Statists lie

Statists lie. And they frequently rely on newer definitions to help them lie.

Language evolves. I understand that and I don't even care when it evolves naturally. What I do care about is when language is manipulated in order to push an agenda. This is not the same as language evolving- this is language being hacked apart and sewn back together in a Frankenstein's Monster to serve an agenda.

It still looks generally human, that is to say, legitimate, but the integrity of the language that permits clear communication is lost in the process.

I've also noticed they'll switch between definitions as needed to keep their point alive. There's no integrity.

When this happens, there's really nothing you can say (because "words are just words"). Those relying on the manipulated language to "prove" their point just show the neo-definitions or whatever they need and that's that.

Yes, it's dishonest, but as I say, statists lie. It's almost a defining characteristic; you can't support political government and its various programs and efforts while staying honest. So, they manipulate language and then strut around like pigeons on a chessboard.

I also realize most people don't care. To them, words don't have any set meaning; they are just a mental construct and can change every day if convenient. I'm not sure how they expect clear communication to occur if that's the case. Maybe they don't care about that, either.

It's irritating, but it works on observers who buy the garbage they are selling and aren't aware it's garbage.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Diversity

Diversity of completely irrelevant characteristics like sex, "race", sexuality, etc. doesn't matter. It's not important. It can be ignored. It should be ignored.

Diversity of competence is stupid. It's a disaster and needs to be rejected totally.

Focusing on the diversity of irrelevant characteristics guarantees a diversity of competence because it takes attention away from what's important. It's a method to dilute competence and to take unreasonable chances.

Some individuals of every sex, "race", sexuality, or any other irrelevant characteristic like these are competent in every realm. They don't need to be propped up by dangerous policies.

It's OK to not be competent in every realm, but everyone can be competent in something. Chase that; not the things you lack competence in, but you wish you were good at. Or, find a way to become competent in what you want to pursue.

If someone isn't competent in some area, I don't want to risk putting them in that position. If someone is competent in some area, I want them doing that, regardless of their other irrelevant qualities. It makes my life better and it is risky to exclude them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Hiding military liability?

Let me start by stating my biases:
I am unapologetically pro-liberty. I don't support liberty's most dangerous enemy: government. Thus, I don't support or trust government's military, but consider it the gun pointed in the face of Americans and the biggest factor in making people in other countries want to kill Americans.

With that out of the way, I suspect the collision between the army helicopter and the commercial airplane was the fault of the army helicopter. 

The commercial plane was following its regular, scheduled route. The army helicopter was obviously somewhere it shouldn't have been at a time it shouldn't have been there, and was probably (I'm speculating here) flying darker than was responsible under the conditions. The responsibility to not cause a disaster was the helicopter crew's. They failed.

Early headlines were invariably along the lines of "Collision between army helicopter and commercial plane".

Yet, I watched as headlines soon morphed into implying the commercial plane was at fault. "Plane flies into army helicopter" and things of that sort. A subtle but critical change. Without any evidence that this was true, or important to the event.

If the feral government's military people were at fault, would the military be liable (or pressured into) paying damages to the families of its victims? Or into paying more? Could this be the reason the narrative changed as I watched?

If you don't think something like this is could be at play, you trust government too much.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Seeing both sides, even the wrong one

Being able to see, understand, and sympathize with both sides of an issue can be a pain.

There's no topic where I understand both sides as well as I do "immigration". This has been very obvious over the past week or so.

I'm a "borders are imaginary lines delineating tax farms and telling you which counterfeit 'laws' apply where" kind of guy. 

Governments don't have any rights whatsoever, much less a "right" to tell people where they can go. (No, I don't believe walking on "government property" [sic] is trespassing, either, but that's a topic for another day.)

I completely understand and sympathize with the "close the borders and deport them" side while still knowing they are utterly wrong.

I get the argument that “they broke the law” by being here, but the “laws” the migrants broke to be here have no more legitimacy than anti-gun rules. So, none whatsoever. The rules themselves are unethical and they also violate the Constitution, if that matters to you.

But government has been importing people, which it should never have done, and this gets people understandably worked up. 

