What do most government functions have in common?

Most government functions shouldn’t be done at all. By anyone.

The few that remain should be done by other groups, entities, or individuals-- voluntarily, without theft or coercion.

If the function requires theft-funding ("taxation") it must die.
If a function can't inspire enough people to fund or do it on a volunteer basis, it must die.
If a function can't be done without relying on government, it must die.

Use the economic means, not the political means.

If you can't do something without initiating force or violating property rights, you have no right to do it. And others have the right to defend themselves from having it done to them.

If that eliminates the opportunity for you to do what you want to do, or to see done what you want done, that's too bad. Find another way or move on. No one has the right to archate- to govern. If you do what you have no right to do, you're the problem.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Being fine with tyranny

If you’re not willing to defend yourself and your rights from government and its legislation, in whatever ethical way is necessary, you’re saying you’re fine with tyranny.

That's a valid choice. For many reasons. Just be honest about it, and don't criticize those who choose differently.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Government-required evil

People commit evil because government requires it. I'm not talking about those who work directly for government-- which is obviously wrong.

Gun shops run background checks and keep records of every sale, not because it’s necessary, but because government bullies them into it. It will put them out of business by revoking their "license" and cage the employees and owners if they don't do wrong by following the government rules. So they do, and I can't really blame them too much.

So many people feel they have no choice but to do government's dirty work against their customers, friends, neighbors, and family members. The threat of not doing so is too great.

Look how many violate life, liberty, and property because if they don't comply, they'll face the same fate as gun store owners/employees:
Car manufacturers and dealers, doctors and pharmacists, retail stores, social media sites, carpenters and construction, etc.

Any business deal should be between you and the customer, not between you and the customer at the whim of the state which makes the seller steal money in the form of taxes and fees from the customer, and makes the customer accept inferior products and services because government says so.

And when a business feels it is necessary to sell out its customers to the state, in whatever way it happens, that's even worse. 

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Politics IS violence

Politics is violence. Worse, politics is usually aggression.

A blanket condemnation of political violence while still doing politics is a denial of reality. It's like calling for people to reject round circles or wet water. I understand why they have to say it, but really...

Politics is violence!

Its violence is usually camouflaged behind other words. Words like "democracy" or "laws". The threats are called something else, too. But politics is violence.

Yes, reject political violence by rejecting politics! Otherwise, you're just making ridiculous noise with your face or laying out a string of absurd words with your fingers.

Politics doesn't improve anyone's character. It doesn't make society better. It's a cancer.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Reboot your brain

If you allow events to enflame your passions, the critical-thinking part of your brain will shut off. It happened to me for the first 24 hours after "9/11". That experience has caused me to be extra cautious ever since.

It's why I often wait a while before commenting too deeply on events. Other than immediately pointing out the knee-jerk spasms that blame inanimate objects rather than evil losers.

If you're not careful you might do or say things you'll regret once the critical-thinking part of your brain comes back on line. You don't need that. But the state can and will use it to do things you wouldn't tolerate if you were thinking.

Neither TDS nor Trump fanboy-ing will serve you well if you care to think clearly. Politicians are a problem, not a solution. The political means won't solve anything, no matter which side employs it.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

The rifle didn't do this

It's not the rifle's fault. 

I'm already hearing new "questions" about long-range rifles. Maybe I've waited too long to get that bolt-action .308 with a good scope.

It sounds like the Secret Service agents (as well as other cop-types) were informed of the shooter's presence and location well before the first shots. But who knows what's real?

If you've spent 9 years calling someone "Hitler", I'm not going to believe your "shock" at the events. Nor do your calls for "no political violence" carry any weight.

I have other thoughts that would get me banned from most (or all) social media, would make anti-gun bigots AND Trump supporters angry, and probably wouldn't be productive anyway.

I will just re-emphasize: Politics makes people stupid and evil.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Let's make them all convicted felons

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 9, 2024)

The precedent is set. As of May 30, 2024, every presidential administration can expect to be convicted of felonies by the next administration from the other party. Congressional members of the opposition party could be convicted, as well. They all commit felonies, most far more real and serious than the ones Donald Trump was convicted of.

Democratic former presidents and members of Congress should be convicted of felonies as soon as there's a Republican administration. Nor should the Democratic Party stop with Trump and those who represented him; there's low-hanging fruit in Congressional Republicans. This presents an opportunity to bring the federal government to a grinding halt.

