Liberty a powerful right you own

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 16, 2025)

Last week, the news of the dire wolf's de-extinction was everywhere. It didn't take long until calmer voices pointed out that these are not really dire wolves, which weren't even wolves, just gray wolves genetically altered to have what someone believes were some dire wolf traits.

The kind of liberty most people offer is similar. It's not real liberty; it's authoritarianism with a few tweaks of what some politicians believe real liberty might be like. They'll claim to support liberty to get votes- until it threatens government power. This isn't liberty at all, but a watered-down version where government allows you to do some things you already have a right to do, as long as you don't bother government too much.

This mutated authoritarianism with a few liberty genes isn't compatible with your birthright as a human being. It's not compatible with the values America was supposedly founded upon. It doesn't look or feel like liberty because it's not liberty. It doesn't get in the way of government's plans for you; things you wouldn't tolerate if you understood liberty.

Practically everyone is familiar with the military's misuse of the word "liberty", where the word is used to mean its opposite: "limited freedom, with permission". This way, they can ensure no one knows what they are supposed to be fighting for. Their loyalty is to the US Federal Government, not to American liberty.

"Freedom" means doing whatever you want, without regard for right or wrong or the rights of others. This may be why most people prefer to use this word. If supporting government is what you want to do, you'll feel "free" while doing so. It's not as scary- or as powerful- as liberty.

"Liberty" means doing anything you have a right to do; nothing else. No one has a right to violate others. Not as part of a majority, not because of a job, and not by hiring a politician to do it for you. The right to violate others can never exist.

Respecting liberty means you sometimes have to stand aside while people do things you don't like, but which violate no one. Few people have a character strong enough for this.

Just like the dire wolf was a distinct animal, and genetically altered gray wolves aren't dire wolves, liberty is a distinct condition. If it relies on politicians and bureaucrats to agree to it, it's not liberty. It's the opposite.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Thanks for the inspiration and aggravation, Scott. Really.

I was truly saddened yesterday morning to hear Scott Adams say that he will be dying soon.

Over the years, well before he started commenting on politics, his blog posts, and then his livestreams, made me think. And, of course there was Dilbert, which was something my first wife and I shared an appreciation for.

I've had many disagreements with his views over the years. I even have a blog post label specifically to address how and why he's wrong in his thinking about guns. As I have said in the past, when he's right, he's right. When he's wrong, it's because he's a government supremacist. That doesn't mean I ever hated him.

He influenced me to be a better version of myself by challenging me (without his knowledge) to put into words why I disagree with him when I do. It's not enough to say about someone, "He's wrong". If you can't explain why he's wrong, do you even know he's wrong?

I've written many blog posts where I specifically referenced something he said on his livestream. Even more where something he said made me start thinking along a specific path that resulted in a blog post. Or two. Like this one.

I believe I have benefited greatly, in various ways, because of his influence. And even the aggravation. I expected to be challenged, angered, and inspired by his opinions for years to come. I feel a little cheated.

I'm almost positive he muted me ages ago. Such is life. I'm sincerely sorry this is happening to him, and I wish him the best in the time he has left. 

UPDATE: He made it longer than he thought he would- dying on January 13, 2026. RIP, Scott.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Don't like it? Don't ban it, just don't buy it

Banning lab-grown meat* isn't a win for liberty or for the market. 

A Libertarian Party county organization (whatever they are called) pointed this out, saying if you don't want to eat it, don't eat it.

Then, some statist control-freaks decided this was a time to pile on and mock the LP and the principle upon which it is built.

In doing so, they exposed themselves for what they are and demonstrated that they aren't as smart as they believe themselves to be.

Winning elections doesn't show that someone is correct.

Avoiding having principles so you can "win" elections doesn't make you a winner.

Having a clever insult label ("Losertarian") you can always fall back on when you have no point doesn't make you clever.

Appealing to socialism and collectivism is a statist's ploy.

