The Statist fraud

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

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

Abolish it.

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

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

Abolish it.

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

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

Abolish it.

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

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

-
Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

You know what's best for you

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

I don’t know.

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

I don’t know, and I accept it.

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

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

What kind of horrible person would do that?

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

Don't believe government necessary

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

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

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

-

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

Services can be provided sans government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

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 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?

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?

Problem? Government the worst solution

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 12, 2026)

Relying on government for anything essential seems foolish. It certainly never works out well.

Most of the western parts of America, including our local area, suffer water shortages created by government policies. The solutions government imposes won't solve the problem, either, but will only cause more problems.

New York City may soon learn what happens when you let government run grocery stores. I can see where it's headed. Can't politicians?

Roads are also a case in point. Government can't keep them in good repair, won't accept responsibility for poor maintenance, allows their badged highwaymen to target travelers, and will sometimes even vandalize the streets that we pay for by installing "speed bumps" we also pay for. We literally pay to have our streets vandalized!

Education is another prime example. After around a century and a half, government control of education has resulted in a nation of illiterates. Graduates who can't read, do simple math, or know about anything that happened before they were born-- unless it can be used to justify continued government intervention. Who could have seen it coming?

Even things most people see as intangible-- like liberty, security, and defense-- are better kept out of government control.

If you count on government providing something, before long you may not have it at all. It's the fox watching the henhouse. At the very least, government involvement doesn't stop the inevitable. If something is not sustainable, putting government in charge won't save the day.

When you allow government to interfere in the market, the businesses which depend on customers choosing to spend money with them get destroyed. Government can charge less and can continually lose money since people are forced to support it regardless. You'll be forced to pay for the government option, through taxes, whether you think their product or service is good or not; whether you use it or not. If you choose to patronize someone else when government also has a share of the market, you'll pay twice because not only will you pay to get what you want, you'll be taxed to pay for the government's inferior option you didn't want.

Not only will you never get what's promised, but you'll be robbed of what was yours to begin with. Your money will be confiscated through taxation and your liberty will be destroyed by legislation and other rules. Every time.

If something is important, it's too important to tolerate government involvement.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

The most painful thing to a statist

The most infuriating thing you can do to a statist is to laugh at their narrative. Or, short of laughing, just don’t buy it.

They’ll try to beat you over the head with the “social contract”. Since that doesn’t exist, it’s like a mime flailing at you with an imaginary hammer. It can't hurt you if you don't let yourself be hypnotized into believing it's real.

I'm going to help others when I can because it's the right thing to choose to do, voluntarily. Not because they believe a "social contract" I've never seen or signed says I'm obligated to do so. Or says others are entitled to my help. There's ONE thing I promise that comes closest to an "obligation". The only thing anyone is really entitled to is to not have their rights violated.

They’ll try to scare you with “what if”. That only works on people who aren’t sovereign and who are afraid of every shadow and sound. "What if?" Then this… and I’m still responsible for myself.

Most of their scariest "what if" scenarios are a description of the current situation anyway. Warlords have already taken over. Crime gangs already attack, kill, and victimize your children- they just bring badges and official titles. Hordes of thieves already take your property; most of them call it "taxation", "asset forfeiture", "licensing", or "property codes".

You can't scare me into going along by threatening more of what you're already getting away with.

Don't get pulled into their hallucinations, but remember that hallucinating people can still harm you. Be ready to defend yourself, but don't fall for their nonsense.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

That divisive trial

I'm torn.

Yes, I believe that woman murdered her children. 

I'm also aware that government lies to get the verdict it wants. My belief that she did it, based on hearing that she confessed and that there's plenty of evidence, is only that: a belief. I wasn't there, so I can't know for certain- and I never will.

I still believe she did it, for what that's worth.

Yes, I believe she is/was insane. Insane, but guilty. I don't believe insanity or hormonal issues absolve a person of responsibility for their archation. 