Why do I say "convicted" rather than simply "charged"?

As has been pointed out by author Harvey A. Silverglate, we all commit an average of three felonies per day. This isn't because we're bad people, it's because legislation is out of control-- Congress and the President are to blame.

If an ambitious prosecutor decides to get you, you'll be gotten. As the Soviets said, "Show me the man and I'll find the crime." A carefully chosen venue, judge, hostile jury pool, and instructions from the judge to find the defendant guilty, however you have to do it, and a conviction is in the bag.

It's up to juries to put a stop to this, but most are unaware of their duty to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. If the defendant is accused of violating a law which has no victim (other than government), it is the responsibility of the jury to return a "not guilty" verdict even if they believe the defendant did what he or she was charged with. Even if Hunter Biden lied on the form when he bought a gun. This is called jury nullification. Judges used to inform juries of this duty but stopped doing so when they began acting as agents of the state rather than of justice.

No one has a right to govern another, nor to impose a politician on anyone else. I think there should be consequences for attempting to govern other people, but I think those consequences should be based on real crimes where an individual's life, liberty, or property was harmed, not a victimless "crime" where the only thing harmed is something which can't be victimized: government.

If this precedent makes it too risky to enter politics, it would be a good change.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Making people stupid and evil

Politics makes people stupid and it causes them to justify evil.

Evil, like government border control,
    ...or conflating government importation of people with "immigration".
Evil, like criminalizing defense of life, liberty, and property.
Evil, like caging (or murdering) people over things they sell, possess, or ingest.
Evil, like stealing property, including money, to support or fund government.
Evil, like tolerating a gang of unaccountable criminals, and even backing them when they clash with society.
Evil, like threatening people into paying a yearly ransom on their property and possessions, making them register and pay fees for things they own, and generally treating everyone as property of the state.

Evil.

Only stupidity could make people think evil is OK in those instances. Politics is one common way to generate the necessary level of stupidity required. Politics never makes anyone smarter or more ethical.

If you want to change society there are good ways to make the attempt, and there are political ways.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Killing the competition

Is it okay for a firefighter to shoot anyone he sees with a fire extinguisher? No.

Is it okay for a teacher to shoot anyone she sees reading a book outside of class? Don't be ridiculous!

Is it okay for an accountant to shoot anyone he sees doing math or using the calculator on his phone? Obviously not.

Not unless the individual was in the process of using those items to violate life, liberty, or property.

Then why would anyone believe it's okay for a cop to shoot anyone he sees simply carrying a weapon? It's not, and only a delusional copsucker would argue that it is. "Officer safety" is a poor excuse for cowardly murder.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support.

Letting "illegals" v*te...

First of all, ignoring illegitimate legislation that criminalizes crossing governments' made-up lines without permission doesn't make a person "illegal". Believing so is superstitious statism. All "immigration" control-- even if I would personally like it for some reason-- fits the bill. Calling people "illegals" identifies you as a statist who supports counterfeit "laws" and believes government "authority" trumps property rights.

Secondly, I don't think anyone should be allowed to v*te for anything that harms another person's life, liberty, or property. It's never ethical or legitimate.

But, if someone is going to be impacted by a v*te, and they feel the need to v*te in self-defense, I don't believe you should make up rules prohibiting them from doing so. Residency matters more than "citizenship" in this case. Unless you agree that the legislation will only apply to those who v*ted in favor of it, and everyone else is exempt (which would be the only reasonable approach). 

If this is a problem for you, then don't make up (or support) a system where v*tes can endanger anyone in any way. Don't allow any legislation/rules that violate natural human rights, no matter how many people v*te in favor of it. (That was supposedly the idea behind establishing America as a republic instead of as a democracy, but it didn't work.)

I think the whole thing is dumb, but if membership in the club is a requirement to v*te in the club's sham contests, then it is what it is. (But in that case, the rules only apply to the members, and no one else.) 

But making up a rule that everyone who's already ineligible to v*te is not eligible to v*te? You don't have to make up new rules to keep the old rules in force; you'd need to make up new rules to change the old rules. That's pretty simple and clear. Trying to bolster the old rules with new rules seems counterproductive and a waste of time.

But, I also don't quite get why-- considering the broken system we are subjected to-- one party, in particular, finds it so important that everyone who isn't eligible, according to the established rules, is allowed to v*te when it's obvious the party doesn't otherwise really care about life, liberty, property, or natural human rights of just about any kind. (Just like the opposition party.) Do they believe the new v*ters will be (or stay) loyal to them? It would be a foolish bet.