Nonsense like this from "conservatives" is why I can never be a conservative. They are just as authoritarian and socialistic as their opposition on the statist Left, just less honest about it.

I don't believe in banning anything. I believe in speaking out, ridiculing, boycotting, shunning... and there are things I support people's right to use self-defensive violence to prevent happening to themselves or another victim. But banning through legislation is a bad way to do anything.

-

*I am completely open to trying lab-grown meat. Even though I don't believe in "animal rights", I don't want animals to suffer unnecessarily. Industrialized killing facilities horrify me. Shooting something in the wild is usually much more humane. Since not all meat can be obtained that way, I'm in favor of looking for other options. If lab-grown meat is safe and tastes good, I would eat it. I wouldn't force my choice on you, though.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

"86"

So much drama over a number!

What does someone mean when they say something should be "86"ed?

It's not confusing. It doesn't hinge on situational content, but on who's using it. It doesn't even have anything to do with the origin of the term.

If someone's background is restaurant-/food-related. they think "86" means to "get rid of". That's how they'll use it. That's what they'll hear or see when anyone else uses it.

If someone's background is crime/government, they think "86" means to "kill". That's how they'll use it. That's what they'll hear or see when anyone else uses it.

It's simple. 

This is why neither side thinks the other side is using it correctly. It gives plausible deniability.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Smarter than the average bear

From time to time, I get emails in response to my newspaper columns. Most of them (these days) are supportive. In the early days, they usually weren't. (All the "haters" probably learned to avoid my columns.)

But, I get a few emails with regard to my columns that I can't classify. I can't decide if they agree with me or not. Sometimes, I'm not sure what they are trying to convey. I don't think the problem's on my end.

This happens much more often with the newspaper columns than with the blog posts, which I assume has something to do with the literacy and general brilliance of the regular readers of my blog.

Yes, that's a compliment. You're smarter than the average human! Or bear.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

The view from Down Under

There's no such thing as a legitimate weapon ban. Nor is there any such thing as a legitimate weapon restriction. This includes licenses, permits, background checks, and keeping records of who owns what. It includes exempting armed government employees from the illegitimate rules they expect us to be slaves to.

It's not only certain Americans who understand this: some Australians do too. And I'm sure there are others in other places. Stupid and/or crooked people are the only ones who ban or restrict weapons, or support those who do. In every country or region, it's the same. Human rights don't change at the "borders".

Attacking people with weapons is unethical; nothing more is needed.
Using weapons in defense is the right thing to do. Punishing defense is evil.
It's never about the weapons; it's about what people do with them. Stupid and/or crooked people will try to make it about the weapons.

Bad guys will always be armed.
Smart good guys who ignore the opinions of political criminals will, too.

"America, Do not give up your guns." Good advice.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Everyone picks a side, whether they intend to or not

If someone is on the side of government, they’re the bad guy.

If the idea of liberty bothers someone more than the idea of authoritarian control, police, and a government military, they're the bad guy.

There is no "Yes, but". There's no excuse. There is no legitimate justification.

Liberty and government don't mix. They are mortal enemies. Everyone picks a side, and anyone who tries to straddle the fence has chosen the government side.

-
Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Politics compromises rational thought

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 9, 2025)

If you know someone's biases, you can fool them into believing almost anything as long as it aligns with those biases. Politicians are good at this because their victims self-select to listen to the politicians who appeal to their biases. People who are emotionally invested in a specific political ideology are particularly susceptible to influence.

They are primed to be manipulated.

If you think it is only a tactic the other side uses, you've fallen for the same scam. Your politics have made it impossible to think clearly or reason.

Part of this is because politics affects the brain just like a drug. It ruins rational thought; it destroys inhibitions.

If you're already inclined to value safety, nationalism, equity, "law and order", diversity, or any other political ideology, you can be made to embrace atrocities as long as you believe the absurdities you're served.

You might be against theft, but if the political side you identify with calls it a "tax" or a "tariff", you will accept it. You won't see the hypocrisy. You may even be enthusiastic, thinking in this case, it's a good thing.