Government doesn't respect the right of association, forcing people to deal with those they'd rather not-- whether a government employee or someone whose culture is incompatible with those forced to accommodate it. This doesn't help anyone.

Many of those who embrace the ideas of "immigration control" and deportation believe their position respects property rights, while they promote the socialist notion of "our country" and believe they have a right to control property they don't own. They only respect property rights as long as the property is used in ways they approve of.

And then government (as it always does) has been shielding the archators among the migrants from the natural consequences of their behavior-- something that is evil and causes more anti-"immigrant" feelings. This anger makes people unable to think reasonably about the topic. It couldn't be otherwise, especially if someone is inclined to be a borderist and dislike "outsiders" in the first place.

You'll never get attacked as fast and hard as you will if you point out the illegitimacy of "immigration law". That's purely government's doing. Maybe it's intentional, or maybe it's incompetence.

Either way, I sympathize with everyone, I condemn the archators on all sides, and I know there's probably no point in trying to convince those ruled by their emotions.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

No excuse for this disgusting idea

I despise the notion of “public policy”. Concerning anything.

It’s a disgusting idea. The only reason for it is so lawgivers will have an idea of what legislation to impose. 

It is nearly always used in an anti-liberty way, even though this isn't inevitable. This is because those who make "public policy" are invariably statists. 

Even if they are personally "libertarian", they suggest "public policy" because they feel the state is legitimate and should have a say in our lives. Believing the state to be legitimate is a defining characteristic of statism. Believing it should have a say in our lives is accepting slavery, as long as the state is the slavemaster.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Saving the economy from government

No income tax.
No sales tax.
No tariffs.
Defund government.
Separate life and state.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Too many authoritarians

That a large number of people are in favor of the authoritarian things Trump is doing, and a large number were in favor of the authoritarian thugs Biden did, doesn’t bode well for the future.

People— or too many people— seem to like authoritarianism. As long as it aligns with their preferences and beliefs. Not their “values” since there’s no value in authoritarianism.

Most of them balk if you call their side authoritarian, but will readily agree that their opponents are authoritarian. They lack self-awareness.

Authoritarianism is as deadly as decadence. It is a rejection of responsibility. It is the choice to be a slave while hoping you're the master's favorite. Or, it's the intention to become the master. Either way, it's not smart or good.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Personal responsibility better than government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 22, 2024)

Have you unhitched your wagon from the dying mule of government? If not, why not? It's not helping you, in spite of the claims of its public relations team, but is holding you back. You could be better without it getting in your way and siphoning off the labor of your hands to benefit itself. More liberty, more wealth, more health, more self-respect.

For many people,. talk of the end of political government is crazy. Their ancestors thought any talk of ending slavery-- excuse me, other forms of slavery-- was also crazy. They have a hard time seeing how the world will function without this great evil continuing to devour individual liberty.

One of the favorite go-to excuses of statists against the ethical move of abolishing this cult is the "power vacuum". If you don't have a state it will supposedly leave one of these.

Are you leaving a "power vacuum"? No. You are returning the power to where it has always belonged— to each individual who has the natural human right to run his or her own life.

It's a useful lie if people keep accepting it.

Even in the worst case scenario of this age of political government continuing a few more decades, being ready to take care of yourself in the absence of government will only help you. Not just when government implodes, but today.

The only thing keeping government going is the superstitious belief in it held by too many people. As it fails, over and over again, this belief will start to erode. It can only lie about its failures a certain number of times before the lies stop working. When people stop believing in something which was never real to begin with it stops having any effect on the real world. We are closer to this situation than you might think.

Whether you believe I'm right or wrong doesn't change the reality-- you need to arrange your life in such a way that you don't get dragged under if government collapses next month or next year. If it doesn't, there's no harm to you, but if it does, you'll be better off.

Don't depend on government being there and don't work for it! There are so many ethical options out there which don't depend on robbing people and calling it "taxes", and which don't require pretending to have a right to run the lives of others. Try some of those.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

Too many rules = no rules

I’m not a fan of arbitrary rules for the sake of having rules. Too many rules will make life unpleasant, even if (as some claim) they make life orderly and safer. The trade-off isn’t worth it.