If that were the case, a lot of convicted and admitted rapists should get a new trial since testosterone is sometimes called the violence hormone.

I'm in favor of jury nullification. I think it applies when you believe the person did what they are accused of, but "laws" prohibiting the action are illegitimately prohibiting something every individual has a natural right to do. I don't believe that fits in this case because no one has a right to kill their defenseless offspring.

I also believe a government court is the least credible place to seek justice. They are designed to punish, not to provide justice. Those children will never receive justice by caging ot killing the woman who killed them. Justice is out of reach; it's not an option here.

I wouldn't mind too much if every jury trial resulted in a mistrial to demonstrate the absurdity of the ritual. Of course, if government can't get the outcome it seeks through a jury trial, I expect they'll dispense with that in the small percentage of cases that still go that route. They'll skip right to the punishment phase. Maybe a jury trial complicates this.

As always, I'm against imprisonment, partly because it is funded by theft, thus leaving the victim victimized twice. Also, because it is Crime University. Third, because it is too easy to use for political purposes. Plus, it doesn't provide restitution, but punishment.

I would much rather leave bad guys out among the general population, who are completely aware of what they did. Don't attack them to punish them, but watch them (not with government spyware, though, since that isn't public), and if they try to violate anyone else, they (like the others who do the same) would likely be Darwinized from a free society. That's usually the best outcome, even if some think it's harsh. Otherwise, as long as they never archate again, leave them alone. 

As always, there's a possibility that I'm completely wrong in my views on this case and everything else.

-

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

What's left of the Bill of Rights?

I have objections to the Constitution, seeing it as a betrayal of everything America could have been.

However, IF each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights had been followed to the letter by the fe(de)ral government, and enforced by each individual whom that government sought to violate by ignoring the Bill of Rights, then things today would be a lot better than they are. Not perfect, but objectively better. (Except for the poor government-supremacists, who would suffer from hurt feelings.)

As it is, every amendment in the Bill of Rights- with the possible exception of the 3rd Amendment*- has been torn to shreds by the authoritarian maneuverings of the feds; endlessly justified by government-supremacist citizens who don't care about rights or liberty, but only about giving government illegitimate power.

I say the possible exception of the 3rd Amendment* because I consider being taxed to support (house, clothe, and feed) illegal standing armed forces in perpetuity to be a clear violation of the spirit of that amendment, if not the letter of it. Some would disagree (but they're wrong, of course).

If we never have "peacetime" because the criminal government keeps starting armed conflicts, that shouldn't be my problem.

So, as I've said before, the Constitution is effectively dead, and its only utility at this point is to show how deeply criminal the US government has become.
And, the Constitution was a mistake in the first place- the result of an unethical conspiracy to establish a nation-state in place of a free America.

The founders didn't trust liberty, but wanted to be governed- or more likely, to be the governers. We are paying the price.

-

*Third Amendment-
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

-

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

Good rule of thumb: Mind your business

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

People who believe they have a right to not see or hear something they don't like are one of the biggest roadblocks to liberty. They imagine they have a right to not be offended. This nonexistent right is more important to them than letting others use their own property as they wish.

Offense is subjective. What offends you doesn't offend others. Something about you offends someone. It sets a dangerous precedent to attack others based on what offends you.

Being offended is a personal character problem, not a condition which creates a right to control someone else. The obligation is on each of us to respect the right of others to do what they want as long as they aren't harming anyone.

If you're offended by the sight of someone's tattoos, piercings, opposite-sex cosplay, or by the words they use, you need to mind your own business unless they violate your life, liberty, or property in some way.

Some people are offended if you don't have a uniformly short, green monoculture called a "lawn" surrounding your house. I prefer seeing a healthy, diverse system of native grasses and other plants which don't require a dangerous waste of water to sustain.

If you're offended by someone's private property, remember it isn't yours to control. As long as it isn't breeding swarms of rats, flies, or other vermin to cause you actual harm, you have no claim against the owner. If it is causing you harm, you are owed restitution, but not control of their property. No one loses their rights because of how you feel about what they are doing.

