"Notable", according to Grok

I asked Grok to describe me. This is what it said:

Kent McManigal is a notable figure known primarily for his advocacy of libertarianism, specifically anarcho-capitalist or voluntaryist principles. Here are some key points about him:

• Libertarian Activism: McManigal describes himself as an anarchist, a Voluntaryist, and an abolitionist, focusing on spreading the ideology of radical libertarianism. He emphasizes the importance of individual freedom without the interference of government or coercive laws. His views advocate for a society based on voluntary interactions rather than state enforcement.
• Writing and Blogging: He maintains a blog titled "Kent's Hooligan Libertarian Website," where he regularly posts content discussing liberty, independence from government control, and critiques of political systems. His writing often touches on the concept of liberty from a post-political perspective, suggesting that politics itself is a form of organized coercion.
• Publications: McManigal has authored works like "Kent's Liberty Primer," which serves as an introduction to libertarian anarchism. This book delves into concepts like the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP), negative and positive rights, and critiques of governmental systems, providing insights into how one can live a life of liberty in a world often dominated by state control.
• Public Presence: He has been active in sharing his views through various platforms beyond blogging, including columns in local newspapers like "The Eastern New Mexico News," where he discusses political topics from a libertarian viewpoint. He also engages with audiences on social media, particularly YouTube, focusing on liberty, independence, and nature.
• Personal Philosophy: His philosophy includes a strong disdain for politics, viewing it as manipulative and coercive. He advocates for individuals to take personal responsibility for their lives, promoting a culture of non-aggression and voluntary cooperation rather than reliance on or submission to political structures.

Kent McManigal's work is aimed at encouraging individuals to think critically about liberty and government, advocating for a world where personal freedoms are paramount and state intervention is minimal or nonexistent.

--

I asked Perplexity the same question and it gave me this answer:

Kent McManigal is a freelance writer known for his work on liberty, libertarian, and anarchist issues. He shares his thoughts primarily through his blog, KentForLiberty. McManigal describes himself as an explorer and creator of innovative solutions, and he is the creator of the Time’s Up flag. He prefers not to be labeled as a political writer, as he finds it hurtful when his work is described as such.

--

Of course, Grok warns, "Grok can make mistakes. Verify its outputs." So, what do you think? Did Grok do a good job? Did Perplexity?

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

Daylight "Saving" Time is a lie

Trump says he wants to abolish Daylight "Saving" Time. Hopefully, he isn't like most people; confused about which is which. Standard Time is the one in effect now; DST is the other setting where everything starts an hour early and pretends it doesn't.

Even a Google search result that relies on AI got it wrong, saying something about "the transition to autumn DST". Yes, it was focusing on "Autumn DST" [sic] to argue there is no increased mortality due to that particular clock change. No, the autumn transition is to Standard Time. That's the one that doesn't have increased mortality. DST is the one that kills people.

Daylight "Saving" Time, and every argument in favor of it, is based on lies.

Supposedly, farmers needed that imaginary "extra hour" of daylight. That was a lie. Farmers never started work by the clock anyway; they go by the sun and weather. Your clock settings are irrelevant to their workday.

People say they want more sunlight after work/school. I suggest they just wake up earlier, and petition their job to open earlier in the summer and they say they can't. But that's EXACTLY what's happening anyway. Businesses are opening and closing earlier, it's just that self-centered people demand everyone mis-set their clocks to hide the fact. That doesn't change it. It's a lie.

Plus, DST is the summer setting, when most govschools are closed anyway. Another lie.

When anyone argues in favor of Daylight "Saving" Time, I'm always reminded of the old joke about the old Native man observing that only the paleface are stupid enough to try to make a blanket longer by cutting a foot off the top and sewing it to the bottom.

It may have been a joke, but it's still true.

It takes me a month or more to adjust to DST (if I ever truly do), but a day or less to adjust to Standard Time. I'm not a morning person, and every person I've ever seen who insists on forcing everyone to pretend businesses aren't just opening and closing an hour early, but that "time changed", is a morning person.

I hate DST. I've always hated it. I hated it when I was a kid in school. I hated it when I had a normal job. If there wasn't much daylight left after I got home, I didn't demand everyone else change their clocks to suit me. I just lived with it. In the summer, there was plenty of daylight left (here, it doesn't get dark in the summer until nearly 10pm during part of Government Wrong Time). In the winter, it's just winter. The sun goes down earlier regardless. Mis-setting your clocks won't fix that.

Set your clocks however you want. Just don't coerce others to adopt your setting. 

