Politics- bullying writ large

In the past I have referred to politics as an attempt to live among people you hate.

Now, I think I'd modify that somewhat and call it an attempt to force people you don't like or trust to do what you want, while avoiding seeing yourself as a bully.

But, if you use politics and v*ting (or anything else) to force your opinions on others, you are still a bully.

Yes, I realize "they" are doing the same to you. They are bullies, too.

I wish everyone would just leave me out of their childish, yet deadly, squabbles. Keep your filthy politics and evil government to yourself. Hands off my life and the lives of my kids.

Of course, this is easy for mature people to do, but almost impossible for DemoCRAPublicans to live with. For them, it's all about the politics. And that is really sad.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
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.


(Steemit link)

America to USA to ?? GIF

Judgmental, but not controlling

For all my faults, I am not a controlling person.

I notice that things others do, things which don't bother me in the slightest, drive some people nearly insane. I look and try to figure out what the exact problem is, but all I see is "they are doing something I don't like!!"

As long as a person isn't archating, I'm going to be pretty much OK with whatever they do. (If they are archating, then it's my business because violating anyone violates everyone.) Sure, I might recognize that what they are doing isn't something I would do, and I might even consider it disgusting or immoral, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it.

But in most cases I see, it's nothing even that serious.

Whether it's a neighbor who hasn't mowed in ages (I can be guilty of that myself), or who has a lot of (what I see as) junk in his yard, or a house with "too many cars", or "possibly illegal" Mexicans living a couple houses down. Whatever.

I really see no reason to start trying to tell them how to live.

It strikes me as strange when others think any of those things are their business, and I see it as wrong when they sic the State on them in order to have their opinions forced on others.  

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
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.


(Steemit link)

Trump's taxes, and everyone else's, too

I don't want Donald Trump to pay any taxes.

Nor do I want Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson to. I don't even want Bernie Frickin' Sanders to pay taxes.

I don't think churches should be taxed.

There is no such thing as "your taxes", no matter who you are.

For one thing, the word "tax" is a lie.

Taxation is theft, no matter who the target is, and I don't want a single, solitary cent going to fund government at any level. I'd rather my worst enemy keep all his money than to force him to give any of it to government.

If the money was collected dishonestly, give it back to the victims without giving a cut to The State. If giving it to the victims isn't possible, let him keep it. It's still better than letting the government get any of it.

Now, if anyone is so stupid as to want to send government his own money, I wouldn't stop him. Anyone can waste their money any way they want- even to the point of giving it to thugs who will hire bullies to try to molest me. I have the right to stop those bullies and those who sent them, obviously.

People who are in favor of taxes could easily send as much of their own money to the State as they want. But that's not what they really want. They want to force YOU and ME, at gunpoint, to send our money, too. That's evil.

-

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)

Just get it DONE!

(Previously posted to Patreon)

But, maybe not quite the "it" you imagine.

I recently found a guy on Youtube who doesn't beat around the bush. Well, I mean, he does beat around The Bush, but in a very constructive way.

The guy does Stone Age living skills in Queensland, Australia and I am utterly in awe of his skills. He makes me feel like an absolute amateur.

I mean, he does some of the same things I can do, but he does them more "naturally". Like he's not even trying- but I realize that's not the case, it is just how it looks to someone who hasn't got his skills. But, having barely enough skills to appreciate what he does makes me recognize the almost unimaginable amount of work he puts into learning, practicing, and perfecting the skills he demonstrates. Again, I am totally in awe of him.

I don't have any idea of what the guy's "political leanings" are, or if he even has any, but I would love to hang out with him for a while, learning at his side. I can't imagine a man who took the time to learn the skills he has learned would be a cowardly, needy statist- but I could be wrong. He has things to teach me in any case.

And, this brings me to another point.

I wish I could do for liberty what he does for self-sufficiency with mud, stone, and plants. I spend more time than you might imagine reading, absorbing, internalizing, and then pondering the ideas and principles to draw out more connections and conclusions concerning liberty than you might think. But is it enough? Is it even "the right thing"? Does it make any difference?

Who knows. All I can say is that I can't imagine doing anything else. Even if I were out in the Bush building mud huts with self-fired terracotta roofing tiles, I would still be pondering liberty. I know, because of prior experience in somewhat similar situations.

 I know I am not nearly as impressed by what I do as I am by what he does.

He doesn't just talk about Stone Age skills (in fact, in his videos, he never says a word), he just goes out there and does it. And, when it comes to promoting liberty, just living it makes a lot more difference than a hundred people like me yammering on about it.

When something matters, you need to just do it. If liberty matter to you, you'll do more than read about it. So, prove to yourself that it matters and get out there and live it the best you can.

(And on he's on Patreon, too! So if you feel inspired by his efforts, throw him some support.)

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you. 
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. 

