Pass the flame of Liberty on to someone

Part of me suspects that the few of us who still value liberty will have to keep the flame burning through a dark time, hoping that a new generation that wants liberty eventually comes along. A new generation that is willing to learn to value it like we do. 

I think we may be descending into a new Dark Age where the vast majority of people- especially young people- just don’t care. As long as they have entertainment, convenience, and the illusion of safety, that’s enough. They don't see any value in liberty. They are too busy dreaming up new ways to feel like victims. New mental illnesses to build their personalities around.

That won't last because it's unsustainable. But it has lasted too long already. Liberty has suffered as a result of this manufactured distraction.

The flame of liberty has been relegated to the corners of the room while all manner of anti-human ideologies and policies take center stage and get all the attention.

I think liberty will eventually rise again, in an upcoming generation sometime in the future. A generation that finally understands that the solution is never political. I wish we didn't have to wait.

If it turns out to be longer than a human lifespan before that new generation arises, I hope we can pass the flame on to a few holdouts so they can do the same when their time comes, just to give that future generation something to expand on. If not, I hope we leave a legacy they can discover and use to build upon. I hope I can contribute something to that future generation.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

There's only one word...

This is my 20-year blogiversary! That’s 7,305 days, and 8,101 blog posts.

I feel this should be significant in some way, but in what way? I don't know.

The world- and America, specifically- is so much more authoritarian now than when I started writing here. Hopefully, that's a coincidence, or inertia; a correlation and not causation.

-

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

Being mainstream would be easier

Sometimes I wish I could fall in line with the mainstream of society. But then, we’d both be comfortably wrong.

I know... this isn't the first (or even the 100th) time I've thought this.

Everyone who advocates that others be governed has some issue they'd be willing to see the State kill you over to prevent you from doing what you have a right to do. Just because they don't like it.

This includes "libertarians" who have some issue they'll defend the State's position on. And there are a lot of them. I suspect some are lying because they don't want statists to think badly of them, or they have seen how libertarians who stood up to the authoritarian narrative were treated in the past. I get it. 

They'd be better off keeping their mouths shut than defending the State's position, but they don't.

A current example is public spyware. I can't get over the supposed libertarians who are defending Flock cameras, using the excuse that you don't have the right to not be photographed by a random stranger in public. That's not even close to the same thing.

If a random stranger took photos of you in public places, then used the information gained in those photos to track you down to rob, kidnap, cage, or murder you, you have the right to use deadly force against that stranger. (The State might dispute this, but the State is often wrong.)

You have the same right if that stranger works for government and uses Flock spyware, but you aren't "allowed" to defend yourself in this case. No matter how blatant the violation or how immediate the threat. Why do these people pretend they can't see the difference?

If the "law" allows you to be photographed and tracked so that your life, liberty, and property can be violated, the "law" is wrong. If the "law" forbids you from defending yourself from someone doing this, the "law" is wrong.

I'll stand up to those who say otherwise, and I'll question their motivations and their ethics.

But, I admit life would be simpler if I just went along with the mainstream and begged for safety instead of demanding liberty. Instead of sticking up for uncomfortable rights and inconvenient liberty.

-

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

An intelligent refutation of libertarianism?

I've never read an intelligent refutation of libertarianism/anarchy. And I've encountered a lot of attempts to do so! Thousands of them.

Instead, I've seen intelligent people grasp at straw men, misunderstand the topic, deflect, project, and flat-out lie. 

As soon as I read "The problem with libertarianism is that,  just like socialism, it...:" I know I'm in for some weapons-grade enriched Retardium.

Personally, in all these tactics, I only see their irrational fear. Regardless, they invariably believe they've done what they set out to do. 

Unfortunately for them, that's not the case.

It's obvious they care more about hating liberty and loving government than about getting it right. Why? Because politics. 

-

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

Politics is a drug

I'm usually nicer to statists than other statists are.

That doesn't make sense to me.

I don't hold back or coddle them when they come at me with their delusional statism, but I'm not going to blame a drunk for the things he says while drunk. Even though there are consequences. 

And politics is a drug. People under the influence aren't rational. They can't be. And the impairment doesn't wear off with time. It has to be treated with an antidote; taken voluntarily or not at all.

I can know someone is a statist, but until they force me to defend myself from them, I can be nice. I can smile at the crazy thoughts they express without confronting them. They might even misinterpret my smile as agreement. It happens.

Statists already hate other statists just because they prefer a different flavor of slavery, and they never stop going at each other's throats because of it. There's always a tension there, which seems odd to me, since I see them as all on the same team. They are like twins who get drunk and start fighting over their shared misunderstanding of a dream someone once told them about.