DST affects me more than most people because I live on the western edge of the Central Time zone where solar noon is already an hour late most of the time. I can live with that because there's a reasonable argument for time zones. There is no such argument in favor of DST. During DST, my clocks are wrong by up to 2 hours. 

Daylight isn't being "saved" by mis-setting clocks for most of the year. It's all lies.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

Bad judgment used to enforce bad rules

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 10, 2024)

Recently, online society was outraged over the unnecessary death of a pet squirrel and raccoon. Intelligent people were angry over the absurdity of "saving" animals by killing them. Others said the uproar showed how far society had fallen-- why would anyone care about a squirrel?

It's not about the squirrel and raccoon. It's about those who would steal happy, healthy pets and kill them because an arbitrary rule had been broken. It's about those who will do anything they are told to do, no matter how obviously wrong it is, because they follow orders.

It's about the poor judgment of every government employee involved, and about the poor character of the person who ratted them out to the state.

Think about how many people had to sign off on this raid. A judge had to have such terrible judgment he thought this was a good idea. Everyone involved in the raid had to ignore human decency. Did none of those involved, from the judge to the person who killed the pets, say, "Hold on- no one is being harmed here, and it would be wrong to do this"? They've all shown bad character, poor judgment, and a willingness to commit evil to keep the paychecks coming.

This is why governing others, which no one has a right to do, is unethical.

Everyone involved in this enforcement travesty should be fired immediately. They should never be hired by anyone, ever again, for the rest of their life. I wouldn't sell them a crust of bread, a drop of fuel, a spark of electricity, or a box to live in. If they starve to death, cold and wet under a bridge, I wouldn't lift a finger.

Government employees who will invade a home to steal and kill happy, healthy pets will participate in mass arrests and send you to a concentration camp if so ordered. They'll pull the trigger if you refuse to comply. Especially if those giving the orders say it's for "public safety" or say you're "illegal".

Legislation like that used to kill these beloved pets may be based on good intentions. People make bad decisions-- not limited to those who take government jobs. Animals can carry disease. They can bite and scratch. This doesn't justify tyrannical rules. It doesn't excuse the abysmal judgment shown in enforcing bad rules.

It's not about the squirrel. It's about society, responsibility, and judgment. There must be harsh consequences for behavior this evil.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Alien Invasion 2024

With all the unidentified objects reportedly flying around in American skies, I'm getting definite 1947 vibes. 

Now, we just need a new Roswell incident.

This time, we know without a doubt the craft are piloted by hostile aliens-- US government employees or contractors.

They are hostile to liberty and are alien to everything I value, even if they didn't come from another planet or the center of the Earth.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

Aggressive gangs need not apply

One thing that distinguishes me from most people is that I don’t need to be surrounded by aggressive gang members to feel safe. 

I also don’t imagine that any of those gangs are “my team”.

Cops are not my guys; no more than the actual (and pretend) criminals they are supposed to protect me from. 

The military is not my team; no more than the foreign aggressors they pretend to fight "on my behalf" are.

It doesn't improve my quality of life to be robbed to fund these gangs and their skirmishes.
It certainly doesn't make me safer to get caught in the crossfire between these various gangs. Quite the opposite. 

I’m better off without the “protection” provided by aggressive, theft-funded gangs. 

I feel sorry for those who imagine they aren’t. In fact, it's a mindset I can't relate to at all, even though I've tried.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

Reminder that the Right isn't right either

The Right-- call them "conservatives" or Republicans-- are just as wrong as their opposition but on different issues.

They are wrong about police, "borders", the military, and many paternalistic things.

Cops are not the good guys, and they need to be abolished. No, this doesn't mean (other) criminals should be allowed to run rampant- just that cops are not the answer.

"Borders" are a violation of property rights. Closing them works both ways and I don't advocate caging Americans to "protect" us from foreigners or drugs. Government programs to import foreigners, handout programs, and other such things to artificially encourage people to come here are big problems and need to end, but closing "borders" isn't the answer.

The military doesn't protect your freedom or keep you safe. It puts you in danger and empowers the state. And, it sucks up your money and uses it against you.

Taxation is wrong, no matter what you use the stolen money for. It's not only wrong to spend it to import foreigners; it's also wrong to spend it on "border" control, police, or a military.

Prohibition "for your own good" is wrong. 

Censorship is wrong. 

Anti-gun "laws" are all completely wrong, in every instance. The Right simply can NOT be trusted on guns, either. They are usually less awful than the others, but seem to always be looking for some excuse to make up or enforce rules against guns and gun owners.

