The best argument a statist has

Someone on FB made a post about Donald Trump and his "taxes", or lack thereof. People were piping up with all sorts of irrelevant tangents, avoiding the core issue.

So, as I try to consistently do, I made an inflammatory comment:

Me: "Taxation" is theft. I never want anyone to be robbed, and I never want government to have ANY money.

Some guy got his petticoats ruffled soon after I posted:

Him: Taxation is not theft. Never has been, in a democratic society. Every argument you make after saying that is immediately discredited 

Wow. That is so convincing! Ha ha!

 Me: Why not post something other than an assertion which ignores the definitions of both "theft" and "taxation"? https://youtu.be/H585nogZWpQ

 So, he came back with a killer rebuttal:

Him: Why post stupid comments no rational person, including our founders believes? Your statement was stupid rhetoric and I said so. Deal with it. 

Ah well. Let him have his beliefs. We have to respect every belief, right?

 Me: Denial is so cute. That's OK honey. You just go on believing that legislation can magically turn wrong into right. I guess you have to get moral direction from somewhere.

Statists are so silly. And delusional. And devoid of decency.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Into the dark and twisted mind of a cop supporter

The statism! It burns!

I read someone's "interpetation" of Trumps evil "moar Law n' Orderz" statement, and I didn't respond. To her. I actually started running in circles around the room from the agony of being exposed to her stupidity. But I didn't reply. It wouldn't have done a bit of good, and I know it.

But it was just too much to stay silent on, so you get to be subjected to it.

I interpret Mr. Trump's statement as saying we need to allow our Police Officers to do their jobs without fear of retribution for doing so. 

"Our police officers"? I don't own one of the nasty things, and if you do, you need to keep that brute to yourself. And you are responsible for anything he does as long as he is yours.
What exactly are "their jobs"? Enforcing "the law", even those which violate life, liberty, and property- which almost all of them now do. No, "we" don't need to let them do their "jobs", just like we don't need to let rapists rape, muggers mug, or trespassers trespass. If they don't want retribution for committing evil acts of enforcement, they need to go get an honest job. Bad guys should always fear retribution and righteous acts of defense against their violations. It's what can help keep bad guys' numbers under control. Never coddle bullies.

We need to get behind our police force and support them for the very difficult and challenging job they do to protect and serve. 

No. Not just no, but &%@$ NO! Again, they are not "our police force". If their "job" is difficult and challenging, it is because it can be hard to spend your life as a parasitic scum, especially among people who don't pretend you are anything but what you are. The only serving and protecting they do is to the bad guys (politicians and bureaucrats) who use them as hired guns, and to the other cops out there. You are NOT on their radar as someone to serve and protect, and you never will be.

Let leadership deal with the occasional bad apple appropriately,... 

They are all bad. Even pretending for a moment that they don't exist due to theft ("taxation") and that the majority of the "laws" they enforce aren't evil and harmful and anti-liberty, if there were good cops, they would drive out the bad ones. They don't. They cover for them and support them against you and me. The bad apples have spoiled the whole barrel because cops were too cowardly to pick out and discard the bad apples. Now they are all bad (and always were). This "leadership" she believes can deal appropriately with the bad apples only exists to protect the bad apples from the consequences of their evil. So that plan has utterly failed. What does Princess Archation suggest next?

...but we need to stop assuming guilt every time an officer takes action against an individual who is not complying with an officer request.

It's not an assumption, Deary. If a cop makes a "request" (they really only make demands) which goes beyond any request you or I have a right to make, then the cop is guilty. Period. And by "takes action", you are referring by cold-blooded murder-- stop using lying euphemisms. You have no obligation to comply with such a request-- in fact, you have a right to refuse and back your refusal with deadly force. Yes, the Blue Line Gang will murder you for daring to assert your rights; I'm just letting you know they are evil for doing so. You'll probably comply with their evil demands. Your compliance is pragmatic and understandable. If I make a request or demand which would violate your Rightful Liberty, and back that request with a credible threat of death, you have every right to kill me to stop me. No excuse I can make holds up. A badge doesn't change that reality.

I am convinced she's either a cop or is in a relationship with one. It's hard for me to believe there are people this open about supporting evil, but you and I know there are. Copsuckers are disgusting.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Do-it-yourself

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Liberty is a do-it-yourself project. It always has been.