You probably know kidnapping is an evil act, but if politicians call it "arrest" and say the victim did something to deserve it- like violate a rule which no one has the right to impose, against doing something every human has a natural right to do- then you can feel secure about being the good guy. You've lost your natural inhibitions under the influence of an intoxicant.

See what happens if you go into an airport and start groping crotches without calling yourself "TSA"; claiming it's about "security", and wearing their costume. A sexual assault is still a sexual assault, even if a rule makes it mandatory and places the perpetrators above justice. Only political intoxication could blind someone to the truth.

There's probably no crime- no rights violation- that doesn't have a political twin which is accepted because politicians have made it legal or mandatory. Those who support them will ignore the crime because it aligns with their biases.

Political bias prevents you from thinking clearly and makes you easy to manipulate. It causes you to do things you would otherwise know aren't right. It causes you to tolerate things which are intolerable, as long as you are biased toward those things to begin with. No one is a better person because of their political intoxication.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

It raises questions

I spent Monday working on my parents' lawn sprinkler system. I've probably saved them hundreds of dollars over the years. That thing always has problems (which may indicate I'm not very good at fixing it).

This time, there was a broken sprinkler head, weak pressure in one group of sprinklers, a nice little "spring" bubbling up about 6" from another sprinkler head (which accounted for the low pressure), and one sprinkler head that simply refused to work at all, beyond a slow trickle when it was supposed to be spraying.

I got things replaced, dug up, and fixed, until I had only the stubborn trickling head left.

Before digging that one up, I tried backflushing it. It seemed to work for a second or so, then it suddenly shut off again. So I backflushed it a second time. Same result. I got a wire and tried to "snake" out the clog, but it didn't change the situation. It was time to dig.

I dug it up and checked each piece as I took it apart. Everything was in good shape. Then it was time to remove the riser piece that came off the horizontal line. I screwed it out and everything looked good with the horizontal line. Then I flipped over the riser- in the bottom of that pipe, a perfect fit, was a marble. I removed the marble (which was easy to do), reassembled everything, and it worked as it was supposed to.

However, my suspicions have been raised.

My parents had a sprinkler company come work on it a month or so ago when they thought there was a different (major) problem. I think the company fixed the issue without digging or disassembling anything, and they didn't charge much for their work, but... where did the marble come from? 

I helped install this sprinkler system 16 years or so ago. No marbles were used during installation. It hasn't had this issue in all this time. Marbles don't usually pop into existence in sealed systems.

Would an unscrupulous sprinkler repair company place a marble in the line to cause a problem later? One that would be simple to fix, but that they could get a quick service call out of? The marble was small enough to move easily through the horizontal lines, but a perfect fit for shutting off one sprinkler head like a valve. Like it was made or chosen for the purpose. It is slightly smaller than my standard-sized marbles, but only a little. Was it intentional? I don't know, but I have questions.

It's unlikely an elderly couple would have ever discovered the problem themselves- they aren't going to dig it up. If I hadn't done it, what would the company have "found" as the problem when they came back to fix it?

I didn't mention this quasi-suspicion to my parents. I dislike myself for thinking like this, but there are too many questions, and only one obvious answer that comes to mind. 

What do you think? Have you ever heard of this practice or seen a similar experience?

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Legalistic thinking

I believe most people think too legalistically.

I understand why they do it. 

I just don’t think it works well against people who think criminally- politicians, cops, bureaucrats, and other statists. You'd be trying to play a game they invented, by rules they enforce that only bind you. 

I'm sure they're secretly amused by anyone who thinks this is how to beat them at their own game. A game where they are the referees, the rulemakers, the scorekeepers, and "the bank".

This is why agorism is necessary. Make them and their game irrelevant.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

"Give up" your rights to save lives?

I saw an X post that got me to thinking- as is often the case. A guy was saying he'd "give up" his "Second Amendment rights" if it would save lives.

It wouldn't, unless he's evil or criminally irresponsible. I don't know... maybe he is.