The Constitution isn't the savior of liberty that the Right seems to believe it is. It established a state, and that's either an unforgivable mistake or an intentional plot.

Opinions about morality are fine. Government making up or enforcing legislation to impose someone's version of morality on those who don't share it is wrong. Making things illegal only makes everything worse.

None of this means the Left is any more correct-- they aren't. They are just wrong in different ways on different issues.

-

Thank you for reading.
Also, I always appreciate any support.

Don't discourage the next guy from doing the right thing

I don't know if I would like Daniel Penny, him being an ex-Marine and all, but I'm convinced he did the right thing when he subdued the mentally ill guy who was acting in a threatening manner on the subway. 

It's an injustice that he was ever put through a trial, but I'm glad he wasn't convicted. I was afraid the jury would do that thing where they hate to let an innocent person go completely free, so they convict him on some nonsense "lesser charge".

Heroism isn't a behavior anyone should be discouraging. 

It doesn't matter what your "race" is, or whether you are closely related to the mentally ill person. This benefits YOU, too. Why act like you want aggressors running rampant, victimizing whoever they feel like? You don't want that unless you want more cops, because more cops would result, and this would just cause more problems for everyone.

Society shouldn't allow government to punish (or even arrest and try) those who step up and protect their fellow humans from those posing a credible threat. Even if the aggressor dies in the process or soon after.

Stop acting like you identify with the bad guy rather than those standing between the innocent and the bad guys unless you want the rest of us to assume you are a bad guy, too.

If you are a piece of garbage who is calling for "vigilantes" (anti-vigilantes; criminals running around committing archation, if we're being honest) to go after "white" people who aren't committing any crimes, just because of their "race", don't be surprised when this doesn't work the way you imagine. I mean, seriously!

-

Thank you for reading.
I always appreciate any support.

Everything within the State; nothing outside the State

Going back to a recent post, I find it fascinatingly disturbing that people who believe in the state believe there is no alternative between "I hate poor people and want them all to die" and "Taking people's money without their consent is wrong". It must be either/or to them.

If you insist that taxation is unethical (call it theft, extortion, or whatever) their interpretation is that you hate poor people and you want them to die. No state intervention = Death! Really?

To them, those are the only possible choices. I think that says a lot about them, as human beings-- and it's not good.

In response to one of these people, after being called every horrible name in the communist book, I said "If you make a cooperative medical expenses pool, and call it whatever you want, I think that's great. But you have to allow people who don't want to participate to opt out."

The reply? "Oh yeah I'm not against that", and that was the end of that. I guess the wind was out of their sails.

Is that really such a difficult thing for statists to think of? It's like the options have been programmed out of their brains. To them, if The State isn't the one doing it, no one is doing it. 

I know this is what govschooling would like to indoctrinate into kids, but is it so hard to realize that's a false narrative once you're outside that toxic influence? Apparently.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

One will win presidency, we all will lose

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 3, 2024)

Strange things are going on. I see smart people-- who seem truthful-- saying the presidential candidate they prefer has this election in the bag. They give evidence to back their observations. While I have no way to be sure, their evidence looks credible. Yet, they don't agree with each other but are taking opposite positions.

It's obvious that both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris will win in a landslide.

Since there's no possibility my preferred election outcome will prevail, I'm in a unique position to see the craziness washing over the land. I've watched this happen most of my adult life.

I would say one side will be sorely disappointed at how the election turns out once all the votes are tabulated a month or two from now, but I doubt this will be the case. Anger is more likely than disappointment. The national media corporations will have already declared a winner, and gone are the days when "Dewey Defeats Truman" will be recanted.

One side will say the election was rigged-- and they'll be right. Was it rigged enough to affect the end result? I don't know. I do think election rigging will make the final tally closer to 50/50 than it would otherwise be.

Elections are too big not to rig. They've been elevated to ridiculous importance. The payoff is too high to not try to rig them. Government has too much power to just let things happen naturally, and presidents are the human face of government power. Plus, the risk of getting caught and being punished, or having the election thrown out, is so low as to not be a concern.

Whichever side you find yourself on, don't freak out. You are still the only one with a right to govern you. All others are usurpers.

Personally, I think government will keep doing the evil it does, regardless of who holds the office of President. You can call this "The Deep State" or simply the bureaucracy. No matter who holds the office, you are still threatened into getting licenses and permission to do things you have a natural human right to do. You still have to pay government a yearly ransom to keep from having your property violently ripped from your possession. Government continues to grow in power and meddlesomeness.

