foreign rulers replace the rulers you've grown accustomed to.
Maybe you're scared of having to figure out what time to set your clock to without government guidance.

I could go on like this forever. This doesn't begin to cover the answers I got, but there's a common root.

It's all fear, and it's all misplaced and misguided, since the worst-case scenario is almost guaranteed to happen, not prevented but actually facilitated by the entity statists look to for protection. 

And, if you address the fear, questioning the justification for government, you'll experience their anger.

Everyone feels fear. Not everyone gives in to it and sacrifices the world to their fears. Statists do.

Giving in to fear is cowardice. Even if it just means excusing government's existence.

Do not be afraid. It’s one of the most common messages in religions (even Statism).
You don’t need government. Fear makes you believe you do. Fear not. And reject that which is justified by fears.

-

Related: Statism is terrorism
        And Curing Statism?

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

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.

Are statists getting dumber?

Recently, the quality of statist debate seems to have plummeted noticeably, while the quantity has increased a lot.

I'm not sure if statists are getting dumber, if the entire species is getting dumber, or if "the AlGorithm" is funneling the most pathetic examples in my direction. It does seem like something is going on, though.

I'm seeing it everywhere, on every topic: guns, war, taxes, politicians, "laws", cops, prohibition, and even mailboxes.

In the mailbox example, someone was trying to argue that something called "Just War Theory"* means you can't fortify your (frequently destroyed) mailbox because it might hurt the next vandal. That protecting your property is less important than respecting the well-being of the vandal.

No.

If someone chooses to vandalize private property, I really don't care if their actions cause them harm. Fortunately, that defender of vandalism was taken down by hordes of people taking the same position I take. This time.

It reminded me of an argument from years ago made by a (probably former) "libertarian" (probably a socialist now) who was arguing in favor of shoplifting because "who owns the box of mac and cheese?" The only relevant answer is "Not you, until you pay for it".

Advocating for theft, vandalism, disarming the people, and other acts of archation is what makes statism the most unethical ideology out there. It's a popular position, but they are getting worse at making their case. It seems like this should be good for liberty, but I don't see it paying off yet, which makes me think it may be our entire species in cognitive decline.

Time will tell. If statism is still as, or more, popular in a century or so, we'll have the definitive answer.

-

*"Just War Theory": "a moral and legal framework that balances the need to prevent unjust aggression with the ethical, restricted use of violence." So, rather than being about defense, it's mostly legalistic statist drivel to justify collective violence. Trying to apply it to the mailbox problem, where the only aggression (in the form of property damage) was coming from the vandal, was quite a stretch.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Peace on Earth? Government says no

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 24, 2025)

Merry Christmas!

This is the traditional "Peace on earth; Good will to men" season. It's hard to keep this spirit alive even in the best situations. It's nearly impossible with government around.

Government doesn't thrive on peace, but on conflict. War is the health of the state, after all. Where there isn't conflict, government creates it. Where there is already conflict, government fans the flames and uses it against you and your liberty.

This is true both overseas and within America's increasingly militarized borders.

You can't show good will to others while governing them.

Case in point: drug abuse is stupid, but prohibition is evil. Prohibition accomplishes little beyond giving government more power. If you lie and call a drug a "Weapon of Mass Destruction", you're making an excuse to escalate the failed War on Some Drugs.

Government loves this. It gives them justifications for committing acts of war against people all around the planet. Including against Americans. Escalating the War on Some Drugs isn't peaceful or a show of good will. You'll never have a meaningful impact on drug abuse this way; the abusers will only find something new, and probably even more dangerous. Prohibition is a failure.

If you really wanted to defeat the drug cartels, you'd pull the rug out from under them by ending drug prohibition entirely. This would destroy the artificially inflated profit motive and take the trade out of criminal hands. If you're unwilling to do this, you are demonstrating that you prefer causing unnecessary crime.

Similarly, if you wanted to defeat the political terrorists, you'd stop recruiting more of them by invading and occupying their home territories and killing their friends and family. You could take away their motivation by ending official support for their enemies. Trade with all nations; alliances with none.

With all enemies, foreign and domestic, government could remove most of their power if it stopped disarming Americans for their convenience. But of course, government and the bad guys are on the same side, and always were. Any disputes between them are merely gang fights between factions, not fights between good guys and bad guys.