I understand some rules-- those that match with ethical behavior like “don’t murder”. Rules that depart from this are worse than annoying. They are harmful because they are cheapening the real rules. When every move you make is subject to rules, I can see why some people choose to break all the rules, including the ones that matter.

I knew a teenage boy like this. Some people would say he's the problem (and he may well be headed that way), but the root problem is that there are just too many rules that make no sense. He can't see the difference between the rules that make sense and those that don't. His parents don't seem to have explained it as he grew up. I tried to help him get it. I'm not sure if it took root, and he has now moved away, so I may never know.

Too many rules is the same as no rules at all. In practice, anyway.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Prohibition addiction

I've seen a lot of people get really angry over Ross Ulbricht's pardon. Usually justified by "He was a drug dealer and people DIED!" Or, "Children were trafficked on his site!"

Prohibition is a powerfully addictive drug. Statists are highly susceptible to this addiction, and can't even see when it is destroying their ability to reason. They like prohibition. They demand prohibition. And they don't care who is killed for getting in the way.

Drug abuse is stupid; prohibition is evil.

The truth is, Ross allegedly ran a website that promised commerce with enhanced anonymity. Yes, people doing things prohibited by government are going to use such a site. So will those who recognize that government has no business looking into their business, regardless of how mainstream and ethical their business may be. Government is the enemy.

People try to justify Ross' caging by saying "He knew what would happen".

The CEO of Ford sells vehicles that he knows will be used in crimes. There's no question about it. They are designed to be very useful to criminals. Should he be locked up for two life sentences plus 40 years because of it? No, that's ridiculous.

Every CEO of any company that offers email or other electronic communication services, like cell phones, knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that those services will be used in the commission of crimes. People will be victimized by users of the service through the use of the service. Should those providers of valuable services be locked away and the key thrown into the ocean? No. Only someone evil would try.

And caging Ross was just as absurd. Freeing him was unambiguously right. If someone is on the other side, it's not "just an opinion" because someone's life was on the line; they are siding with evil in this case.

It's possible that other CEOs get a pass because they offer a backdoor for government criminals to access to violate their customers. Perhaps this was partly government's way of punishing Ross for not doing so.

The right thing to do, beyond freeing individual political prisoners, is to get rid of the illegal rules government uses as justification for taking them prisoner in the first place. This would obviously destroy government. I'm OK with that.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Which is it?

Statists are either not smart or they are not honest. (Although, to be fair, some may just be drunk.) 

I say this because they either don’t understand liberty or they work hard to pretend they don’t understand liberty.

It’s often impossible to tell which.

Whatever their malfunction may be, I can guarantee you that you and I understand their arguments and positions better than they understand ours. I've seen this demonstrated more times than I can count. I'm sure you have too, unless you've totally avoided "social" media.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

He really did it!

I didn't think Trump would do it. I hoped I was wrong. I was wrong! I'm glad I was wrong. I'd love to be wrong like this more often.

Ross Ulbricht has been freed!

Now, everyone in a cage for any victimless acts needs to be freed as well.

Matt Hoover for one.

If someone is sitting in a cage, or has a "record" for drug or gun "offenses", they are a political prisoner. Just like the "J6" prisoners. All political prisoners should be free and their "records" cleared. Immediately. Unconditionally. Anyone who delays their release afterward should be treated like the criminal they are.

The agencies responsible for persecuting them, such as the ATF and DEA, should be disbanded and their illegal "duties" not be transferred to anyone else, but abolished entirely.

But, I'm not going to discount Ross being freed. One good thing is one good thing.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Unhinged people are dangerous

There’s a lot of mental illness masquerading as political opinions out there.

I browse Instagram, mostly for the cat accounts I follow. The level of doom felt by some of the people running the accounts over the past few days is astounding. Worse than after the s/election didn't go as they expected and hoped.

These people are not OK. They seriously believe Trump is out to get them and might be under their bed right now. No, the reality is the US feral government is inside all their devices, and has been for decades. But this is different to them. 