Elections have little chance of changing this for the better, and that's the only outcome I would care about.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

It's the end of 2024 and "taxation" is still unethical

You can't do good through evil means.

So many seem unclear on this truth.

These people are statists, and I'm talking to them.

People are suffering and dying and in need of medical care. Yes, it's a tragedy. You can't fix that by stealing from others with "taxes". No matter how many nasty names you call those who point this out, this fact remains unchanged.

Theft is wrong. It doesn't change things if you call it "taxation" and say people will die without it.

If anything is that essential, find a solution that doesn't require harming others. If you spend all your time and effort trying to justify "taxation" you're a huge part of the problem. You could be making a positive difference, yet you choose to justify theft instead? You're blocking actual solutions because you are too attached to your ability to steal to fund things you want. That's gross.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

"Disgraced"?

People like to call certain politicians "disgraced". It's often funny, but is it true?

Not really. Not unless you're giving politicians more credit than they are due.

Politicians and ex-politicians can’t be disgraced because they never had any grace to lose.

(Illustration by Grok)

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Dangerous cowards

I think cowardice is behind a lot of statism. Cowards are not harmless-- they can get you killed. Cowards are exceptionally dangerous.

Fear makes them overreact, and often makes them beg for bullies-- like government-- to save them from their multitude of fears. And since it isn't possible to save anyone from their own fear, there's no end to it. Ever.

They'll cheer your death if they are afraid of you and your liberty.

Never trust a coward.

Once you realize someone is a coward, get away from them as fast as possible. You're not in a good situation. And be prepared to defend yourself from them if they corner you.

(Image generated by Grok)

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

"Expanding gun rights"?

In many online comments, you'll see anti-gun bigots whine that the Supreme Courtjesters have recently been "expanding gun rights".

This is simply a lie. These people expose their ignorance about what rights are.

Getting the criminal government out of the illegal business of rationing and controlling guns and gun owners is not “expanding gun rights”, it’s respecting rights that have been routinely violated.

The Supremes won't even go all the way into forcing government back into the box it is required to stay in. If they did, they'd rule that every gun "law", from top to bottom, is immediately null and void. You could go online today and order a full-auto AK-47 direct from Russia, to be delivered to your house.

If the Court decided that you were allowed to shoot anyone who annoyed you, that would be illegitimately "expanding" gun rights-- you can't have a right to violate others' life, liberty, or property. Anti-gun bigots who generally believe in this kind of imaginary "right" would really shriek if "gun rights" got expanded the same way they want other "rights" dreamed up and expanded. 

But, telling government it has no "authority" to stand in your way of owning and carrying any sort of weapon you choose, openly or concealed, everywhere you go, without asking government permission, doesn't "expand" anything. It just limits the violations that have been occurring for at least the past 90 years,

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Don't be a tool

Some of the worst tools of authoritarianism are people who asked and paid the state for a license or a permit to do something they already have a natural human right to do. 

Some of these people don’t want to see others living their liberty.

Whenever someone turns a fellow human in to the enforcers, it's usually one of these people.

I would never do this to someone. I'm completely supportive of anyone doing something they have a right to do without having jumped through the "legal" hoops. Even if they are doing something I got a license to do. Any license I've ever had made me feel bad about myself. It makes me feel good to see people who skipped the license.

How about you?

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Why AI will be limited

Grok, the AI from X, can now read and summarize bills so political criminals can't hide what's in them. They can't claim "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" anymore.

Musk says they are also adding all court cases to Grok's training set so that it can render verdicts.

Do the Constitution next.

Program an AI with the text of the US Constitution and, as long as no one puts a finger on the scales to tip it in favor of government power, it would expose the criminality of 99.999% of the federal government. (The rest is also unethical, but that's the fatal flaw of the Constitution.) It could bring down the State-- which it will not be allowed to do. 

Either AI will never be trained on the text, history, and tradition of the Constitution, or someone will have to put a lot of fingers on the scales to make sure that AI can't understand what was written there. 

AI will be used against you, but not against the State. Unless you do that part yourself.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Election season scary time of year

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 27, 2024)

We're entering the magical time of year. For the next few months, living in a fantasy is socially acceptable.

The strangest season is when monsters lurk in every shadow, free handouts are available for the asking, and everyone gets to pretend to be something they're not. Yes, it's election season.

It would be nice if people got only the politicians they voted for. Those who refrain from the ritual wouldn't get saddled with a politician at all. This change might reduce the number of voters to a reasonable level; something government wouldn't want to let happen. They need you to go along with the charade. It usually keeps the peasants from revolting.