Those who lust for the power to control others don't like this fact. They want to do what they want while preventing or punishing others for doing what they want. When this hypocrisy is pointed out, they'll lie about how this "offensive" view or "offensive" speech actually violates them in some way. It doesn't.

This applies doubly if you represent government interests and believe it gives you the right to control others and their property or their speech.

Remember, government doesn't legitimately own anything or have any rights. Everything it possesses is either stolen from the rightful owners or purchased with stolen or counterfeited money. If you want to be bothered by something, be bothered by that. Don't use this illegitimate gang as a tool to violate others. That's uncivilized and should offend everyone.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

More theft equals "the best life's"?

Statists get really upset when it is pointed out that taxation is theft. European statists- or statists who have a fetish for spending the stolen money according to the European model- most of all.

I had one educate me with this brilliant observation:

"Go to Europe dummy, they pay more in taxes and live the best life’s. Your taxes are stolen to,build a basketball arena instead of giving you a healthcare program. Stop electing a**hats that squander your taxes -problem solved"

There is so much wrong there; it's hard to address it all. I responded:

"Yeah, I see how your "healthcare" programs work. No thanks. I can spend MY OWN MONEY better than anyone else can spend it for me."

Maybe he's the one who should go to Europe, since he likes their taxation so much.

I also could have pointed out that paying taxes is the problem, not necessarily what the stolen money is used for. My objection isn't that the money is stolen then squandered, but that it is stolen at all in the first place. 

I could have pointed out that "the best life's" is subjective. Higher taxation isn't going to improve my life in ways that matter to me. In fact, taxation lowers the quality of my life considerably.

I could have pointed out that I don't support anyone being "elected" to rule, but statists impose these people on me regardless of my wishes. Electing different political criminals isn't going to fix things, or magically change taxation into something other than theft.

His "solution" solves nothing. But people like him are so hypnotized by statism that they can't even imagine an alternative. And, he's rude.

-

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

"Legal" is rigged

“Legal” is always rigged to favor the state. This is why I have no respect for “legal”.

Playing the word game of "legal vs lawful" doesn't seem to get anywhere either. Not as long as the bad guys- the Statists- own and run the courts you are forced to use. They see no difference unless it serves their purpose.

"Sovereign citizens" [sic] are obsessed with "legal", and it doesn't really get them anywhere, except put in a cage.

I see all sorts of people saying, "Use this one weird legal trick or say these words and ..." government will leave you alone or something. I've never seen it work. Not unless the cops you've encountered aren't that committed to hauling you in or shooting you- today.

Maybe, just maybe, if you're a lawyer, you can make it work. I've seen little to no evidence of this. Not in any way that makes a substantive difference.

Depending on the Constitution or various legislative maneuvers to protect your liberty is a fool's pursuit. I understand why people try it. I don't understand why they don't give it up once it's obvious it's not going to work for them.

No, it's up to you to live your liberty and defend it from all violators. Just keep in mind, it won't be legal. You'll be an outlaw.

-

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

A lesson in government's "economics"

A while back, my dad said that I should tell my daughter to be thankful for how much money she's making at her job, because his first job was driving a tractor around a field for 11 hours per day, for 50¢ per hour.

This was in the early to mid-1950s.

Once I pointed out how much the silver in two quarters would be worth today, he changed his tune a little. That would be equal to about $23.40 per hour. Much more than my daughter is earning.

If you're only adjusting for inflation- like if the guy gave him FRNs instead of hard money- that's only about $6.23 per hour. Not as good. In that case, my daughter is coming out ahead.

Anyone should still be grateful for their job, whatever it pays. No one is obligated to hire you. It is nice, though, if you make enough money to make the job worth the effort. It's sad how much of that pay gets stolen by the state, just because the state exists and feels entitled to your property.