Maybe they just hope to destroy the system, but that would be the end of their power, too. Which is fine by me!

It's all so dumb and messed up beyond hope. This is just another example-- shining a light on all political sides-- that politics makes people stupid and causes them to justify evil.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Immunize yourself against global government

The best defense from a one-world government is to grow beyond belief in government. 

As long as you're willing to tolerate a little government, you can be tricked into supporting more. And more. You'll always be concerned only with "when it becomes too much".

Any political government is too much. 

No one has a right to govern another and such a "right" can't be created. It doesn't matter if it's a small-town mayor and his flunkies or a Supreme Council for the whole planet. Or a Galactic Empire.

Stop falling for The Most Dangerous Superstition and you'll increase your immunity to governments across the board. Including any attempt at a global government.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Room enough for both

Every time a new store opens in this little town, it's too rich for my blood. I'll go in to see the new place soon after it opens, and I'm usually impressed by what they sell, but everything is out of my price range.

And that's perfectly fine.

I’m glad ritzy stores-- that I can’t afford to patronize-- exist. They make things nicer and more interesting. They are probably the only type of store potentially able to afford the rent in the plentiful empty buildings.

I’m glad thrift stores with dirty, cluttered shelves and cheap, negotiable prices exist too. They are as interesting as the ritzy places, but in a different way. 

Both fill a niche. Both are useful and valuable. Neither one threatens me by its existence. Keep giving it a shot.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

The best way to do harmful things?

Don't.

People spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to figure out the best ways to do things that shouldn't be done. At all. By anyone.

The best way to fund government.
The best way to teach children obedience.
The best way to "run" a society.
The best way to police.
The best way to protect democracy.

I can't stop them from wasting their time. I just wish I had a good way to prevent the harm they inflict with their crazy notions from impacting my life or the lives of those I care about.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

It can't be allowed to continue

Scott thinks he’s listing problems with technological progress while he lists reasons government can’t be allowed to continue.

It's not just him. I see this so often it's almost comical. 

People list reasons why people can't be trusted when what they are actually listing are reasons people can't be trusted with power over others. 

People list the problems with abolishing police when they are actually enumerating problems caused when government prohibits individuals from defending themselves and their property. 

People tell me why liberty can't work when they are really expressing why limited freedom under a government doesn't work. Liberty is all or nothing.

Scott Adams also likes to say there's no such thing as privacy-- he blames corporations as well as government without recognizing they are really one and the same. This is yet another reason government must be abolished for the survival of the species.

When he says insurance companies will be the ones who dictate what we will be allowed to own and do, he's actually pointing out that mandatory insurance, imposed and enforced by government, is how insurance companies will gain the power to impose government's preferences upon us. Another reason government can't continue is thus exposed.

If all the problems you see have a common element, maybe you're blaming the wrong things. Maybe it really is a fact that government is the problem, and you are wasting your time defending the indefensible and shifting the blame away from where it belongs.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Politics will never increase liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 2, 2024)

If you are a good person who votes for Democratic or Republican candidates because you feel you must, even if you don't agree with the crazy positions the national party holds, I won't hold the party's flaws against you.

I also hope you don't confuse the Libertarian Party for libertarian people. They aren't the same thing at all.

Politics ruins everything it touches. The problem with political Libertarianism is that libertarianism and politics aren't compatible.

Politics is the use of "the political means"-- theft, fraud, coercion-- to force people to do what you want by controlling legislation and enforcement. Maximizing liberty by respecting all the rights of all the people all the time doesn't figure in anywhere. Instead of the political means, libertarianism encourages using "the economic means"-- voluntary interactions, trade, and free association-- to shape society.

A Libertarian Party trying to spread liberty with politics is like a Republican Party advocating an authoritarian police state or a Democratic Party keeping certain candidates out of debates or off the ballot; an embarrassment to its name and all it claims to stand for.

I understand feeling this is what you have to do because it's how others work for change. It won't work for libertarians because they have to disregard what they are to participate in politics. If they win by being un-libertarian, what was gained? It's hard to convince people you've got a good idea and a better way when you follow the same toxic path the others do.

I was once a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, but it has been years since they nominated a presidential candidate I could support.