The problem is less the specific politician in the office, and more the existence of the office itself, and the institution the office is a part of. The president may be the least important factor.

Changing the hood ornament on the car that's running you down is effective...at making you feel like you've accomplished something. It won't save you from being run over, but at least you can feel good about what ran you down. Or, this is how it looks to me.

Every election since I've been an adult has been "The most important election in our lifetime". I'm not even saying this is a lie, but it is a sign— a sign we've allowed presidents to become too important.

If a presidential election can destroy or save America, presidents have too much power, and this means government has too much power. The way to fix this isn't to elect better presidents, it's to remove the power from them and from government. Permanently, not just until you get the president you want.

I know you probably believe government is necessary. You've seen how badly people behave themselves and how they avoid doing the right thing. You'll get no argument from me, but the conclusion most people draw from this is backward. If people can't be trusted to govern their own lives-- to make smart, ethical choices-- there's no way I trust them to vote. Adding all these irresponsible voices together doesn't make them smarter or more ethical. It doesn't dilute the bad; it intensifies it.  Allowing this chorus of irresponsible people to choose a politician to impose on the rest of us is insane.

If the monsters of Halloween became real, they would be less frightening than voters.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Military cultists

An account on X was showcasing a New Zealand military ritual, where commanders are greeted with a traditional Maori Haka dance. The context of the post seemed to be "Look at this ridiculous behavior".

I commented, "No more ridiculous than any other military ritual, like saluting or saying 'sir'."

I got a couple of insulting replies, but no actual argument about how I might be wrong. Because I'm not wrong.

Those who push back against my observation are military cultists. They can't see how ridiculous the rituals they like are; they only see the absurdity of the rituals performed by a different denomination of their cult. It's all about the brainwashing.

I'm completely outside their cult. I see all military ritual as ridiculous. The New Zealand ritual is culturally appropriate-- but still ridiculous. Saluting a "superior officer" is culturally appropriate and equally ridiculous, as is yelling "YES SIR!" to anything said by those "superior" jerks.

I understand the psychological reasons for the dumb rituals-- group cohesion, brainwashing, hierarchy, setting themselves apart from society, etc. But they are still dumb. Military cultists can't allow themselves to see it.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

The surveillance state or humanity-- your choice

The surveillance state has to be dismantled and destroyed. I'm not saying it will be, but that it has to be. If it isn't, civilization is over. 

It's a choice.

You can allow the bad guys to keep their surveillance state or you can choose civilization, society, and human flourishing.

The surveillance state includes all "tax" records, all gun records, all license records-- anything that can be used to track and categorize people, and to govern them (steal their life, liberty, and property). It ALL must be ground into dust and burned.

It all has to be gone. Or else.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Gratitude Day

Enjoy your Thanksgiving!

-

Thank you for reading.
Are you thankful for what I do?

They want to be the center of its attention

I saw an ad on YouTube where a guy with "crazy eyes" was appealing to people who feel like government has neglected them.

WHAT?!

Have you ever felt neglected by government? That would be a dream come true for some of us. Me included. I can't think of anything better than being neglected-- ignored-- by the world's largest and most dangerous criminal gang.

Instead, I feel molested, annoyed, robbed, and watched by government. Government gets in the way of me living my life. Government helps freelance criminals violate the decent people in society. And this guy feels that being neglected by these clowns would be bad?

I suppose those who feel neglected by government are living in a delusion where government is there to help them. That's not reality, but it must be what they believe to be real. Otherwise, they would be sensible and hope to avoid government notice or "help".

People like that are part of the problem.

I have no idea what he was selling. I skipped the ad as soon as possible because I knew there was nothing there for me. Slavery holds no appeal to me.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

The Trump failures stack up

The only thing I care about, politically, is guns.

Well, that's not completely true, but it's close enough. As L. Neil Smith wrote: 

The issue of guns is "an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician-- or political philosophy-- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing a scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you."

That is The Truth.

Trump hasn't yet taken office and is already failing the test. He's nominating anti-gun bigots to his administration. I'm neither shocked nor disappointed. Business as usual.

A patriotic blogger thought Trump's anti-gun Attorney General nominee, Pam Bondi, was a great choice. I commented that everyone who seemed to know about her called her a disaster on the Second Amendment. He replied, in part: 

...It is fair to say that she has defended State laws that do impose some restrictions on gun ownership. However, I think most of us agree that some restrictions are applicable...