It's far beyond anything I saw when Biden became president. 

They are coming unhinged. And unhinged people are dangerous.

Of course, most of them have been brainwashed to believe Trump is "literally Hitler", and that he's going to ... what? If you don't realize America is already a police state (it could get worse), then I don't know what to tell you.

Trump will do some bad things. He will do some good things. We'd all be better off if no president did anything.

If we could survive 4 years of Biden, we can survive 4 more years of Trump. If anything apocalyptic happens, it would probably be beyond the control of any president. That doesn't mean a president can't make any problem worse by trying to "fix" it with authoritarianism. Trump did that with Covid, and then Biden took that as a challenge and doubled down. Or, whoever was running the show did, anyway.

If you believe you need to be governed and need a president, you're halfway nuts already. It doesn't take a lot to push you over the line and trigger an "episode". And Trump is uniquely able-- through the mechanism of myriad hoaxes perpetrated by his fervent opposition-- to push them over that line.

There's nothing they could do that would surprise me. Or so I think. The next few years are likely to be very interesting. Probably not in a good way.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Is there any hope?

As long as statists are the majority, humans are probably doomed.

Unless the rest of us are exceptionally powerful in some way.

The debate over TikTok drew me into "conversations" with many government-supremacists, and exposed me to their beliefs about a great many things-- guns, governments, censorship, spyware, propaganda, rights, etc. 

Maybe it also exposed them to mine, but from the interactions, I don't think my words were cracking their shells. If anything, maybe some seeds were planted, but I'll never know.

I was told that by criticizing one government it was clear I am a tool of a competing government, no matter how clearly I stated that all political government is evil. All of them are the enemy, but the one that has more power over your daily life is the greater threat to you. This is true for anyone in any place on the planet.

I got called a communist, a Chinese spy, an idiot, and other things.
They (seemingly willfully) misunderstood what I said.
I was treated to government narratives about anti-gun cases that I know to be untrue, just because they thought it supported their side in some way.
I saw elaborate straw men being constructed and artfully burned.
I didn't see logic or rationality.

It doesn't give me a lot of hope for the species. 

Maybe we'll be lucky and they'll all kill each other off and some of the rest of us will survive to try again without the superstitious belief in "authority" that has crippled humanity for all these thousands of years. It's unlikely, but probably the only hope.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Penny jury made the right decision

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 15, 2024)

The Daniel Penny trial had me worried. I don't trust juries to do the right thing anymore; too often they simply rubber-stamp whatever the state-- meaning any political government-- wants. Most jurors seem to believe, "If the defendant isn't guilty, why is he on trial?"

The state is usually on the wrong side, especially when self-defense is the issue.

Penny stepped up to protect his fellow subway passengers in New York City from a mentally ill person who was making threats. For his act of compassion, government decided to treat him as a criminal.

The prosecutor tried to make the trial about race. He failed to trick smart observers. Only racists see race as a factor in the unfortunate event. Only racists call for riots and revenge because of the verdict. Penny's heroism helped people of every race.

This isn't a triumph of justice, though. Daniel Penny was harmed by the justice system, even though the harm has been mitigated by the jury coming to the right verdict. The police, prosecutor, and judge owe him restitution, which he'll never see.

Recently, I read about a Clovis woman who was acquitted of a murder charge. She's probably been harmed for the rest of her life by being dragged through the process. Those who charged her need to be held accountable, too.

Compare what Penny did with the actions of the man who shot and killed the CEO of United Healthcare.

In one case, a man saw a dangerous situation and did what was needed to protect his fellow passengers, and many condemned him for his selfless actions. In the other case, a man plotted to murder a specific individual, carried out his plan, then ran and hid, and many of the same people who condemned Daniel Penny laughed off the murder as something the victim deserved.

We've all had our problems with health insurance-- especially since the rise of "ObamaCare". I understand the frustration and helplessness, and the callousness demonstrated by insurers who demand deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket payments, and still refuse to cover some essential expenses. I wouldn't trust anyone who believes that's justification for murder to be on a jury.