Government real outlaw in crises

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 2, 2016)

 People naturally solve problems (my chosen headline)

Recently, in Belarus, smugglers took a neglected gravel road and fixed it. They made it better for their own purposes, while helping others in the process. Just what were these black market villains smuggling on their newly improved road? Drugs? Weapons? Slaves? Not exactly. They were smuggling fruits and vegetables.

In another show of outlawry, the recent floods in Louisiana brought out neighbors in boats to rescue people from danger. They willingly accepted risk to themselves to help people they may not even know. These heroes are known as the "Cajun Navy".

Louisiana lawmakers want to make sure events like this are prevented from happening again. Not the floods, but the unregulated rescues. In fact, so deep was their concern, they sent police to stop rescuers from getting to the people in need. It was more important to stop people from helping, than to actually help.

When there is a problem, the natural tendency of people is to solve it. Unless, apparently, they have banded together as government to prey on the population. In which case, obedience to rules becomes sacred.

The Louisiana situation is a repeat of what happened after Hurricane Katrina in 2005: people left to suffer, and volunteer rescuers threatened with violence, because government employees believed they had a monopoly on assistance-- while refusing to do anything toward that end. In fact, government's "help" made the suffering worse.

To those who believe government is a solution, things like this may be dismissed as extreme cases. But they aren't.

In the example of the Belorusian road, as soon as government noticed the increased traffic, they sent agents to steal from the entrepreneurs. They call the theft "customs".

The black market road builders are heroes, and those who follow them to rob the traders are the bad guys.

The Louisiana lawmakers may be even worse.

If you want to help people, do it. You can't foresee and avoid every eventuality. It isn't possible. There are too many crises which can happen; too many circumstances where people need help. There are always risks.

Going into a situation where someone's life is in danger puts you in danger. You still have an absolute human right to try to help, without asking permission from anyone. Some even see it as a responsibility. True heroes don't wait for permission to help, and accept that there are consequences to every choice. True heroes don't look to government for guidance.

-

 A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
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.

Be relentlessly annoying

If you see a person walking toward the edge of a cliff while wearing a blindfold, should you say anything to them?

If they don't react the first time, should you continue to say something?

Is this "harping on it"?

Well, people who continue to archate or support those who do are walking straight toward a cliff, wearing a blindfold, in the dark. If they notice your warnings, they usually just get angry and want the noise to stop. They are on a determined path, and nothing is going to stop the vast majority of them.

But, occasionally, you get through to one individual who will stop, take off the blindfold, and try to find a light.

That's what keeps me going, in spite of the anger of the majority who deny the existence of the cliff.

-

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)

Government is wrong

Government, and support of government, is parasitic. It is wrong. Just so wrong.

The political means is the method of the parasite. Where one lives at the expense of others. Where there is a winner and a loser. The political means is what rapists and muggers and cops and burglars and DMV employees employ. It is wrong. Even if you can't imagine life or civilization without it, it is wrong.

Its opposite- the economic means- is the method of the decent person; the non-parasite. Where both parties win. Where interaction is by mutual consent. Where there is no punishment for choosing to not interact.

You can see the evil inherent in the political means more clearly by using the economic means as a mirror. Doing so, honestly, you can't fail to see that government- The State- and all associated with it are in the wrong.

Is this judgmental of me?

Yes.

I am judgmental toward people who commit acts of pure evil and destroy the lives of others; who act as parasites so that they can win while others lose.

The question is, why would anyone not be?

-

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)

Willful blindness?

The nicest government employees are blind to what they are doing.

They are like crew on a cruise ship. They see the beauty surrounding them, and see the things they produce and believe those things are good. They see the satisfied passengers and believe that is a clear sign that they are doing the right thing. They feel pride in what they do.

They don't recognize that their ship floats on an ocean of crushed bodies, is fueled with human lives, and uses people as the raw material for everything it produces. Bodies and the property of the innocent and guilty alike; stolen and fed screaming into the furnaces and the grinders to provide fuel and raw materials for everything they do. They don't see it. Maybe they choose to not see it, because it would make them uncomfortable.

The worst offenders are those who do see the dirty side and refuse to admit what it is. Or those who empower the destruction. Those are the politicians, bureaucrats, cops, judges and others whose job involves manning the death stations in one way or another.

Those who are a step removed could be excused for failing to see the death and misery beneath all they accomplish, but those involved in stealing lives to feed to the ship have no excuse, and should face serious consequences.

-

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)

Experts vs bullies

People get very confused over words which have multiple, even contradictory, meanings. One of those is the word "authority".

"Authority" can mean experienced expert in some specific area, or it can mean a bully.

In politics, it only means the second one.

That's because no one can be an experienced expert at running other people's lives. Sure, they might be experienced at doing it, and they may be an expert at getting away with it, but they are still only a bully.

It's why I never soil the reputation of an expert by calling him or her an "authority". It is just too dirty a label.

I respect experts, and love to learn from them. But I despise bullies and never feel bad when they pay for their evil. "The authorities" are among the lowest scum on the planet. Always and forever, and there's nothing which can ever change that reality.

-

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 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. .