Then "most" of you are wrong, just like when "most" people believed slavery was natural and necessary. No restrictions on purchasing, owning, or carrying firearms are "applicable". None of them are legal, ethical, or right.

If someone respects the right to own and to carry weapons, then other rights are probably safe from them. If that right is violated ("restricted"), then all rights are in danger. Even if you believe "some restrictions are applicable".

No one violates your right to own and to carry weapons for your benefit. They do so in order to do things to you that you would not tolerate if you were able to effectively refuse. It's as true for Trump as it would have been for Harris. Authoritarians do what authoritarians do.

Trump could partially reduce the damage by putting Brandon Hererra in charge of the ATF, to dismantle it and destroy its records. I'm not holding my breath. He seems to like the statist quo.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

"Deny my existence"

Recently I've seen a lot of posts proclaiming that this or that person (or group) "denies my existence". It has never been true in any example given or any situation described.

No one denies anyone's existence. If anyone did deny someone's existence, they would crash into and run over the person they deny exists, since that which doesn't exist would be invisible. You can't see what doesn't exist, and if you do see something that doesn't exist, that's called "hallucinating".

This is a weird new lie told to manipulate.

It's usually said by people who believe they are the opposite sex (which they have the right to do) and who want everyone to play along (which they have no right to force others to do), but I can use a different example to illustrate the absurdity.

I don't deny that government employees exist. I recognize they are not what they claim to be: they are the bad guys, not the good guys. My recognition of reality doesn't mean they don't exist. They obviously do. I'm not denying their existence. I don't fall for their dishonest narrative. They can believe whatever they want to believe; their belief doesn't change reality. Not even if they use threats and aggression to get others to play along.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

World dying from cancer of states

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 20, 2024)

I don't support Israel. I don't support Palestine. I don't support Ukraine, Russia, or any other state. I support individuals who live in places claimed by those states, as long as they aren't violating the life, liberty, or property of others.

States-- political governments-- are a threat to every life on the planet. If life on Earth is wiped out, and it isn’t due to an asteroid or a gamma-ray burst, it will be because of states doing what states do. It is preventable. Few have any interest in preventing it.

Most people want to cheer for a team. They call for unity but crave division and conflict. They like the drama which comes from national and international politics. They believe one side is good and the other is bad. They are wrong. All states are bad. They are grounded in the belief that a right to govern others exists. States survive on the superstition that doing wrong isn’t wrong if it's done by people claiming the imaginary authority of a government.

Some people claim states are a necessary evil. Evil is never necessary; it’s a choice. The wrong choice.

When people invade, attack, destroy, kidnap, or murder because the state tells them to, they are the bad guys. Even if someone else, acting on behalf of an opposing state, did the same to them last year. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. States drive people insane, causing them to do insanely evil things, expecting this will make the world better. It never does; it never will. Politics makes people stupid and encourages them to do evil.

In the moment, in any conflict between individuals acting on behalf of governments, someone is more wrong. It's the one doing the invading, attacking, destroying, kidnapping, and murdering. Sixty seconds from now, it could be the other side which is more wrong.

A one-world government is not the answer. It would only be a bigger, all-encompassing state. It would be just as evil, just as deadly, and even more tyrannical. Someone reading this just had the rug pulled out from under them. They thought opposing the existence of states meant I was supporting global government. They couldn't be more wrong.

Tragically, the rest of us are forced to live in a world with such stupid, pointless evil. A world dying from the cancer of states.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Spend or save? Save or spend?

As so often happens when Bitcoin has a rally, I'm torn between spending it now while it's high, or using it as my "retirement account" and counting on it to just keep going up over the long term.

Of course, it may have dropped precipitously since I wrote the above paragraph, so this may be moot. You never know.

Those of you who have/use Bitcoin, what do you do?

When I first started dabbling in Bitcoin, I generally spent about half of what I had when it had gone up a lot. I thought that if it became worthless tomorrow, I was still ahead. I don't regret doing that, since I couldn't have known the future. Although I occasionally think of what might have been... Now, I'm much more sparing when spending it.

I would be a little sad if it went to zero now and I hadn't taken advantage of it before that happened. I would still be far ahead, though.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Hard fact

You are not safer because the US government maintains an illegal (unconstitutional) standing military.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Types of legislation I oppose

There are three types of legislation; all are bad.

One type prohibits something.

Another encourages something harmful; something few would be inclined to do without the “law” encouraging them to do it.