"Peace on earth and good will to men" is not what government wants or promotes. That's up to you. So, what will it be? Will you embrace peace and good will, or will you keep supporting the institution which fears this more than any other outcome? It's your choice.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Committed to Liberty

It's hard to find people who are committed to liberty.

Take "gun rights" people, for example. 

Too many of them are fine with other natural human rights being violated- as long as it doesn't affect them. You'll find many of them who support prohibition, "immigration" control, or cops. The number of them who are flaming statists astounds and disappoints me.

A lot of them even approve of background checks, the NFA, and government keeping "certain people" from exercising their right to own and carry weapons. I guess, as long as they have theirs, it doesn't bother them too much if government violates the rights of others.

Gun stores may be the worst offenders, since I suspect many of them like the fact that government is protecting their market share by regulating the crap out of guns, in clear defiance of the Constitution. I think it's some sort of "teacher's pet" power trip. They feel special, since they have a "license"... never mind it's for something no one can rightfully require a license for.

It's not any better with other liberty-oriented topics. Most people love what they love, but everyone else is out of luck. No support.

I do my best to surround myself- at least online- with people who do better. I'm happy to report that it works.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

If you don't speak to your cat about 'nip...

Who will? 

This is your cat.

This is your cat on catnip.

Any questions?

Yes, that's the cat I call MommyCat, who is the source of all the kittens I keep feeding, sheltering, and trying (and failing) to save. She almost always looks grouchy, but not when she's relaxing in her catnip patch.

-

Kitten rescue fund

Relationship rules- State level

Our Relationship Rules:

• You will not trade with others unless you pay me for my permission first, or you'll get locked in a cage. For some things, like alcohol and guns, you'll have to beg and pay me twice. (Because I don't like you having access to them, but I'm afraid you might throw me out if I flat out deny them to you.) And getting my permission means you'll let me nose through all your papers and harass your customers anytime I feel like it. You'll thank me for it.
  
  
• You aren't allowed to hire any help unless you pay them what I say. Or I'll destroy your livelihood and lock you in a cage
  
  
• Your car belongs to me, as demonstrated by the plate I'll force you to rent and affix to it, and you can only use it as long as I say you can.
  
  
• You won't travel faster in your car than some arbitrary speed I've decided on, or I'll stop, molest, and rob you. I might decide to lock you in a cage or kill you if I get scared. The same goes for wearing a seat belt.
  
  
• You must at all times carry the identification card I'll rent you, and you will not use your vehicle without it.
  
  
• You have to insure your car to my standards, and carry proof that you've done so, through those I've made arrangements with, or I'll take it from you. With violence if you resist.
  
  
• Your house and land will remain my property forever, which you can keep using only as long as you pay a yearly ransom. Your money is also mine, for you to use only as long as you continue to hand a percentage of it to me.
  
  
• You will hand your children over to my employees to be indoctrinated into believing I am good and necessary for survival. You will, of course, have to pay an excessive fee for this "service" or I'll take your property to sell to someone more compliant. I may also take "your" children and give them to someone else to raise. You must pretend I am educating the children.
  
  
• If I don't feel like others have strict enough rules against you owning, carrying, and using weapons of defense, I'll impose my own additional rules. You'll only defend yourself from others with my permission, which you'll never quite be sure of having. And, if you do, I'll steal your weapon and lock you in a cage, only letting you out if you can prove you didn't really mean it. 
  
  
• You are never allowed to use weapons against me, no matter how abusive or threatening you believe I have become. Or I will kill you or lock you in a cage.
  
  
• Certain plants can only be grown, sold, or consumed if I say so, and if I can find a way to get you to pay me. Otherwise, I'll lock you in a cage.
  
  
• You can only play games using money as a way of keeping score if I say so. And if I'm getting a piece of the action, obviously.
  
  
• I can make up any new rule at any time. I'll decide which rules I will enforce, and when.
  
  
• If you cross some imaginary line, any or all of these rules may change because you're now in a relationship with someone else.
  
  

This is kind of a joke, and kind of not.

I still like the format of the other list better.

There's a lot of overlap between the state's relationship rules and the federal rules. Some of the above could be added to the federal rules- and probably should be.

Here are the local rules.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

No Kings-- no, not yours, either.