You can't buy it from someone else. No one else can give it to you. The best anyone else can do is point you in its direction, but you have to be the one to grasp it and refuse to give it up.

The Declaration of Independence didn't create liberty. Your own declaration can, as long as you don't wimp out along the way. And it won't always be easy. Liberty is natural, but that doesn't mean it's without difficulties.

When you feel tempted to archate against someone else "for their own good", or because you disagree with them, or fear them or what they might do, you are in danger of chipping away at your own liberty. Or utterly destroying it.

Liberty is fragile and slippery.

Laws, as they are recognized today, are almost always liberty's mortal enemy- its polar opposite. It is nearly impossible to use the law against another person and hold on to your own liberty, undamaged and unstained.

Most people don't want to hear this disturbing news. They want to have their cake and to eat it, too.
One of my biggest, most ridiculous wishes is that I could write an essay that would flip a switch in the mind of anyone who reads it, giving them an instant understanding of, and unquenchable hunger for, liberty. But I can't do that. Better people than me have tried and failed.

It doesn't mean I will stop trying. My hunger for liberty won't let me. And I can't help but believe that if anyone else actually gets it, and understands what it means for their own future, and the future of their kids and grandkids, they would love it just as much as I do, and despise the plague of statism that infects the world. I can always dream.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

Need for government crazy idea

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 26, 2016)

 Government is an unnecessary evil (my chosen headline)

Of all the crazy ideas humans have come up with over the centuries, one of the most destructive is the idea that government-- or more accurately, the State-- is necessary.

What gives people this idea? What makes them believe that without the State society would collapse?

The twelve-plus years of indoctrination by employees of this organization, beginning in early childhood, to view it as something other than a criminal gang plays a part. Due to this schooling most can no longer see the truth behind the curtain, and will defend government's existence at every opportunity.

Few understand what the State is, or what it does. The State is an institution established to commit theft and aggression over a particular area. Of course, they call the theft "taxation", eminent domain, asset forfeiture, property codes, licensing laws, fines, and so forth, and call the aggression "law enforcement", "compulsory attendance", "arrest", and checkpoints.

The State is not the same as society, but is its worst enemy, with opposing goals and methods. Instead of using the "economic means", where both parties win, the State employs the "political means", where one party wins at the expense of another. Roadside peddlers use the economic means; muggers use the political means.

Lacking this basic understanding, the people support theft and aggression as long as it is "legally" committed by government employees.

Some believe this protects them from bad guys.

A big problem is that the bad guys who want to violate life, liberty, and property without facing the natural consequences of doing so are drawn to government jobs where they get a free pass. Or nearly so.

Maybe some believe that without the state, grand projects could never be completed. One of the most common expressions of this fear is "But who would build the roads?" Well, obviously, the same people who build them now. But financed voluntarily, by people who can be held accountable if poor design, shoddy workmanship, or faulty maintenance causes bodily harm or property damage. Try suing the state over icy roads, or the pothole which never gets properly repaired, resulting in property damage, and see how accountable the state is for the roads it claims to own.

If something is wanted or needed, someone will find a way to provide it, and someone will be willing to help finance it. Guaranteed. You don't need something as anti-social as the State to provide good things to the individuals who make up society.

-

A big "thank you!" to those of you who support this blog, with your visits, shares, or money. If you get any value from my writing, consider a subscription or a one-time donation to keep this blog going. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during the ten years this blog has existed, and believe I have more to contribute, help me keep writing without the added difficulty of having a boss to offend.
.

Anyone, even cops, can do good things

It seems to really befuddle the copsuckers, even though it seems very simple to me. That cops are bad, but can sometimes do good, and that people who don't buy into the cult's propaganda can recognize the good acts as good without falling for the cult.

If a cop shoots a guy who is making a credible threat to kill an innocent person, he did a good thing. Just like if (or when) a shoe shine boy shoots an attacker he has done a good thing. Or, the same goes for a serial rapist shooting another bad guy who is in the process of archating, saving an innocent in the process. Or, if one of these examples protects private property from violation. A good act is a good act regardless of who does it or why.

You can be UltraHitler and still, in one situation, do the right thing. Your past and your future have no bearing on what you do in that moment. And I would be grateful to you for doing the right thing.

