The 'rich' aren't the problem

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 3, 2026)

There's a lot of hostility toward "the rich". Especially billionaires. The hostility is misplaced.

The real divide is not "the rich" versus "everyone else". It is those who seek to rule, versus everyone they seek to rule...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

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.

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.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

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.

If you're forced to pay, it's theft

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 22, 2026)

Taxation is theft. People are free to disagree because everyone is free to be wrong. You might debate what kind of theft it is; whether extortion, a ransom, or an armed robbery, but it's theft.

We used to know it. The story of Robin Hood has morphed into a socialist fairy tale of someone who "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor", but originally, he was a hero who recovered stolen property from tax collectors and returned it to their victims. Government and other socialists don't want this story told, for obvious reasons.

If you are taking someone's property- their money- under threat, when they'd rather keep it to use as they see fit, you are a thief. No document or political criminal's opinion makes it something it isn't. No bureaucrat can change an unethical act into something right and good. No matter what the money ends up being used for.

I don't want any money going to fund government agencies, programs, or projects. If something can't be funded without stealing money through taxation to pay for it, it needs to go away.

Yes, that too.

However, if you are forced to pay for something anyway, you have every right to use it with the others who are also forced to pay.

If the local mafia uses your stolen money to dig a well, posting armed guards to prevent you from getting water at the creek, you aren't wrong to get water from the well. Until you can remove the mafia.

Roads are another example.

Driving is a right, not a privilege like government tries to brainwash the population into believing. That argument simply doesn't hold up to critical thinking. Licenses are another tax; more theft.

Do you really believe Benjamin Franklin would have complied with any absurd rule to register his horse or buggy with the state and get a license to travel on a road his stolen money built and maintained? I don't think so, and I suspect he would have supported hanging anyone who tried to impose or enforce such a rule.

These are examples of the authoritarian government most people have been trained to accept. One tick at a time, we are being robbed and enslaved.

Taxation is theft; you can reason it out in your mind, and you know it in your bones. Don't get complacent about it or let anyone claim otherwise without being corrected.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

The government never stops growing

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

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

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

It lies, and many people still believe it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty is your birthright. Live like it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Trust marketplace, not the government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trust the market; reject government control.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

"Maintaining" anarchy in the face of statists

A statist asked someone else this question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Minarchy

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

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

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

Every attempt to limit government has failed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Envy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Fish don't need bicycles, or government

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

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

Like government is.

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

It’s crazy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Socialistic hate and envy is stupid

Socialists are dumb and/or dishonest. 

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

That's not what "net worth" is.

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Self-destruction by ambition

I suspect that every new "law" and every new form of surveillance crammed in our faces and under our beds ratchets us one step closer to the collapse of the current government. They are dooming their own scam and don't realize it.

Their own ambition is killing them.

They think they are gaining more control. They think they are making us more controllable. And, in the short term, they probably are. I don't think it can last as long as they imagine.

"Forever" stamps are unrealistically optimistic.

I would like to think enough people have matured beyond the infantile need to be governed and to want others governed on their behalf that the species can stop making this same old stupid mistake, but chances are, we'll have to go a few more rounds, sacrificing a few more generations to this false god, before enough people catch up and catch on.

Whatever comes, I still see every new surveillance tool and every added "law" as another nail in the coffin of the State.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

"Laws I don't like"

When I pointed out that cops cause crime, a statist complained and pretended he didn’t understand.

So I told him that cops enforce taxation and benefit from it.

I pointed out that cops enforce anti-gun rules, which empowers other criminals.

Crime is the act of violating rights, which cops do by their existence.

The statist objected, saying he prefers the state's definition of "crime"; acts which are "illegal".

The statist then said he interprets my definition of "crime" to mean "laws I don’t like”.

No. If that’s what I meant, that’s what I would have said. It would have been an entirely different conversation. 

Some counterfeit “laws” even cover things I would agree with being "against the law" if I were lacking in principles. It isn’t about what I like or dislike (that's how statists think); it's about what people have a right to do. and what they have no right to do 

Only a statist could be so wrong.

-

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.

It's all staged

Years ago, a friend of mine owned a video rental business. Remember those? It was a small operation in a tiny strip mall in the middle of nowhere, and was manned by one person: the owner. 

My friend, known by all as "Video Bob", eventually hired a mutual acquaintance to work there part-time. A couple of months later, the place got robbed, and the acquaintance, who was the one working at the time, was tied up, and the robbers got away with all the money in the register.

Only, things didn't quite add up. No one bought his story, which seemed more like the acquaintance was trying out versions of events to see which one people believed.

Our suspicion was that the robbery was staged, with the acquaintance in on it. As these things tend to do, the "official" investigation dragged on, and I moved away, so I don't know how things turned out.

But this made me think of how the state works. It's all staged.  The state causes a situation, plays the victim, lies about it, pursues its own bad "solution", and we are all robbed of our money, our privacy, and our future. 

Worse, the state investigates the situation and finds it did nothing wrong, then doubles down on the wrongdoing it was already engaged in.