And, they aren't "Second Amendment rights"; they are natural human rights that the Second Amendment makes it a crime for government to violate. Not that government ever obeys this law.

I don't believe you can "give up" rights. You can choose to not exercise them, but they are still your rights, unblemished and yours to exercise if you later change your mind. To "give up" something would indicate (to me) that it is gone. Out of reach, forever. You can't get it back without someone else returning it to you. Rights don't work like that.

This is also why I don't believe you can "lose" rights.

Because I'm a toxic individual, I then said something about the right to use heroin. I choose not to exercise this right, but I can't "give up" the right- nor would I want to. Used or not, the right remains. Someday, although I hope it never happens, I might need to use heroin. In that case, I have the right to do so.

The right to use heroine is likely to harm me if I exercise it, so I don't. Nor am I going to criticize anyone else for not exercising that right. But the right is still there. Regardless of the opinions of regional political criminals and their bootlickers. Anyone who thinks rights hinge on how they feel about them is doing it wrong.

The right to own and carry weapons doesn't violate anyone. Including myself. I want you to exercise this right. My respect is diminished for those who won't- unless they are under close government supervision, such that it would result in them being caged or killed. My respect for those in that situation who do so anyway is monumental. Just don't be yapping to me about it if it's not safe to do so.

You and I have the responsibility to not violate innocent people with our weapons, but that's a separate issue. One usually ignored by anti-gun bigots looking to make (what they imagine is) a point.

If you choose, for whatever reason, to not exercise your rights, that's your prerogative. You aren't giving up your rights, though. You don't have the right to make this choice for others, and trying to do so anyway makes you the bad guy. Every time. Spreading the lie that this choice would save lives makes that guy a despicable excuse for a man.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Making life harder than it has to be

So many people make things so much harder than they have to be by making them political.

I'm sure you've seen the old meme, "Life is hard. It's harder if you're stupid". 

Well, politics makes people stupid (and causes them to embrace evil), so it could be said, "Life is hard. It's harder if you're political."

Same true message. Regardless of who said the original quote.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

A cobweb is better than a cord

Centralization is always a bad idea. Even if it "works".

Centralized power grids make everyone vulnerable. If everyone creates or captures their own energy, and I lose mine, my neighbor probably won't. If I have power and my neighbor doesn't, I'm available to help them out. When the whole region blacks out, you'd better have alternatives because no one near you who is dependent on the grid is going to be better off.

Centralized bureaucracies and governments become tyranny. Controlling life through force and ignorance. It's better if everyone can take care of their own stuff.

Centralized defense- police and military- become tools of the tyrants. They defend those who are the problem rather than "the public" they are supposedly responsible for defending. Everyone is better off if they take responsibility for their own defense, and then help others who are helpless or worthless when they can.

If there's only one food distributor, starvation is likely.

If there's only one "approved" source for anything, you're vulnerable to shortages or manipulation.

The more paths to get to where you need to go, the better off you'll be. The inclinations of those who believe in governing is to cut off all paths other than the one they control.  Then, when you need it the most, they can cut that cord, too.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Loose retinas are a pain. Literally.

I had my retina appointment yesterday.

I did have a small tear and an area that was in the process of detaching (the scan looked to me like it was already detached). He fixed it with a laser in the office. That was more painful than it sounds, and today my eye still hurts- although I think it's mainly the muscles around my eye that are hurting now.

Blindness averted yet again. I have a follow-up appointment next month.

He indicated that my insurance will "cover" this, or at least approve it- although I probably won't really know for a while. I'm not sure what the difference is, or if he's just being hopeful on my behalf.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

"Tough on crime" criminals

You can’t be "tough on crime" and also pro-government (pro-police, pro-military, etc.) because government is the biggest criminal the world has ever seen.

Yet, so many government supremacists love to position themselves as "tough on crime". It would be funny if it didn't have such disastrous consequences/

The way they get away with this deception and diversion is by misdefining crime as something government forbids, rather than as an act which violates someone's rights. It's dishonest, yet many people fall for it completely.

