Added steps; reduced help

Taxing robots rather than people. Scott Adams thinks this is a great idea. He has promoted the idea on his livestream several times, suggesting that this is an alternative to income taxes.

The biggest flaw in this is something that government supremacists won't see as a flaw: it would continue to fund the state.

The second problem is, it's still really taxing people. Just taxing the people who own the robots. This is still unethical in the extreme.

Even if robots have jobs, and you steal a percentage of their productivity in the name of taxation to actually support the people of the country, this just adds an unnecessary layer to the process.

Instead of doing the stupid thing, have a robot work and send some of the profits of its productivity directly to someone or some program in need of funding. And do it voluntarily or not at all.

Don't reverse-launder the money by sending it to government, where much of the value will be diverted away from the thing it should be supporting. 

Funneling things through government bureaucratic layers of crookedness and inefficiency means those who need the help get much less of it.

Anything which props up government is part of the problem.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Their nature always shines through

Recently an excitable copsucker realized he was wrong and decided his best play at that point was to call me a "sovereign citizen". Just because I said cops have no "extra rights" and if they initiate force it is ethical to defend yourself from them. He really didn't like that- not one little bit!

He clutched at superstition and ethereal "permissions" to try to prop up his argument. He tried the "put yourself in their shoes" argument. No one was buying it. He knew he was shooting blanks as each of his justifications was dismissed by everyone in the discussion, so he pulled out the "sovereign citizen" thing and flung it at me. He tried desperately- by calling attention to what he'd called me-- to get others to chime in to agree. It didn't work like he hoped.

I congratulated him on his mind-reading abilities, then I pointed out the silliness of the very concept of "sovereign citizen". He doubled down, expressing his desire to see a video of me, as a sovereign citizen, being cuffed at a traffic stop. Then he ran away. Why are these people almost always so toxic and full of bloodlust? Typical statist.

By then I was laughing at him (on this side of the screen), and could have made fun of him. But I didn't. It wouldn't have accomplished anything positive. I'd made my point.

I'll be honest-- I can probably say things others can't because no one is listening to what I say. At least, most of the time they aren't.

I sometimes take advantage of that freedom. Good, bad, or crazy.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Collapse the wave function- peek inside the box

Joe Biden is Schrödinger’s “president”; both alive and dead until we collapse the wave function by looking in the coffin. Er, box.

Why won't they let anyone look?

Maybe it's because they already looked and don't like the result.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

What's happening and does it matter?

Does Joe Biden still hold the title of President? Is he even still alive?
Does it really matter?
Did it ever?

Swapping out figureheads matters less than most people want to believe it does.

The "Deep State" isn't a conspiracy theory, it's an observation of how things actually work.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Thoughts on the Trump shooting

Now that some time has passed, I have additional thoughts I'm willing to express about the assassination attempt on Trump

I'm against it.

Beyond that...

In extraordinary circumstances, assassination is both ethical and necessary. We are not there. Not with any politician currently on the radar. Not Trump, Biden, or even Hillary Clinton (although she's dangerously close).

It's literally part of the reason the Second Amendment exists-- to enable the people to have the upper hand-- the final word-- against government and politicians. It's why it protects literal weapons of war from government rules. It's why the arguments about government having all the nukes and fighter jets are silly and miss the point. Even a flintlock in the right hands can beat all their nukes, but modern weapons would be better for the task. 

In the end, politicians rely on the people tolerating them.

It's also a human right to defend yourself from those archating against you. Or making a credible threat to do so. That is what politicians and candidates are doing by their very existence.

It's still not usually smart, and may not be ethical, to try to assassinate anyone unless you have an actual Hitler-level threat in front of you, which I've never considered Trump to be. He's not unusually dangerous; he's the same as any other politician who may become president again. Which is bad enough.

But... shooting him could actually make him more dangerous by raising him to martyr status, Or removing him so that his supporters rally behind someone else and help that person become what TDS sufferers believed Trump was. That would be really stupid.

I also admit that my religious past made me instantly think of Revelations 13:3. I kept that to myself, until now.

Anyway... It's possible that the nearly successful attempt was just normal governmental incompetence, but it sure looks like something more was at work. Is it just a DEI problem? I doubt it. It looks like someone in government either helped plan the attack or was careful to not prevent it. That may be confirmation bias on my part.

The shooter (or shooters) bears full responsibility. But the media encouraged him to do it. If you doubt that, where have you been for the past 9 or so years. The media has been calling Trump "literally Hitler" and claiming he's an existential threat to America (and "our democracy") this whole time. Mentally unstable, or evil, people don't require much encouragement to act. He got more than he needed.