I'm there to remind them that they have more in common than not.

-

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

Their attempted insults have no power here

Just to give a clue to those out there who got really bothered by me over the past weeks for opposing spy cameras...

Calling me a "Democrat", a "Leftist", a "liberal", a "commie", a meth addict, a "criminal", or anything else doesn't work. It never will. I'm on the correct side on this issue.

Here's a selection of replies I copied and pasted (all these from one guy) to me (and others) for saying I oppose Flock cameras, and saying they aren't worth the cost:

"Looks ghey. Ill pass"

"I'm not reading some liberal garbage trying to turn ppl gay" (Both this and the one above were in response to a link to my newspaper column on the subject)

"Go get you some meth money we know the truth about you people."

"I don't break the law. I'm cool with them"

"Go play in a road transtifa"

"You a scrapper? Lol."

"Go watch an episode of first 48 and see how handy these are and solving crime from thugs"

"N!gga you retarded or a crook. Probably democrat"

It also doesn't make me angry that these clowns expose themselves. They want to believe it does, though. It's what they desperately hope for.

I'm a libertarian- I get called worse daily.

The problem for them is, I know what I'm standing up for. It has nothing to do with what they want it to be about. I also see what THEY'RE standing up for, and it's hideous and evil.

The scary thing is, you know these people v*te!!

I don't buy the lies that these cameras are an essential tool for solving crime; I'm not afraid of criminals. Even if they were used that way occasionally, it's not worth the loss of privacy and liberty. Not even close.

But some people are not only OK with them; they crave having them watch you and me 24/7.

That's disturbing. And not very smart.

-

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

The base

Everything in the material world comes down to physics. 

Similarly, everything in the social world comes down to liberty.

Some people like to try to insert woo-woo into the material world, but then they are talking about something other than the material world. Maybe they are speaking of a spiritual world or something else immaterial, but you can't plot an orbit or describe a chemical reaction this way. You have to stay in the realm of physics to do so.

Others like to try to insert their antisocial desires and fetishes into the social world, but then it's no longer a social world they are talking about. They are describing a political world instead. You can't respect the rights of others while pretending there are things you "should" do to violate these rights when they make you uncomfortable.

I suspect there is even a way to merge physics and liberty; a sort of Grand Unified Theory. I can see it and feel it, but I can't articulate it. Yet. It may come to me someday.

-

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

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.

Those whose careers depend on violating liberty will use any excuse they are handed.

If they use envy, they can impose socialism and raise taxes on the rich. They can make people believe they have a "right" to things which others must work to provide them. It can never be your right to enslave others!

Using ignorance, political criminals lie and hope that too few notice to do anything about it. It's how we get things like "assault weapon" rules, carbon credits, and the War on (some) Drugs.

They also combine ignorance with envy, so those cheated in the brain department will demand to be coddled to dumb down society so that no one feels stupid. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge; stupidity is a dedicated effort to remain ignorant.

Tradition, when applied to historical evils, is a particularly dangerous justification for rejecting liberty. Just because "it's always been done this way" doesn't mean it should continue to be done this way. When certain rights have been sacrificed in the past, it was wrong. It's wrong to violate rights now, even when ceasing to violate them is unthinkable. Slavery has been around for thousands of years, in every society all over the world. It was traditional everywhere. That's no reason to keep enslaving people.

Of all the reasons to reject liberty, fear may be the most common excuse, used even by some people who generally support liberty. Fear is the one thing politicians count on the most. They feed it, fan the flames, and lie about how much danger you'll be in if other people don't have their liberty crushed under the heel of The State. They'll construct nightmare outcomes they hope will scare you, so you'll beg for someone's liberty to be limited in some way. Liberty restricted is liberty violated. Nearly everyone has one fear a politician can use. You need principles to say "No".

The problem is, no matter what facet of liberty you want to consider, someone is deathly afraid of it. If your rights depended on not scaring anyone, you would have no rights. You would have no liberty to exercise.

Don't fall for any reason to reject liberty. Instead of rejecting liberty, reject the excuses used to justify violating it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Choose the right tribe

Many people are terribly tribal and horrible to anyone they consider "other". I'm seeing a lot of this online. Fortunately, even though I know it happens, I don't encounter it much in real life. Yeah, I live in an out-of-the-way place (which many locals and unwilling residents consider the armpit of New Mexico), and I generally avoid neighborhoods known for crime. Other than the occasional (obviously mentally ill) beggar with a chip on his shoulder, I don't see much open hostility.

A tribe can be a good thing. It means someone has your back, even if they don't necessarily know you personally. I've seen it in sportsball fans, people in a particular career, fans of certain entertainment types, and based on other irrelevant things.