Just in case you imagine I'm giving "the Right" a pass recently, here's a list of some of the tyranny of the Right:

• Unconstitutional "border" enforcement and "immigrant" crackdowns.
• Anti-gun enforcement and trying hard to keep both the NFA and GCA, and all their unconstitutional crimes, intact and enforced.
• Supporting police, even when they enforce counterfeit "laws".
• Prohibition.
• Military bases in nearly every country on Earth.
• Taxing you for things they want.
• Governing others.

All these anti-liberty things are reprehensible, and I give their supporters no leeway whatsoever.

But, I'm not so stupid as to hallucinate that the only threat, the only "kings", are the rulers on the Right. That's just pathetic. I oppose their prospective kings, too.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Committing crimes to punish non-crimes

A local man was kidnapped by legislation enforcers and charged with "unlawful possession of a weapon conversion device, possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, and unlawful sale of a firearm without a background check". The evidence: "five rifles, including a short-barreled rifle, two braced AR pistols, six pistols, thousands of rounds of ammunition, multiple magazines, psilocybin mushrooms, and $40,000 in cash", and "switches" were found during a search of his property.

All of these things are within his rights. The State had to commit a crime to find an excuse to molest him.

There's no such thing as a legal anti-gun "law". Nor legitimate drug prohibition. Nor any ethical rule against having cash on hand. If government goons can't find a real violation, with a real, individual victim, then they need to leave someone alone.

To use illegitimate "laws" as an excuse to target someone they want to "arrest" is lazy and dishonest... at best.

He may or may not be a bad guy (and it sounds as though he is), but if you have to commit crimes in order to charge him with something, you're a failure. It makes me angry when these failures then publicize their failures as if they want my applause or something. No, cops: you are failures and you deserve to be treated as pariahs for being proud of your crimes. Even if your victim is just as bad as you are.

This is why I have nothing but contempt for cops, and for those who hold their leashes.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Mandatory medications

Opioids relieve pain. There's no question this is true. In this case, shouldn't government make opioids mandatory for those suffering from headaches?

This is quite similar to the arguments in favor of mandatory vaccinations.

In both cases, only the benefits are considered; the health risks are ignored. "One-size-fits-all" is the standard. Government violence is used (or threatened) to impose someone's opinion, and consent is violated.

If you're in favor of making vaccines mandatory, why not opioids?

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Statists participate, but add nothing

Statism makes people stupid. Some statists celebrated the recent murders of the "drug cartel" boat crew. I understand their feelings- I usually understand everyone's feelings- but they are wrong.

One of them expressed her deeply held feelings on the matter:

I can't believe I'm watching people defend the Venezuelan Cartel dug [sic] smugglers. They're terrorists ok. Does the left really think they would agree to a stop and search?! I do not care that they are dead. I do not care about their rights. I care about American lives. 

Some people need to experience the loss of a loved one from Fentanyl or a terrorist terrorizing their home in order to understand that these people are NOT DESERVING of human compassion. (And no, I'm not hoping it happens to anybody, but damn the virtue signaling will be the death of many more Americans.) 

Stop defending terrorists. Just STOP IT.

I responded:

No one has a right to prohibit free trade in substances, or murder those who ignore the prohibition. And since rights are individual, not collective, and governments are collectives, governments have no rights (or imaginary “authority”) at all.
https://kentmcmanigal.blogspot.com/p/kentforliberty-drugs.html

Another statist replied:

This is why no one takes libertarians seriously.

My comment to this bit of wisdom:

Thanks for playing.

He deserves a participation trophy in the contest of having principles and independent thoughts.

Someone scolded those opposed to this murder by saying that if they'd lost anyone to "illegal drugs", they would feel differently. Hmmm.
I lost my older daughter almost 10 years ago due to someone else's abuse of substances. It still doesn't excuse prohibition.
Just like the fact that I've lost people close to me to evil losers shooting them, and this in no way justifies anti-gun rules.

Of course, the statists miss the point. As they always do.
I wasn't defending the Venezuelan drug cartel members. I was standing up for liberty and against tyranny. Standing up for natural human rights- rights government and its fans don't care about. Or actively hate.

Liberty matters, even if you don't care.

If I must become a stupid statist to be taken seriously by the stupid statists, I'll pass.

If someone can't stand up for principles, even when they have deep feelings on the matter, they're useless. Well, useless for any good purpose. They're very useful to tyrants and political criminals. 

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

We need to outlaw government slavery

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

Note: This is NOT the headline I would have written for this.