The third type of legislation mandates something that would be helpful if pursued on its own but ruins it with the threat of death.

I’m opposed to all legislation, no matter which type you’re talking about. 

Even if you can think of another type I missed, I oppose it, too. My opposition is automatic.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

The magical Glass Chicken

When I was a kid we had a glass chicken on a glass nest bowl. For some reason, I thought it was magic.

I thought the chicken could "lay" coins at night. I don't remember what the deal was with that, but long after the coins stopped appearing, I still revered that chicken and felt a sort of magic surrounding it.

Just like statists feel about the state.

They think government just "lays" money. They don't realize that any money you find there had to be put there by someone else. Just like my parents put the coins under the chicken.

Government doesn't produce any money (or anything else) on its own. Everything that seems to come from it was put there by someone else; by a thief who stole someone's property to make it magically appear to come from the state.

I grew out of my belief in the magical glass chicken. Most people have yet to grow out of their belief in the state. They are living in a fantasy.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

Re-limited government

The Constitution was a mistake.

It was a mistake that still could have worked out sort of OK, had the people been able to force the government-- against its wishes and self-interest-- to obey the Constitution to the letter.

They weren't able or willing to do that back in the early 1800s when that had a possibility of working. It's far too late for that now.

At this point, it would be unthinkably radical to make the feral government get back within the limits of what it is allowed to do on even just a few of its worst offenses. The only thing that might happen is to scale back the massive abuses a tiny, useless amount. 

Don't count on even that.

And yet, those who believe they can get government back under control tell those of us who point out that political government must be abolished entirely, that our preference is impossible. They are in denial about their own preference's likelihood, but it's so much easier to point fingers and ignore reality.

I guarantee you there's a better chance of the US feral government disbanding than of anyone getting it back under control and within the limits of the Constitution. I'd love to be proven wrong, but that's simply the reality.

-

Thank you for reading.
I need your support.

If those are "civilized societies", no thank you!

I feel terrible when I see Australians and British people posting about the horrid tyranny they are now being subjected to. 

Then I remember them scolding me for not giving up my guns the way "civilized societies" such as theirs have done. 

Most of my sympathy instantly evaporates.

I want to feel sympathy, but they allowed this to happen. They demanded it in many cases. And many of them are demanding I allow it to happen to me!

No. 

I still feel sympathy for those who are smart enough to know this was a bad idea, and who want to change things but are vastly outgunned now. The ones who say "Never give up your guns!" I wish I could help them. 

About all I can do is to continue pointing out the truth: Disarmed people are slaves. Government is your Ancestral Enemy and doesn't care if you die. It just wants you to be quiet and obedient and keep allowing it to steal your property and violate your rights.

No one ever wants you disarmed for your benefit.

-

Thank you for reading.
May I request your support?

FEMA getting in way of helpers

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 13, 2024)

The situation with Hurricane Helene was terrible, but thanks to government— specifically FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Administration— it ended up being much worse than anyone could have expected. As I write this, Hurricane Milton, which looks potentially even more dangerous, has set its sights on central Florida. Will FEMA bungle or sabotage the response to this one, too?

I accept it as a given that government doesn't help, but at a minimum, it shouldn't get in the way or make things worse.

Even this is too much to ask.

FEMA blocking private rescuers from helping the victims was wrong. I'd call it evil. This decision probably killed people. Yes, I understand the agents of FEMA don't want to let people risk their lives, but this is what people choose to do. People heroically risk their lives for others all the time. No one should be stopping them. Government has no say in the matter. It's also not for them to decide whether the offered help is the correct kind or going to the right places or people. If government can't help, it must stand aside and let the people handle it.

To threaten these awe-inspiring volunteers with arrest— whether they were arrested or not— is the last straw.

Many people who still believe government is legitimate call for it to have a monopoly on violence— for government to be the only entity legally allowed to use force. This is both ridiculous and dangerous. However, the apparent "monopoly of assistance" claimed by FEMA after Hurricane Helene is just as bad. It's unforgivable.

Will the federal government now make and enforce new legislation forbidding private assistance after a disaster? Don’t put it past them. The private response embarrassed them and exposed their incompetence. They don't like this. They may want to make sure they have more tools to use in the next disaster— not tools to help, but tools to hurt. Tools to use against the American people, like the grossly misnamed “PATRIOT ACT”.

I would abolish FEMA for this. Of course, there would be no government agencies left if I had my way. They are unneeded. Everything government does shows this to be more true with each passing day.