The tactic of nominating Republicans who'll hide their authoritarian positions during the campaign, or knee-jerk anti-Republicans who'll go overboard in the opposite direction as a reaction to previous candidates, doesn't advance liberty.

Libertarians have told the other parties for years that if they want us to vote for them, they are going to have to earn it rather than threaten us into it. They never seem terribly interested in earning libertarian support. The same goes double for the Libertarian Party.

I understand that under the current circumstances it appears libertarians would need to be un-libertarian to change society, but this isn't going to work.

If politics is a game you enjoy, go ahead. Just realize- politics of any kind is doomed to never increase liberty in any meaningful way.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

“No weapons of any kind are permitted”

…is how you tell everyone you’re either an idiot or evil. Or both.

First off, “weapon” isn’t a thing, it’s how something is used. Everything, and I mean everything, is a potential weapon. That means you can’t ban weapons. You can only try to ban categories of tools you’re bigoted against. That's idiotic.

Second, bad guys intent on causing harm aren’t going to read or follow your stupid rule! You’re just demanding that everyone be helpless in the face of bad guys. That's siding with the criminals and it's just evil.

There WILL BE weapons present. You'll just be deciding who has the most effective ones. Nothing more.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

After the government worship service

I often go places and act as an alien observer. Mainly just because I'm not there with anyone and I might as well observe the people. See if I can learn anything.

That was the case yesterday morning when I got wrangled into taking my daughter and her boyfriend to a Fourth of July parade (not an Independence Day parade) in a nearby town; a town that an ancient relative used to call "Jenny Slipper". Most people call it Muleshoe.

There was no independence on display, but a whole lot of state worship. And cops making sure no one showed any independence. But, that's a separate topic.

Well, the cowboy doing rope tricks as he rode a flatbed down the street was possibly the most independent of them all. I don't remember if his flatbed was festooned with government symbology. If not, it was probably the exception.

As soon as the parade was over I got abandoned while the teens ran off to do their thing-- they wished to visit the vendors. I followed the crowd (yes, I am capable of doing that) to the courthouse, and picked a shady spot under one of the Siberian elms. These are inferior trees that got planted all over this region a century or so ago and sold to the residents as the superior Chinese elm. Oh well, it gave shade.

Chairs were set up by groups all around me, so I got to hear a lot of interesting and amusing conversations and stories-- one about how someone's cluelessness embarrassed her and inconvenienced a couple of groups of golfers. At least she found it funny now.

Another guy was telling all about his fitness routine, and how he wanted to increase his fitness so he would be capable in whatever circumstances arise. A worthy goal.

One woman was telling her friends about a man who had done her wrong. It didn't take too long listening to her before I completely empathized with the man.

Nearly everyone was eating food from the vendors. Some people were showing off their dogs. People were milling about and chatting.

One thing I didn't hear was any political talk. No one discussed presidents or congressvermin or Supreme Courtjesters. No one talked about elections within my hearing. I didn't hear a single person mention government in any way, even though we were sitting on "government property" [sic] in front of an imposing government building. So, even if the parade didn't celebrate independence, the people at least lived it a little bit.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Be independent of the political criminals among us

The very best thing about plagiarist zombie Joe Biden is that he has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that having a human occupy the presidency is unnecessary. This means the office itself is unnecessary. Since it's unnecessary, and has such a great potential to be harmful if "the wrong person" is put into the office, why keep it? 

Abolish the presidency.

Then, because this would upset the balance of power, get rid of all the lawgivers and Supreme Courtjesters to balance things out again.

You don't need any of them, and fooling "the public" into believing they do is one of the sleaziest scams ever perpetrated on the species.

You are enough. You can govern yourself just fine, and that's the only one any of us has a right to govern, anyway. Be independent. Happy (observed) Independence Day.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

No one has such a "right"

No one has the right to be a police officer. 

Not even of the nice Andy Taylor variety.

No more than anyone has the right to be a burglar, a rapist, or a serial killer. The "right" to archate doesn't exist and can't be created, not by a majority opinion, by a document, by acceptance, or by a perceived "need".

When actual natural rights conflict with someone's imaginary "right" to be a cop, the cop loses, even if he/she murders the other because of the superstitious belief in "officer safety"/

Don't like that? Don't be a cop.

(I am typing this with my eyes still dilated, so I can't actually proofread what I'm typing. Grammarly is looking for mistakes, too.)

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?