Defenders of government like to pretend government isn't slavery. They also pretend government is necessary and ethical; without it, humans would not survive and would have never advanced beyond the Stone Age.

Supposedly, government ended slavery. Government also legalized and enforced slavery for thousands of years. Now, because of rules which replaced the old rules, individual humans can no longer pretend to own other individual humans, but we are all required to act as though we are owned, collectively, with government as our master.

Our money isn't ours until government scoops its percentages out of the middle. Then it skims off more of our money every time we make a trade- and sometimes, like with property taxes, into perpetuity because someone bought property in the past.

Laying claim to the fruits of another's labor is a defining feature of slavery. Your body isn't your own, and the value its work creates is claimed by someone else. In this case, the "someone" isn't an individual who can be defended against, but a spectral collective which is nowhere, yet everywhere at once.

Government tells you what you mustn't put into your body. It forbids certain medications, and requires you to seek its permission for many more. Your body isn't your own, and government doesn't want you damaging its property.

Government would prefer you not have the most effective modern tools for defense. Not necessarily because it sides with criminals (it does), but because its employees fear you might come to realize that you need to defend your life, liberty, and property from their legalized daily assaults and theft more than from the occasional freelance thug.

Abolitionists of the 19th Century faced the excuse of "Without slaves, who will pick the cotton?" Abolitionists of today are asked, "Without government, who would build the roads?". Or invent new technology, fund science, keep a record of who owns which property, settle disputes, or dozens of other things government currently does, no matter how poorly.

Is government really necessary for these things, or have you been blinded to reality by government and its childhood indoctrination centers called "public schools"? Has this crippled your ability to think of alternatives to having the cotton picked by slaves?

If you can't figure out a way to accomplish great or mundane things without letting someone or something assert ownership over human beings, you shouldn't be making decisions about the future.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Don't ask government – you be the criminal

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 25, 2025)

If you aren't willing to do something yourself, you have no business asking government to do it for you.

If it's something which will violate someone's rights- the only true definition of a crime- you have no right to do it. You can't delegate a right you don't have; a "right" that doesn't exist.

If you want people caged for using a substance you feel they shouldn't be allowed to use, kidnap and cage them yourself. You be the criminal.

The same goes if you want government employees to break the law by taking guns from people, in defiance of their right to own and carry weapons. If you are in favor of this, you do it. Since anti-gun rules are enforced with guns, it's clear people who cry about "gun violence" love gun violence. They're fine with government having all the guns and don't want anyone able to effectively resist government when it commits crimes. Criminals stick together.

If you want people rounded up and kicked out of America, you should be willing to do it yourself. You can face the consequences if they fight back when you violate their natural human rights. Self-defense is never wrong.

If you want people to be confronted and robbed by an armed bandit for not wearing a seat belt or for going slightly faster than some arbitrary speed, why don't you be the bandit? Some people have done this, but the competition makes the establishment's bandits angry- turf wars, and all that.

If you want government to send its people to a foreign country to kill people and break things, I assume you'll be first in line for a one-way ticket there. You have a right to defend your property, but no right to violate the property of others.

The only way to make these crimes worse is to tax the victims, forcing them to pay their violators to violate them. It's adding insult to injury and is worse than someone simply going freelance and being a criminal on their own. At least freelance criminals take all the risk themselves. Government reaps the rewards and accepts none of the risk.

Paying others to commit crimes on your behalf doesn't absolve you of ethical responsibility for the crimes, even if you've been taught otherwise. If you want others committing "legal" crimes you're in favor of, at the risk of their lives, you should embrace any consequences alongside them.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Cannabis Conniptions! Be afraid!

Recently, I’ve seen so many new articles about the bad health effects of cannabis. 

Someone is obviously trying to turn the public against it. Probably to encourage the public to demand or accept prohibition again.

It isn’t going to work on me, even if I believed all the articles (which I don't). And I don't even use it.

I know heroin has lots of bad health effects, and I’m still against prohibition and punishment for heroin users and addicts.

"Use" doesn't equal "abuse".
And...
Drug abuse is stupid, but prohibition is evil.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Use your brain

Liberals and conservatives are both wrong. 

Just in (some) different ways.

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

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

Use your brain. Don't be a statist.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Politics compromises rational thought

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

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

They are primed to be manipulated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

"Give up" your rights to save lives?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.