It doesn't seem like anyone would still buy it, but most of them do. I think considering the implications is just too uncomfortable for most people.

-

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.

Government protects thieves- trash protects trash

Killing a thief caught in the act is not a "murder", regardless of whether you think it was justified or not. Maybe, depending on the situation, it was too much in your opinion, but not "murder". I'm not speaking "legally", but ethically. So be careful, because unethical governments (but I repeat myself) take the side of the bad guys and punish the good guys.

If you're a prosecutor who charges such a victim with murder or attempted murder for daring to try to protect his property, you're the bad guy. Maybe even worse than the thieves.

All you're doing is rewarding thieves and making it safer to be thieves. You're encouraging thieves and potential thieves to steal more. This is the opposite of what you ought to be doing. Your worthless "job" is to protect the life, liberty, and property of those who are where they have a right to be, doing what they have a right to do. Not the thieves.

If there are to be "laws" covering such things (there shouldn't be, but there are), they should be similar to the "law" that charges a bank robber with murder if one of his thieving associates dies during the robbery. If a thief is killed while committing theft, the fault is his and his associates'. No one is forcing any of them to be thieves. It's a choice, and choices have consequences. Too bad, so sad.

If I'm on the jury (Ha ha!) for a defender being charged with murder in such a case, he's either walking free, or there will be a hung jury. I will never v*te to convict someone for shooting a thief. Not even if I personally dislike the defender or believe he could have chosen to not defend his property as effectively as he did.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip? 

If not, that’s OK.

Be defiant

Beyond mere non-compliance, there is defiance. Defiance is more "in your face" than non-compliance, and is more dangerous, but you can be smart about it.

Practice non-compliance until you get comfortable dipping into defiance. 

Storming a government building only works if there's a big enough crowd, and they don't simply go home to be hunted down later. It's the same with refusing to be taxed, refusing to have illegal gun rules imposed on you, and rejecting all licenses and permits. There's safety in numbers. 

If you go first, you'll be a martyr- and "normal people" will hate you. The media will lie about you, and most people will believe the lies.

For some people, it's worth the sacrifice. You'll have to decide that for yourself. As long as you aren't archating, I will respect your defiance. If you are archating, you're really no different than the government you claim to be defying, so don't be that way.

There's a tipping point at which defiance is less dangerous because of the number of people participating. It's not here yet. Until then, you can at least work toward reaching that tipping point.

"Attend" TOLFA and practice its lessons. Even reading something like that could be seen as defiance, but it will also inspire you to live your liberty more fully, which is definitely defiant. And inspirational.

Get your kids out of govschool. Don't preach liberty at them, but let them see you live it. Make it the default. Cause a generational shift to counter the generational shift that the Statanic opposition is bringing.

Participate in the gray and (ethical) black markets as often as possible. It's good economic sense.

Don't respect those who haven't earned it. Don't speak of them respectfully, but let your contempt shine through. If you're speaking to them, use your judgment. 

Defy counterfeit "laws" when you think it's important. Accept that there may be consequences, and only do this if you are willing to risk them. It's best to do this in areas where you know the terrain- figuratively and literally.

I wish you the best in your defiance. Everyone who defies political criminals effectively empowers liberty just a little bit more. I need more of that.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

We can't afford U.S. government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 11, 2026)

I can't afford the government I'm saddled with now; I certainly can't afford extra government. Military strikes on other countries always result in more government at home, at a higher cost.

The current foolishness in the Middle East has already caused local fuel prices to spike, which will drive up the price of everything else.

I warned people during the first round of Covid "stimulus" handouts that it would cause higher prices. I was right. Are you doing so well you can afford to pay even more for everything you buy, just so the US federal government can strut around, cosplaying as a police force for the whole world? I'm not, and I can't. I'll bet there are more people in my position than not.

If you've fallen for the propaganda, you're probably angry at me now. Take that as a sign you need to engage in some quiet self-reflection.

The US government really wants you to believe Iran, or the next designated enemy, is the greatest threat to you and me, but it isn't. If they hated us for our freedom, they would be our best buddies now. The US government has been doing their job for them.

The US government, with its state and local affiliates, is a much greater threat to your life, liberty, and property than any foreign power in the past century. This includes the old Soviet Union. Which one takes a large percentage of your money before you even see it? Which one then takes more of your money every time you buy something, or demands it in ransom so you're allowed to keep what you already own? Which one makes and enforces arbitrary rules about the way you're allowed to live?

I'll give you a hint: it's not Iran's evil government.

Right now, I'm not extorted to prop up an Iranian government, but if the US government wins this fight, I will be. Just as we are robbed to fund other former enemies and historical allies. It's an unsustainable and criminal system.

If you want a government which goes around the world, intervening in everyone's business, making enemies who are willing to travel here to hurt Americans because of the meddlesome US government, and dictating how you live, then you pay for it without anyone else's help. I don't want it, I can't afford it, and I haven't been brainwashed enough to tolerate it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.