But, that one moment doesn't excuse all the other bad you have done and will probably continue to do. No, it really doesn't.

Yes, cops can save lives. So can pet store employees, mafioso, bank robbers, grocery store cashiers, and any other person on the planet.

The only advantages cops have in the area of responding to trouble are that they are exempt from the "laws" against gun possession that they help impose on the rest of us, so they are generally prepared- toolwise- to deal with (other) bad guys without worrying that simply showing up with a gun will get them in trouble, and they have a communication network which alerts them to trouble spots. (And that advantage is going away.) Even so, they still manage to avoid doing anything helpful much of the time, and quite often make things much worse than if they had stayed away. Frequently even attacking the innocent when they can't figure out what's going on. Or, if they are just having a bad day and a confused, scared person who has just been violated doesn't comply to absurd orders and demands fast enough.

Cops only appear "necessary" because most others have been legally required to be useless in situations of trouble, and cops are zealous about maintaining this special status for themselves. Stop accepting this situation.

But, just because a person is a cop doesn't mean they can never be good or helpful. Sometimes they are. But when they are, it's not their status as a cop that is to be praised- it is the actions of an individual doing the right thing in spite of being a cop that should be praised. And their helpful action doesn't apply to the cops who weren't there and didn't do the right thing.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

The buffet of liberty

In a way liberty is a buffet. You can choose among everything that doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical liberty... but with the liberty buffet, you don't have the liberty to limit the choices of anyone else.

They have the same options from which to choose that you have, although their choices from that buffet may differ, and you have no right to interfere with what they choose. Even if they make choices you hate.

If you try to take away some of their options, how can you complain when they, quite understandably, try to do the same to you?

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for some people to grasp. It's not that complicated. But, I suppose, it is "offensive" to certain sensibilities- those who feel they have the right to force people to make the "right choices". In other words, people who don't understand liberty.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

The answer the NRA should give

A blog I often enjoy and agree with (although I used to enjoy more and agree more often) has increasingly embraced a disturbing anti-liberty agenda on one small issue. But, with regard to liberty, is any issue truly small?

He asks a question of the NRA, which he says they refuse to answer.

Well, OK, I will answer for them, but he won't like my answer much.

"Can you produce credible data – not opinion, not anecdotes – something that can be independently validated, that 'amnesty' and a 'pathway to citizenship' for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and legally, with CURRENT culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners?

"Can you show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts?

"And can you demonstrate how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts and reverse gains made to date?"

No. But it's a false choice: enforce government borders or enforce anti-gun "laws". Both are unethical, immoral, unconstitutional and a violation of natural human rights. It's the same as the false choice between enforcing borders to keep out "illegals" and keeping welfare going. Liberty isn't piecemeal, and you can't keep the bits of government you like ("borders", welfare) and get rid of the parts you don't like (BATFE, gun "laws").

This is also what happens when you allow people to v*te on other people's rights. That's never going to end well, no matter what unethical "laws" you enforce, using the justification that you are trying to prevent something else.

Again, when you allow government to exist, and to violate people's natural rights, you are going to get results such as this. You can whine about the reasons and results all day long, but until you address the root cause, you'll get nowhere.

Government is a violation of human rights- the right of association, property rights, the right to own and to carry any weapon you wish everywhere you go without ever getting government permission, the right to make an agreement with anyone to work for them, rent from them, buy from them, or visit them. Once you start letting government bullies ration and violate these rights, you can't be shocked when they don't stop there.

Rights are not up for a v*te. The rights of a vast majority don't trump the rights of the one. Not ever, under any circumstances. Bad guys will always be trying to violate you- right now the worst of them just happen to call themselves "government", but they are no more legitimate than any other rapist or mugger. To pretend otherwise just gives them power.

The problem is the "system" you support and legitimize, not the fine details of how it violates people or their property. Play stupid games; win stupid prizes.

Also, as I have pointed out in the past, when you make people see you as someone who treats them as an enemy, how can you be surprised when they join the other side? You are cutting your own throat, and whining about the guy who made the razor you stole from someone else.

I am not a fan of the Constitution, for reasons which I feel should be quite obvious. But, many of those who advocate gun rights, while also advocating violating other rights, claim to be. So the weight of this inconsistency is on them. Which makes this next section stick out badly:

"And then can you then justify why NRA -- mandated by its bylaws 'To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States [and] To promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense' -- remains deliberately indifferent to the gravest threat to the right to keep and bear arms facing us?"