Government sure likes to steal our money, one way or the other.

-

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

Letter to the Editor- Water

I'm sorry for another local-interest post. There's a lot of bad stuff going on in this town right now. Posted below is my letter to the editor of the State Line Tribune- Farwell, Texas/Texico, New Mexico, Thursday August 13, 2026:

It appears all my efforts to cut back on water usage are for nothing. There's been no improvement in the water situation at all. At least, that's the message I got from the latest dispatch (8-11-2026) from the City of Farwell.

They warned us our water usage was being watched- digitally, daily- so they know where the excessive water usage is happening. Why scold the rest of us?

It appears the answer is, as it is so often, politics.

The town government wants more land- or the water rights- for more water wells, and it looks like they're going to hold the residents hostage until they get what they want. To punish us for not being able to afford letting them do what they want.

If they're going to spend the money regardless, why not use the money they would otherwise spend on more water rights and wells into the rapidly dwindling Ogallala Aquifer, to instead drill deeper into the Dockum Aquifer and build a desalination facility so that water is usable? It's not a perfect solution, and might even cost more, but it's better than doing more of the same thing and expecting different results.

Unless the Ogallala is healthier than we've been told.

I probably can't afford that approach either, but at least it seems a better use of the money. A longer-term bandaid for a problem that won't be solved without more, and more dependable, rainfall over a large region over a long span of time.

If that doesn't happen, this area will not continue to be livable without a technological breakthrough. Will Farwell still be here in 2126? That probably depends mainly on the water supply.

Kent McManigal

Farwell

-

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

A set of rights violations masquerading as Law

If someone wants to live under Sharia "Law", I say let them. But don't apply those rules to anyone who doesn't explicitly agree to them. Their rules don't apply to other groups.

The same applies to any other set of "laws".

Counterfeit "law" from any source doesn't apply to anyone unless they agree to it. Since all counterfeit "law" is based on religious ideas rather than ethics, it's all actually a sort of Sharia anyway. It only applies to the believers.

But they'll say we can't live without rules. They'd be right.

Real Law- natural law- applies to everyone. Don't murder, kidnap, steal, attack, defraud, govern, or otherwise aspire to violate life, liberty, or property; don't archate. Not even if your religious "law" says you're allowed or obligated to do so. If you do any of these things anyway, you owe restitution. Pay it.

Counterfeit "law" violates natural law, so it is all null and void before it even begins.

But its cult will rob, cage, and murder you for breaking it, and the brainwashed masses will cheer and say you should have complied. That's how you know this isn't real law, but a set of rights violations on a pedestal.

-

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

LPR (Flock) cameras are watching you

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

One of the most important fights in our lifetime, a fight for the future of America, is shaping up right over our heads. It's the fight against license plate reader cameras and the related spyware that is already being used against you and your liberty.

This may even be more important and urgent than defending the natural human right to own and to carry weapons without government interference. These data collectors will be used to violate your right to bear arms and all your other rights as well. If this is to be stopped, it must be stopped now. Before long, it will be too entrenched to stop. Public attention is fleeting. Outrage fades. Political criminals will say, "But we've done this for years, and no one cared before."

Maybe you imagine this is only an issue in big cities you rarely, if ever, visit. If so, I have an unpleasant surprise for you.

If you check out the interactive map available at deflock.org, you'll see that they document 22 of these Fourth Amendment violations right here in Clovis, New Mexico. A flock of them, watching you, every time you pass one. Scooping up your data. Without a warrant. That's unacceptable,

Constitutionally, it's a criminal act.

Any politicians, including police department officials, who are using your confiscated money to steal your privacy are your enemies and a serious threat to your rights.

They claim it's "for safety", but you may have noticed how few real crimes are solved this way. Even if they were, it's not worth it. Not even close.

Instead, the spyware is being used to collect data to use against you. If not today, then next week or next year.

This is not for your benefit.