You or I will never know the whole truth about what happened. Even if the truth slips out, it will be a needle in a haystack of misinformation, and there will be false needles mixed in that are too big and shiny to ignore.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Injustice for Trump… and for Hunter Biden

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 16, 2024)

Last week I pointed out the injustice of Donald Trump's conviction for violating nonsensical, arbitrary legislation. If such legislation even exists. This week it happened to someone else.

Once again someone prominent has been convicted of a victimless "crime" while those in Congress and other government positions continue to victimize Americans with their felonious regime.

Hunter Biden, the President's son, has been convicted of breaking a federal gun rule-- they wish we'd call it a "law"-- which the federal government is explicitly prohibited from making or enforcing. This is tied in with him breaking drug prohibition rules government has no authority to make up or enforce. This is what injustice looks like.

The jury involved in this verdict should be ashamed, as should the jury which convicted Trump. Trump should commit to pardoning Hunter Biden as soon as he's back in office.

I'm no fan of Hunter Biden; I think he is probably a horrible person. Still better than anyone who holds political office, but that's a very low bar. If you can't stand up for the rights of people you dislike, you are worthless in defense of liberty.

I know some people defend government's indefensible gun rules because they don't like guns. Some even try to make the case that these rules must be constitutional because courts have allowed them to stand. Not even close. Government has gotten away with enforcing them for nearly a century now, but they are no more constitutional than drug prohibition or space flight licensing. Less so, since neither drugs nor spacecraft are specifically called out as things government is forbidden to control. Guns are.

"Shall not be infringed" means what it says. Government is not allowed to make up any rule which would interfere with the natural human right to own or carry weapons. Enforcing rules concerning who may or may not purchase weapons, based on self-incrimination on a government form, is a clear violation of rights.

Every one of us, except a few who hold public office, is part of the militia. It's impossible for this militia to be "well regulated"-- practiced until your skill with weapons is effective for the defense of yourself and your community-- when government gets away with making it a crime to do so. Every gun rule is a criminal act by government. Convicting someone of violating one of these counterfeit rules is anti-American. Even if you loathe the person.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Unearned status

There are two ways to elevate the status of a politician beyond anything they've earned: 

Make them a martyr or call them Hitler. These aren't mutually exclusive, either.

There are also multiple ways to make a politician into a martyr:

Assassination, or pity for the evil old dingbat whose brain stopped working due to factors other than explosive penetration.

Politicians love it when you elevate them beyond their true status as parasites.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Musing on politics

I disagree with Republicans at least half the time-- which is nearly identical to how often I disagree with Democrats. I only agree with either party when they are correct about something.

However, I can't be the only one noticing that Democrats are usually guilty of doing the things they accuse Republicans of doing (admittedly, sometimes while Republicans are also doing it). And of accusing others of being what they themselves are.

While both parties are fascist socialists, the Democrats are the ones who seem to have more in common with historical Nazis. The tactics and rhetoric they use, in particular. Also, the weaponized mental illness they employ is a big problem for those who are susceptible to such things. And, the bad guys currently in power are always the greater threat than the bad guys who want that power.

It's why I usually just call them all "DemoCRAPublicans".

Public politics is nothing more than a sibling rivalry. Yes, it can turn deadly, and innocent people get caught in the crossfire. 

The reality is that the worst bad guys in power are those who comprise the Deep State. The unelected agents, bureaucrats, operatives, and the elected legacy politicians who seem to have held office since I was a kid. The elections sometimes put a different mask on the bad guys, but they never change much-- and their agenda only grows more evil with time.

It's sad that statists of any kind have such power in the world. But that doesn't mean I have to bow to their demands or fall for their lies. Do not comply. Do not fawn. Do not assist in your own enslavement.

You have the fundamental human right to run your own life without asking permission from political criminals. Act like it.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Thinking or just believing

Much of the wrongness in the world, including statism, is based on believing instead of thinking.

You’ve been told and "everybody knows"… something that's not true.

Another way to say it is Smarts vs. Emotion.

Just look around and you'll see it everywhere. 

I catch myself doing it, too.

My plan is to continually whittle away at this so that it gets to be less of what's in my mind over time.

I'm constantly pausing when I encounter, and I notice, things I "believe". Then I think about it. I'll check definitions of words to see if I'm thinking of a word wrong. I'll try to see what I may be missing. I'll check the logic of the belief and see if it adds up.  Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, I try to change what I believe so it aligns with what's real. This can be harder than you'd suppose.

This is how my views on many things have changed over the years. I "believe" less and I think more.

I've never experienced a case where this process falsified liberty in any way. Have you had the same experience, or a different one?

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

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?