Because immigration control is in violation of the Constitution. You can't "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" while supporting something which is unconstitutional. It's bad when presidents do it, and it's bad when the NRA does it. If you are OK with violating it for one reason, why object to violating it for reasons other people have? If "immigration control", in violation of the Constitution, is OK, why is "gun control", also in violation of the Constitution, not OK? The NRA has its problems- I am a very disgruntled Life Member from way back when- but if it were to support violating the Constitution by doing as you ask, why shouldn't others get away with supporting violating the Constitution just as much in other ways- ways that you happen to disagree with?

"Have you incorporated this into your grassroots programs?  Why not?"

No. Because of what was pointed out above. Either they can stay on mission, or they can abandon all semblance of consistency to appease those who want government to ignore constitutionality for their own agenda.

Politics makes people stupid.

I understand how critically important gun rights are. Really. But you can't protect some rights by violating others, nor by supporting any government programs- even government programs that are currently out of favor.

-

Well, this post is sure to make the donations and subscriptions flow in. Ha. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Politicians' emails are "educational"

Somehow I have managed to get on the mailing lists of a few different politicians. I keep marking them as junk, but they keep coming to my inbox. But I don't really mind.

It is a reminder of the nature of politicians.

I see how they harp on the things that they believe will get them v*tes. You can see there are no principles involved- other than the principle that they lust for your v*te.

They say whatever they believe their constituency (or potential v*ters) want to hear.

I don't do that. As you've probably noticed.

I tell you what I believe. What I have come to think after years of consideration. And sometimes it drives people away. That bothers me, but it would bother me more to lie to you just to be popular. I'm not a politician (although it is amusing to me that those who wish to insult me so often use that word against me).

Sometimes I do hesitate to write certain things, about certain subjects, knowing it probably won't be well-received and wouldn't really advance liberty to write it. But I can't think of many things I have just avoided altogether. And I have never taken a position just because I thought you wanted to hear it.

I guess that separates me from the politicians. That, and I don't invade your inbox.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Don't help cops violate others

As I was driving down the road one recent day, I saw a truck which the local road pirates had stopped. I don't know why, or anything about the situation, but I noticed a tow truck moving into position to hook up and take the other truck away.

My suspicion is that it wasn't due to mechanical trouble- usually I see the trucks being worked on by a mechanic in that case. I suspect that for one reason or another, the cops were taking possession of the vehicle due to some "law" being broken.

Maybe that wasn't the case this time- but it often is.

If I were a tow truck driver, I wouldn't help cops.

Sure, if a cop called for me to come tow away a car after an accident or a breakdown, or an abandoned car, I would do that- in an attempt to protect the private property of an individual. I wouldn't tow it to the cops' "impound lot" though.

And if a cop called me to come tow a car that the cops were stealing, just no.

If a driver was discovered to not have a "license", and the cops wouldn't allow them back behind the wheel, I wouldn't help the cops steal the car.

Or, if the driver hailed from a different tax farm, and didn't have his mandatory government permission slips to be in this particular tax farm.

Or, if the cops found drugs or other types of contraband in the car, same thing. I would not help the road pirates steal.

My mission would be to help people and protect property, not to help cops victimize people.

I realize cops would quickly stop calling me for anything, and I could live with that. Nothing good can come from associating with the police.

And, even though I am not a tow truck operator, I can still choose to never help cops violate anyone. It is part of my pledge to my community.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Absurd to say Gadsden flag racist

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 19, 2016)

Gadsden flag only offends the offender‏ (my chosen headline)

Recently the Gadsden flag-- the yellow "Don't tread on me" flag which has been around since before the American Revolution-- was denounced as "racist" by the "social justice" crowd and other government extremists. How absurd.

This is the same silly controversy which surrounded the "Confederate flag" last year.

Sure, most people are probably racist to some extent, and that's not right. Some people who are overtly racist display the Gadsden flag. When they do, they are being hypocritical. Some racist people fly the US flag, or any other flag you can point to. It's never the flag's fault.

The Gadsden flag is only a threat to those who violate others. It has nothing to do with where a person was born, the color of his skin, the language he speaks, or his religion. As long as you don't tread on others, the flag isn't about you. It isn't in any way racist, nor does it support the agenda of those who are.