When juries do the right thing, they benefit us all. When they go along with what the state wants, they are often worse than useless. I'm glad the Daniel Penny jury didn't hand New York City the verdict it sought.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate your support.

Once more, with FEELING

Most people are statists because most people just aren't very smart.

Recently I made some comments that drew the wrath of "normal people".

One comment was saying I would not turn in an "illegal alien" for any amount of money, in one I was explaining why permanent DST is harmful, and in the other I was pointing out that government has no "authority" to ban TikTok (or any other web platform) and that the Bill of Rights prohibits them from doing so.

I get people having different opinions, but when they do I wish they could articulate reasons. They can't. 

They can only tell me how they feel about a topic. They can call me names, say "that's the most stupid thing I've ever read", tell me what government is getting away with and how this excuses it, go off on tangents that are unrelated to the topic (like that I have no friends or money), and attack a straw man of their own creation, but they can't give good, consistent and reasonable explanations of why or how I'm wrong. Because they have none available. 

They can't think, they can only feel. And I hurt their feelings. So they attack.

If you're going to communicate with "normal people", you're going to have to ditch reason and embrace feelings. I don't know if it's worth it. It is something to consider, though.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Tariffs and other dumb behaviors

Threatening to impose tariffs is like threatening to blow up your own house, with your family inside, to make your neighbor do what you want. 

I guess you could call it "negotiating", but it's still kind of dumb and/or evil.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

The Triangle of Archation

We live in a world where the authoritarians of the right fight the authoritarians of the left and the nihilists (mostly of the left), the authoritarians of the left fight the authoritarians of the right and occasionally fight the nihilists (but their hearts aren't in it), and the nihilists just seem to want everyone dead. 

Caught in between them are you and me.

How delightful.

It's hard for any of those sides to understand that someone can be outside their weird triangle. They'll either want to say you are really on their side, or they'll assign you to one of the opposition sides that you don't belong with.

But here we are, just wanting to exercise our liberty without violating anyone's life, liberty, or property. Sometimes forced to defend ourselves or others from someone in that Triangle of Archation.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Using government

Sometimes government is worse than other times. But it's always your enemy-- IF liberty and human rights are among your values.

If you just want to play politics, I can see why you might not always think government (The State) is your enemy. It's that "pragmatism" thing that I hate so much.

Yes, government can often be used to get what you want. It's not worth it. It's never ethical. 

Evil methods are often pragmatic-- they'll do things for you and help you accomplish things. What do you give up in the process? Pretty much everything good.

There's always an alternative. Sometimes it's hard to find, but it's worth the effort.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Counting on the bad guys to do the right thing

Some "gun people" are hanging their hopes on Congress (and/or the Supreme Courtjesters) doing the right thing.

They won't. Sorry to disappoint you and I'd LOVE to be wrong. But I'm not.

Sure, I'd like to see this thing they call "national carry reciprocity" be a thing. No one has the "right" to violate natural human rights, and governments (including state and local governments) have no rights whatsoever. Something without rights can't have the "right" or the imaginary political authority to violate yours. Rights are individual, not collective.

Since the version of the bill I read says that if you're a resident of a state with "constitutional carry", and thus don't need a permit to carry in your home state, you wouldn't need one anywhere. Not that this would make a shred of difference to how I live my life, but I suppose it might be nice.

You know the political criminals in New York, California, and New Jersey (among others) will continue doing the crimes they do, no matter how much "more illegal" it becomes. Because there are no real, immediate, and painful consequences. And there never will be as long as most people believe in the legitimacy of the state.

There's also a bill introduced to abolish the NFA. I want that one even more, since that illegal act forms the foundation of all legislative and bureaucratic anti-gun crime. But ignorant cowards will sabotage that one by claiming liberty is "too dangerous" to be allowed. It won't get anywhere.

I remind you that your rights don't depend on the acceptance of your enemy. They are yours to claim and to exercise regardless of the opinions of political criminals in rule-making clubs. Liberty is your birthright as a human. Act like it. Stop counting on the bad guys to do the right thing.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.