Owning a machine gun without government permission isn't a real crime. Enforcing a counterfeit "law" against the person who owns a machine gun without government permission is a crime. But it's a crime government loves to commit, with the approval of these lying "tough on crime" types.

You could find myriad examples. If there's not a specific, individual victim, it's not a crime. To treat it as though it is a crime is criminal. "Tough on crime" people need to suck on that for a while.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Liberty: Mortal enemy of government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 2, 2025)

It isn't "political" to keep government-- its employees, agencies, and rules-- out of our lives. Politics imposes those things on others. Liberty isn't political, but violating liberty is.

If you want to be governed, I'll respect your right to act like you have no rights. If you want someone else to be governed, you're on the side of slavery and tyranny. You're doing something no one has a right to do, which is a better definition of crime than "breaking laws".

"Consent of the governed" is a lie. You can consent for government to violate your rights; you can't consent for others to have their rights violated.

If you look at the news on any typical day, how much of it concerns government violating some segment of the population? I'd guess at least eighty percent. Only a natural disaster or major accident can change the focus for a while. Yet, most people consider this normal and look askance at those trying to keep their life, liberty, or property out of the hands of political criminals. This is upside down.

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of political criminals and against the Constitution's Second Amendment in yet another gun case. The Bill of Rights doesn't list what you are allowed to do; it lists some of the things placed out of reach of any legislation or politician's opinions. Any interpretation which gets this wrong is illegitimate, no matter where it comes from.

Owning and carrying weapons isn't political-- trying to allow government to illegally put limits and conditions on a natural human right is entirely political. When the Supreme Court rules in defense of government power and against the people and their right to not be burdened with government, it is wrong. Every time.

All government is against you and your rights; it is never on your side. Especially if being on your side would take away some illegitimate power government currently enjoys. It doesn't matter which party is in power or what encouraging words the politicians whisper in your ear. Government is your enemy because government fears your liberty and always seeks to place limits on it.

Liberty has only one limit. Liberty is the right to do everything that doesn't violate any other person's life, liberty, or property-- their equal and identical rights. This leaves no room for government interpretation or exception. Liberty and government are mortal enemies. If you value liberty, government considers you its enemy.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Leftist "intellectuals"

It’s interesting that Leftist “intellectuals” notice that reality has a “liberal bias” but imagine that Leftism is in any way “liberal”. 

It shows that the Leftist "intellectuals" aren’t as smart as they believe they are. 

They are, however, very confident in their superiority and very committed to remaining wrong. They can see so clearly where "conservatives" go astray, but are completely blind to their own cognitive errors and biases.

"Liberal" is on the side of liberty; it is generous and respects the rights of all. This is as far from modern Leftism as it is from modern "conservatism", both of which are entirely authoritarian. It's a shame that the Leftists have co-opted the word "liberal" and made it mean the opposite of what its root, historical meaning was.

It takes a view from a higher dimension to see it clearly.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

People and their flags

People seem to love flags. I have a fondness for a certain one, myself.

But I don't fly it alongside other flags that negate its message.

Whenever I see a Gadsden flag flying beside Holy Pole Quilt or a disgusting Blue Line Mafia flag, I can't help but shake my head.

Or Holy Pole Quilt and a Christian flag together.

A few miles out of town, there's a house that flies Holy Pole Quilt, a Texas flag, and a "Confederate" flag. All together, every day. It's weird! That's like flying an Israeli flag and a Nazi or Palestinian flag together, or a Ukrainian flag with a Russian flag. Make up your mind what you're supporting here!

I guess the message a flag sends to the world gets lost on some people.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Children's fairy tales

Someone posted this- and with the way the world is, I'm not sure if they were being serious or sarcastic:

"Believe it or not there used to be a time when the government worked for the people, and helped the people with their needs and they ran programs to keep society functional."

I said, "I don't believe that fairy tale. That's what statists told their children, but it was never true."