People will look for any reason to categorize each other, and outward appearances are convenient for the purpose. You can feel any way you want about others as long as you don't violate their life, liberty, or property. It's a pretty simple concept: "Don't tread on me", which comes with an unstated promise some want to ignore- "I won't tread on you, either".

Race, if it even exists, doesn't cause anyone to behave any particular way. But cultures can. Some cultures are passed down parent to child, while others are adopted by joining a group.

Some cultures are better than others.

Almost all cultures have good points and bad points; it is up to you as an individual to embrace and encourage the good things about your culture and reject and shame the bad points.

If your culture encourages you to "tread on" others by attacking them or violating their property-- no matter why you do it-- your culture is degraded. Such a culture is inferior.

It doesn't matter if "everyone else is doing it"-- if it violates life, liberty, or property, don't do it. If others in your culture mock you for doing the right thing, they expose themselves as bad guys. They are holding your culture down. They are your enemy, no matter how connected to them you feel.

Don't tread on me; not personally, and not by sending thugs to act on your behalf. I won't tread on you, either. It isn't racist; it's the foundation of libertarianism. It creates the condition called "civilization". Anything else is uncivilized.

-

If you get any value from my writing, consider rewarding me with your financial support commensurate with the value you receive. You can also do that with zero cost to yourself by upvoting my posts on Steemit. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me keep writing without the fear of saying something to get fired over. I really, desperately could use some more help; please don't depend on the same people always helping out. .

Stupidity has consequences

If you ignore the existence of gravity, there will be consequences. You may not be around to learn your lesson.

The same goes for ignoring the Zero Aggression Principle. Everyone is subject to it, whether they "accept" it or not. You archate; there will be consequences. And, you may not survive to learn your lesson.

I know it seems there are a lot of people who not only survive, but thrive while ignoring the ZAP and property rights. And you're right. But there are still consequences. Look how many archators end up being violated in the same way they violated others.

Even if the only consequence is being recognized for what they are by nobodies like me, it is still a consequence, and I know from personal experience that it eats at them when they are aware of it.

Initiating force and violating property is its own special kind of stupidity. You and I can see it. I hope you will point it out to those who don't see it. Maybe eventually, they'll see it, too.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Drifting, shifting blogs

There are blogs I used to follow more closely in the past than I do now. In almost every case my falling away has been due to the author drifting either right or left. Embracing exceptions to Rightful Liberty that they personally like.

More of them have recently shifted right than left, but that may just be an indication of the current political climate- "immigrants" and Islamic mass-murderers and a reaction to Hillary Clinton.

The sad fact is, they are ignoring their most powerful ally. Rightful Liberty, without exceptions, can solve any real problem, and expose any illusory "problem" for what it is. Property rights are especially good at this, if they are truly respected. Self defense can solve most of the rest.

But, they can't claim exceptions and violate their enemies just because they want to. If your enemy has no right to do it, neither do you. If you do it to them, you are a hypocrite when you complain they do it to you.

If you can't be consistent when problems crop up, then you may not have been on the side of Rightful Liberty from the beginning. You may have just been using it for your agenda, ready to toss it aside as soon as it got in the way of what you really wanted.

That doesn't mean I stopped reading those blogs- it just means I pretty much stopped engaging and commenting. They still have useful things to add- you just have to be able to discern the gold among the statist crap. And, really, that's pretty easy.

Does it claim governments have rights or "authority"? Statist crap.
Does it claim that "the people" can delegate "rights" they can't have as individuals to a third party to act on their behalf? Statist crap.
You get the idea.

I'm sure those blogs don't miss my participation, but I do miss feeling like they were on my side.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

"Our government"? Don't be absurd

When people use the words "my government" while referring to some gang of bullies, I may roll my eyes and feel pity for them.

But when they use the words "our government" I have a hard time not getting angry.

I promise you that you and I don't share a government.

I govern myself and I don't govern you. End of story.

That doesn't mean there aren't gangs of bullies trying to govern both of us. We probably even alter our behavior due to their presence- just like we'd walk around a huge steaming pile of dog feces. But unless you feel their governing to be legitimate and go out of your way to obey, they aren't "your government", and they certainly aren't mine.