I even feel a tribal kinship with people who wear hats (as opposed to caps). We sometimes give each other a knowing look when we pass. I know it's odd. It still feels nice.
And if I see someone displaying something Firefly related, I almost get giddy.

Where tribalism goes wrong is when people from a tribe gang up on someone for no reason other than they perceive them as being from a different tribe. I don't respect that kind of tribalism.

Yesterday I stopped at a fast food place to grab a drink, and there was a young girl of another "race" coloring at a table. She had dropped a crayon on the floor. I picked it up and handed it to her, and she said, "Thank you". I told her she was welcome and turned back to my business, and she excitedly told her mom that she had dropped a crayon, and I gave it to her. It made me happy to know I had made her happy, even in such a small matter.

I didn't think more of it until later, when I got online and saw people of different "races" and tribes hurling hatred at each other. For no reason but that they believed they belonged to different tribes based on skin color. I don't want to live that way!

I know any encounter with another person can go bad. It's my responsibility to not start the trouble- to treat everyone with courtesy until they give me a reason not to. In which case, I'll try to put distance between us. It's also my responsibility to be ready to defend myself and others. From anyone, of any tribe. If I see a guy wearing a hat attacking an innocent person, I instantly switch tribes. I stand with the person who didn't start the trouble. Any other tribe affiliation loses importance at that point.

It's strange to me that this isn't the default.

My most important tribe will always be comprised of those who respect the life, liberty, and property of others. The rest is just costuming.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Left, Right equal enemies of liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 29, 2026)

It’s wild how people pretend “Left” and “Right” are mortal enemies. They’re not. They’re two bowls of the same authoritarian slop: theft and enslavement sold as “the greater good”.  

When the Left rules, they’ll tax you into the ground to fund their pet projects, regulate your speech, your guns, your business, your very thoughts, and call it compassion.

When the Right has a turn, they’ll ramp up the surveillance, the wars, and the “law and order” boot on your neck, all while waving a flag and quoting scripture.

Same result: your money, your time, your choices- stolen by someone with power. Only the propaganda differs.

I can’t even blame one side more than the other. Both cults worship the State. Both believe they have the right to point guns at peaceful people in the name of governance. Both cheer when their team wins and will suddenly discover “tyranny” the moment the other team takes the reins. It’s the same disgusting ideology wearing different colors.  

Which is the greater threat right now? Both.

When Democrats are at the wheel, their brand of authoritarianism- green mandates, speech codes, endless redistribution- does the damage.

When Republicans seize it, their version- endless spending on “defense”, border theater to expand the police state, moral crusades backed by badges- takes its turn.

Americans keep losing.

I lost income during the pandemic because politicians of both teams proved they could shut down the economy on a whim, and most folks would comply and thank them. That lesson wasn’t lost on either side. They now know exactly how far they can push before people resist.  

The binary is a trap. It keeps libertarians, the actual liberty-lovers, arguing over which master is preferable instead of rejecting all masters. Left and Right are not opposites; they’re both whistling the tune of “we own you” in different keys.

I love people. I also know humans are flawed. Which is exactly why no one should ever be handed the power to rule the rest of us. There is no "right to govern". Until enough people wake up and stop cheering for their favorite brand of authoritarianism, we’ll keep trading one set of thieves and slavers for another.

The only sane position is to despise both teams equally and demand they keep their filthy hands off our lives, our property, and our liberty. Stop volunteering to be enslaved by "your team".

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

The Statist "solution"

The foundational statist lie is that if you don't want government involved in everyone's life, you "don't care" about them.

One such example from one of statism's brightest:
"The libertarian solutions (all of them) come down to a simple one-liner, 'Just let the poor people die.'"

As opposed to the statist solutions (all of them), which come down to, "People are government's property; kill them if they resist".

Yeah, that's so much more caring. Right? LOL

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

They're obviously so proud of it

I get amused by the statists (and Statanists) who refuse to read anything that might threaten their narrative... and then brag about it.

I have read a great many horrifying things that excuse and justify government, theft, coercion, etc. I couldn't always finish it, since some were really long and convoluted ways to keep making the same bad point over and over again, but I made an honest effort. 

I understood the argument when I was done, even though I obviously disagreed with the conclusion.

I could tell you the reasons why I disagree. If there was some truth to be found in there, I believe I would have accepted it. I have probably done so. I do agree that theft and murder can be quite pragmatic, even though they are evil. 

It's good to see how the enemy thinks and what he believes.

Statists either won't do that at all, or I don't encounter any who will.

They are content in their ignorance. It makes them proud. They want you to know just how comforting their ignorance is. And they'll comment and immediately block you so you'll know they "won" the debate.