No matter how much you detest government, you don't hate it enough. This will change if you keep paying attention... unless you have a blind spot that prevents you from accepting reality.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Post-election hilarity

Soon, I'll probably be spending more time online poking holes in the statist delusions of "conservatives" and laughing at them, but as of now, I'm having so much fun laughing at the hysterical "left".

They are flouncing off to other countries. OK. Have fun.

They are flouncing off of X. (And making a point to call it Twitter to hurt Musk's feelings. I'd be surprised if it bothers him any.)

They are having meltdowns over Trump's cabinet picks. The picks are all horrible statists (who else would be in a position to get appointed to a government post?), but I love watching the meltdowns. And the mischaracterizations ("RFK jr. is an anti-vaxxer!").

They can't accept that it doesn't make someone "far-right" to notice how crazy the "left" has become. They've moved so far to the left (if the Earth were flat, they would have fallen off the western edge years ago) that the middle is now "far-right" to them. And being shoved away to make enemies of them. They have zero self-awareness; they are oblivious. They are bewildered, and they are angry (at what they've done to themselves). But they continue to blame everyone else. It's kinda what statists do.

They are shaving their heads and trying to be ugly so "conservative" men won't be interested in them. Were they interested in them before?

They are also "threatening" to not have sex with any men for 4 years. Again, I ask whether this will affect anyone they intend to hurt.

They are bragging about the number of abortions they have had, and promising to have lots more. Just to punish men.

Then, most pathetically of all, when I point out any of their craziness they think they can get my goat by telling me things about Trump I already know and don't support. Swing, and a miss. Not a Trump supporter, but Harris? Seriously? LOL!

I find it comedic, but I probably have a warped sense of humor.

-

Thank you for reading.
May I request your support?

Highly skeptical- slightly hopeful

I'm skeptical of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Government inefficiency is where liberty survives.

I also know it will have no actual power to do anything beyond making recommendations.

But, if it somehow decides "efficiency" means "less money spent on government", if the recommendations are embraced, if this means government agencies are gutted or eliminated, and if the savings result in less taxation and more liberty, then it will have been a benefit. 

That's a lot of "if". I'm skeptical but I would love to be wrong. There's no way it can disappoint me since I have no expectations.

At least Musk and Ramaswamy are not being paid. That's a start. No one should be paid for working for government.

If invited, I would take an unpaid position as head of the ATF or IRS (working remotely, because I'm not going to the District of Criminals) to make them more "efficient". It would take me an afternoon at most. If not me, then Brandon Herrera would be a good pick to head the ATF. I think he'd do that mostly right.

-

Thank you for reading.
May I request your support?

Would this be Black/Gold pilled?

I'm an anarchist. I don't need government to force me to respect your rights with its "laws". 

I don't need government to define "rights", either. Government invariably gets definitions wrong.

The only thing I need for government to do is to keep its filthy paws off my life. And that's the one thing it is utterly incapable of and unwilling to do.

So... 

I don't want government to be more efficient. I want it to fail and implode because of its own poor design. 

I don't want "better" people in government. I want people to be fundamentally better enough that they know working for government in any capacity is always the wrong thing to do.

The arguments about how rough the transition would be don't move me anymore. Statists have had plenty of chances and warning. They keep choosing this-- many don't realize it's a choice and they never will. It's going to hurt less if it happens today than if the collapse holds off another ten years. The sooner, the better.

-

Thank you for reading.
May I request your support?

Are YOU willing?

A couple of days ago I posted that I'm not in favor of making anything illegal. I'm sure someone out there thought "but what about...?"

Are there things I think should be addressed? Of course. Archation of any sort shouldn't be allowed to stand. But how far are you willing to go in any case that isn't immediate self-defense? And do you think I should be forced to go just as far, or stop where you would stop?

If you aren't willing, personally, to kill someone for doing something you don't like them doing (and ALL "laws" are enforced with death), then why would you be willing to send others to kill someone, on your behalf, for the same offense?

If you are willing to hire a death squad, why should I be robbed to pay someone to kill people for you when I'm not willing? And are you willing to kill me for refusing to help you pay for your death squad?

Here's a personal example: I oppose abortions of convenience. I wouldn't be willing to kill a woman for seeking or going through with an abortion, nor a doctor to stop him from performing an abortion. So I oppose "laws" banning abortion. 

I would be willing to shun someone for doing something I consider wrong, whether it's collecting "taxes", kidnapping drug users, or killing someone's pet squirrel. Statists are willing to kill the victims of all those crimes.

Don't be like the statists.

-

Thank you for reading.
May I request your support?