If you want to be governed by a gang of bullies, that's your business. Just don't include me.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Don't be a "freedomarian"

There's a reason it's "libertarian" and not "freedomarian".

 Yes, freedom sounds great- doing whatever you want, with no limits. Until the guy next to you is doing the same. Then it's not so wonderful. In fact, it's often unsurvivable.

Freedomarians would not be good neighbors.

On the other hand, liberty is self-limiting. You can never have "too much" because as soon as your "freedom" violates someone else, you don't have the liberty to do it.

Libertarians recognize this fact. Thus, libertarian, not freedomarian.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

(Steemit link)

.

Resisting the opportunity to be evil

I have more respect for those who have the opportunity to be evil, yet refuse to give in to it, than I do for those who are naturally good with no trouble.

That probably doesn't sound nice.

I expect good people to stay good- which is why I am so disappointed when they support cops or other acts of evil.

But a good person who has the opportunity to not be good, and who wouldn't really surprise anyone by doing evil, yet stays good anyway is refreshing. And someone I can learn from.

I suppose we all have the capacity for evil, but some people are much less likely to face serious consequences for giving in to it. Due to their family, or social connections, or some other factor. I mean, if you pretty much know you can get away with murder, but you don't murder, that is a good thing in my eyes.

And besides, unless you are a Clinton, you never can be certain you'll get away with it.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.



(Steemit link)

Actual human blog readers are the best

"What a dаta of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious familiarity regarding unexpected feelings."

That lovely bit of prose, my personal favorite, comes courtesy of Chinese spammers. I laugh every time I see it. And I can't make heads or tails out of it.

When they visit my blog- always in league- they can add 947 (an actual number from a recent spurt) or more visits in an hour or so. That artificially boosts my stats, but somehow doesn't really make me very happy. I want the people who visit my blog to be able to read what I write and to gain something valuable from the experience. I have my doubts they do either one. Or, that they are even people.

I suppose in that case it's unreasonable of me to expect them each to donate $500 or so when they drop by. Right? Although it would be nice.

I'll let you in on a secret- it would be unreasonable of me to expect anyone to donate or subscribe.

Unreasonable or not, expected or not, it sure does brighten my day when it happens.

It gives affirmation that I am providing something valuable that people are willing to spend money on. Which is a very uplifting thing for me.

And, yes, it is very important to try to convince people to reject theft and aggression. It's one of the most important things there is. It impacts everything. It is the choice at the center of every act in your life. Will you do it, whatever "it" may be, by mutual consent, or by force? Will you archate or will you do the right thing?

Are you a helpful individual, or a predatory one? Because you are an actual human reader of my blog, I am convinced I know the answer to that question, and that it's a good answer.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.



(Steemit link)

Using law against someone uncivilized

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 12, 2016)

Using laws to meddle is uncivilized (my chosen headline)

I can relate when someone gets upset about laws being used against them. Especially the phony laws which have nothing to do with protecting life, liberty, or property. To me, this is the height of uncivil behavior. 

If someone has a problem with me, and goes behind my back instead of bringing the problem to me first, I can't take them seriously. Involving the law seems, to me, a cowardly act. They skipped right past being an adult and ran to tell mommy. Or Big Brother, as the case may be. It's as if their very first response to a problem is to pull a gun.

People like that aren't people I can respect or deal with.

So, when anyone has a counterfeit "law" used against them, I understand the anger and frustration they feel.

What is beyond my understanding is when the same people who don't want the meddlesome laws used against them turn to the same sort of law as a weapon to use against others.

What are they thinking, if they are thinking at all?

You only deserve the liberty you respect in others. If you run to report anyone for doing things which upset you-- things you may even feel are wrong, though they don't violate you or any third party-- how can you complain when someone turns the tables and does the same to you? When it comes to "an eye for an eye", I want to be selling eye patches.

You don't like someone's sex life? They may not like yours, either. It's not the law's concern.

You don't like what someone smokes, drinks, or otherwise consumes? Maybe they don't like something you do. Perhaps they even believe something you do is wrong and should be punished.

Maybe you suspect someone doesn't have their papers in order, or is breaking some law you support. On average, you commit three felonies every day without intending to, or even realizing it. No one is law-abiding.

To send the law after people is hypocritical, or worse.