It would be better for you, your safety, and your liberty, if every one of these cameras-- and whatever comes next-- were removed from public spaces and placed inside government offices and chambers for all to see and record what goes on there. Watch the watchers, not the people. You have a natural human right to privacy; government officials have none.

Groups are organizing across the country to fight these unconstitutional spies. Find one and support its efforts. You might not realize how important this is, but your grandchildren and future generations will. Will you fight for them or betray them? You're making the decision now, whether you realize it or not. Choose wisely.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Water troubles, exacerbated by government screw ups

When government screws up, the people pay the price. Often, literally.

My little town- population just over 1400 or so- is in a water emergency. Because its government screwed up.

Now, we residents are ordered to reduce our water usage by at least 20% and stop ALL outdoor use of water, or else.

The "else" includes warnings, increasing tiers of "fines", and having your water shut off until the crisis is over. Will it ever be over when they've been saying for years that the wells are running dry because the aquifer is being drained? Maybe once the water towers are full again they'll remove the penalties. I can hope.

I'm not too worried about water in the short term. I have as much water stored as I can fit in the nooks and crannies of my house, and I have several cases of bottled water for drinking. And several filled canteens.

The bigger issue is making sure my parents are set- and discovering they'd dumped the two 6-gallon cans of water I'd filled for them. They still have an 8-gallon jug, though. I've also helped them arrange to refill the other two at my sister's house in the bigger town across the state line that isn't currently having an immediate water emergency. But, seriously...

Less than two weeks ago, I was chewed out for all the stored water in out-of-the-way spots around the house that weren't as out of the way as someone would have liked. Funny how quickly that tune changed with one notice from the local Rulers. This has been a recurring theme in my life. "Why are you doing this? It's inconvenient and stupid!" to "Yes, we were prepared, so we're OK."

If I only had to watch out for myself, things would be so much smoother.

Anyway...

If it would rain, I would also catch rainwater to use, but that's historically the root of the problem in the region.

I'm doing my best to cut back, even while understanding that "the tragedy of the commons" means many residents won't. I'm using stored water to keep the birdbath filled- I'm sneaking out after dark to fill it. I'm also, at the same time, using stored water to try to keep my struggling sunchokes going. And I'm giving water to the stray cats on my porch. I'm abiding by the rules, but since my Jedi powers aren't strong, there's no point in attracting imperial attention and having to answer questions about where the water came from.

Of course, a couple of years ago, the town added electronic spyware to our water meters, supposedly to make it easier to bill us. Now they are saying they are digitally monitoring our water usage on a daily basis, to see who is complying and who isn't. I warned locals that this would happen. No one cared. You know how it goes.

Anyway, I'll bet I've cut my water usage (through the meter) by much more than 20%. Coincidentally, I fixed my dripping faucet last weekend, just in time, apparently. Later, I'll increase my usage when I'm storing up water again. It's just what I do.

-

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

Government's supporters are all socialists

Government is socialism; if you support the existence of government, you are a socialist.

I posted this observation on X a few days ago and upset someone with whom I normally agree. I guess he wants to believe government can be legitimate more than he values liberty.

Anyway, here's how it is:

Socialism is, according to dictionary.com, "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government." (Although socialists get a little slippery whenever they don't like a specific definition. They don't like being pinned down.)

Statists claim government has the "right" to tax and regulate businesses. The power to tax and/or regulate is the power to control and destroy. The right to destroy or control something is a hallmark of ownership. The "right" to tax and regulate is an expression of government's claim to ownership (even if generally hidden from view). Government heavily taxes and regulates businesses. Government- ALL government- thus seizes the means of production- while pretending this isn't what it's doing.

On X, I was told I was using the wrong definition of socialism, so I asked how he defines it, and he never responded. As I pointed out above, no matter how you define it, someone will complain.

Government is socialism. All governments are socialist.

Statists- those who believe governing others is a legitimate human endeavor- are therefore socialists.

-

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