Exposure to terrible people and their thoughts is painful, but until you know how they think, you're up against an unknown.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

"No true Scotsman" doesn't always apply

Sometimes, the "No true Scotsman" thing doesn't apply to a circumstance. Trying to make it fit doesn't work and is dishonest.

If someone calls themselves a libertarian, but they "Back the Blue", want more taxes to pay for more things, want government to mandate or prohibit more things, and reject the idea that they have no right to archate, they aren't libertarian, by definition. 

They are something else, so why wouldn't they embrace it?

Trying to use the "No true Scotsman" fallacy only works when it actually fits the situation. It can't be stretched beyond its limits to apply to something it doesn't apply to. Many of the fallacy guidelines work this way.

I know someone who is addicted to TikTok and watches this "Preacher Man" (I don't think that's the name he uses) who claims to be a Christian preacher, but "preaches" while drunk, cusses like a sailor, gets angry and threatening (which gets him temporarily banned several times per week), and doesn't seem to know or follow the Bible or fit the definition of "Christian" in any way.

I have no problem with people preaching their own religion, whatever form it takes, but if the religion you preach doesn't seem to align at all with the one you're claiming to be preaching, you aren't what you say you are. "No true Scotsman" doesn't apply.

Sure, it's silly to say "No true Scotsman would wear parachute pants", because that doesn't follow at all. But to say "No true Scotsman would be an indigenous African who has no connection to Scotland (cultural or genetic), has never been there, doesn't speak the language, and doesn't even know Scotland exists" is pretty likely to be true, at least in the present. It's not a fallacy, but an observation.

Some people seem desperate to apply the "fallacy" label in this way, and it simply doesn't work.

No true rabbit is also a cat. No true airplane lacks wings or the potential to fly. And no true libertarian is for bigger, more intrusive government. Like it or not.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Not a perfect system...

This illustration could be my parents talking to me. We actually had this conversation- although it was decades ago. Most likely while I was in high school; before I'd heard of libertarians and when I probably thought anarchists were bushy-mustached bomb throwers.

But, that assumption about the system is wrong. Anyone who thinks this way is wrong. It’s the best system they can imagine or are willing to consider; not the best there is or could be. Not even close.

They are far from being alone in this belief. The vast majority of humans, regardless of the specific system they find themselves yoked with, share this delusion.

Only govschooling or some other intensive cult indoctrination could brainwash people to this point. 

Again, as happens so often, I wonder how I dodged that bullet.. or if I'd be better off believing the lies with the rest of them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Full liberty makes our lives better

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 4, 2026)

My life is better when your liberty is fully respected. So I want you to live in liberty to its fullest.

Liberty is the freedom to do all you have a right to do; everything which doesn't violate someone else's life, liberty, or property. Liberty is freedom tempered with responsibility.

Thomas Jefferson observed, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." He went on to say, "I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

None of these definitions includes the military's perverse use of the word "liberty" to mean "restricted action with permission and an expiration date". Those who crave control often employ this Orwellian tactic of using a word to mean its opposite.

I don't fear your liberty. Since liberty is the freedom to do everything you have a right to do, and nothing you have a right to do can violate me (or anyone else), I want you to exercise your rightful liberty every day of your life, all the time, without the fear of legislation enforcers and freelance creeps trying to stop or punish you. Then, I want the same for myself.

I wish more people felt as I do. The world would be a better place if that were the case.

If you are free to exercise your liberty, you'll probably be happier. You'll definitely be more mature and responsible. If not at first, soon. You'll learn. People can't learn to be responsible while being treated like children under the fist of an abusive parent.

If I were one of those people who wants to control others, who believes in the imaginary right to govern, I would feel differently. I could lie and say it's for your own good, for safety, or "for the children", but it would really be for my own ego or fear. I might not want you doing things you have a right to do, but which I wouldn't choose to do myself. Things which annoy me. I might believe it's OK to use government violence to stop you. It's not.

There's no legitimate excuse to obstruct another's liberty.

Liberty is your birthright as a human being. Embrace it and live it to make a better life for us all.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Vicious cycle of Statism

I don't get pleasure seeing someone on the side of the road being subjected to an armed robbery by a cop.

It brings me no joy to hear of an entrepreneur being taxed.

It doesn't make me happy to know of someone being arrested or imprisoned for violating some counterfeit "law".

I dislike seeing anyone being governed. Even if I think they deserve it for advocating for others to be governed or violating others in some other way. There are better ways of dealing with any problem.

Until more people feel as I do, it will be impossible to throw off the yoke of political government. It's a "Do unto others because it is done unto me" situation, which gets us nowhere worth going.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.