It doesn't matter that some politician once had a warped idea, made up a law about it, and has an army of hired guns at his disposal to enforce his opinion under threat of death. If you send the enforcers after someone because they violated one of these "laws", you have broken the truce society depends upon for its very survival. If there is any such thing as a "social contract", you have discarded it.

-

If you get any value from my writing, consider rewarding me with your financial support commensurate with the value you receive. You can also do that with zero cost to yourself by upvoting my posts on Steemit. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me keep writing without the fear of saying something to get fired over. I really, desperately could use some more help; please don't depend on the same people always helping out.

It could be worse- you could be a statist!

I am a much less angry person since I dropped any belief in "authority" of The State (or anyone).

We AVAL (Anarchists/Voluntaryists/Abolitionists/libertarians) are always accused of being what we are because of anger, but the angriest people I see are statists. Maybe that's because nearly everyone I see is a statist.

But, really, statists are just consumed with anger. Sure, they hide it behind euphemisms like "rule of law" and such, but scratch the surface and you'll see the true foundation of their belief.

But, me?

I don't have much desire to punish others, or control them. I don't expect perfection, but I will hold people accountable. Is expecting accountability "anger"? Well, when the bad guys don't want to be held accountable, I suppose it looks like that to them. Also, they really hate it when they force you to defend yourself from them- and they will call you names for that, too. But, again, the anger and hatred is theirs.

That doesn't mean it's all sunshine and roses. It is often painful to see things as they really are, rather than as you wish they were. And it can be lonely, too. With life, it's always something. But, it can always be worse by being a statist.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

(Steemit link)

Dealing with government-lovers and their kin

Part of the reason I acknowledge the fact that there are no good cops, while admitting there are "nice" ones, is because of the cops I have known and those I have talked with. When cops are being truthful, because you are a Nobody who can't touch them, they are really scary.

Another part of the reason is simple logic: you can't enforce "laws" without doing evil. It's just not possible at all.

But, I'm not generally going to make it an issue as long as someone else doesn't make an issue of it first. I really don't go around looking for a soapbox or an excuse to "preach" at statists.

So it is with the National Socialist Pledge to SkyCloth or the National Love Song to Imperial War. They are basically non-issues to me because they aren't important enough for me to waste time stressing over. No, I won't participate in rituals that are wrong, but as long as you don't try to force me to, your participation is irrelevant to my life.

Smoke crack, worship bullies, or perform superstitious rituals-- whatever you want, as long as you don't violate anyone else. But why is it that State addicts can't be like crackheads and just leave people alone? (I suspect it is because superstition is more addictive than any drug, and misery of that type demands company.)

But some people are much more confrontational than me. That's fine with me- it's going to take more than one approach. But, how far removed does someone have to be from any of those vile people, rituals, or behaviors before you don't have a dogmatic need to harp on it? I get it if they are married to a government employee, or the parent of one. But if their cousin works for the State, do you really feel like hitting them over the head with it if they aren't bragging about that fact? I don't. Not usually.

Now, if someone keeps rubbing it in my face, then all bets are off. I'll be painfully truthful about your evil bully loved-one if you don't let the issue drop. And in that case, don't blame me for your hurt feelings.

(Steemit link)

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

Prohibitionists and other nasty diseases

You might suspect I hate prohibition. And you would be right.

Do I want to abuse all manner of drugs without the risk of being "legally" destroyed for doing so? Not exactly. Although, if I ever find myself in the position where a doctor is scared to prescribe me the pain relief I need due to "laws" which could end his career if he gives me what I need, you'd better believe I will want all the drugs I can get, "legally" or otherwise. And if I can get them, I will, with a perfectly clear conscience. Drug use is not wrong, even though drug abuse is often dumb.

However, prohibition isn't just about drugs. It is about some bully telling you what you are allowed (or forbidden) to do with your own life.

Prohibition is one of the most evil acts governments commit. And every act of government is evil at some level, so there is quite a competition for the bottom.

Guns are another popular target for prohibitionist pecksniffs. And again, it is people bullying you "for your own good"... and I hate that kind of person. No matter what they want to prohibit.

Governments- through those vile bullies- also enact prohibition against knives, self expression, information, sex, travel, and anything else they believe they can get away with. They are never right to do so, because prohibition is people control, nothing else. And as such, I despise it in all its forms.

(Steemit link)

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.