What about you? Do you believe that? Am I wrong? Or, is it indeed a fairy tale told to gullible children to disarm their critical thinking and observational skills?

Update: Unfortunately the guy was serious. He is sure an ethical system of government is possible.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

DOGE failed

DOGE promised... and failed to deliver.

I was skeptical to begin with, because efficient government is the last thing I want- I want government crippled and abolished. Piece by piece or all at once. I'm not picky.

DOGE wanted to use a chainsaw instead of a scalpel to cut away waste and fraud- but it would take a woodchipper.

But, whatever the goal of DOGE, it failed.
It didn't stop waste and abuse- judges who depend on fraud and abuse saw to that.
It didn't save money- congressvermin who saw any potential "savings" as money to spend on their own pet projects saw to that.

Government isn't something that can be fixed. It is something that's going to have to be eliminated for human liberty to survive and thrive. No constitution can limit it. No election can save the population from it.

I wish that weren't the case, but it's delusional to believe otherwise.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Not again!

Wednesday, my optometrist gave me the news that I may have to another eye surgery. This doesn't make me happy at all, especially since I can see so well now. That wasn't how I wanted the check-up to go.

He discovered a place in my right eye that may indicate my retina in that eye is now trying to detach. It isn't yet, and he can't see any tears or holes, but something doesn't look right. It's obvious in the scan. He says it may be nothing, but it wasn't there the last time he saw me and he thinks it needs to be looked at by a specialist. He says, "It may be a wild goose chase, but..."

So, next Wednesday I go to the retina specialist again. This is the guy who doesn't take my insurance, so we'll see how that goes, or if he'll even agree to see me.

I actually have one medical bill that is only 3 payments from being paid off, so it makes sense that I'll accrue some more before that happens.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

No excuse for Tesla vehicle vandalism

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 26, 2025)

To intentionally damage or destroy someone's personal property is wrong. To vandalize it because you don't like the company that makes the item is both wrong and stupid. There's no excuse; it makes you the bad guy.

If you mess with someone's personal property, I have no sympathy when the consequences come home to roost. Even if you believe those consequences are out of proportion. Respect for private property is non-negotiable. Thieves and vandals of personal property get no support from me.

If you'd destroy or scratch Tesla vehicles because your media programming and other bad people online told you to hate Elon Musk, why aren't you doing the same to Ford vehicles? I can only assume it's because you never learned about Henry Ford and his expressed opinions.

In the past, no one was falsely associated with German National Socialists by dishonest media sources simply because they waved awkwardly at a crowd. You can find pictures and videos of anyone jabbing an arm into the air, then interpret this according to your biases. Henry Ford actually supported, and influenced, their ideas. Your favorite national media figures won't tell you this because it wouldn't manipulate you into committing crimes.

Destroying Ford vehicles because Henry Ford was a bad individual would be stupid; just as stupid as destroying Teslas. Someone doing something bad in the past is no excuse for others to do bad things now. Including the attacks on Tesla vehicles and their owners. Don't touch people's cars and trucks.

It has become clear to neutral parties that the political Left is what they accuse the political Right of being. It was a lie and projection on their part all along.

If you don't like what a company, or the owner of a company, is doing, must you sit quietly and take it? No!

Call them out for doing wrong-- I do. You have the right to boycott based on your feelings. Or, be creative and organize a "buycott" to support a company or industry you appreciate; speak out in support of people and ideas you agree with. But keep your hands to yourself and off of people and their property. No matter how angry your programming has made you.

Once you start harming people and private property you've lost. You've admitted your side are the criminals. You have no more credibility and good people aren't going to waste time listening to you anymore. You're done.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Who understands what?

In my experience, nonbelievers understand the arguments made by believers better than believers understand those made by nonbelievers.

It’s why anarchists understand the arguments made by statists better than statists understand the arguments made by anarchists. Anarchists are more familiar with the arguments, pro and con, than the statists are.

One example: sometimes I sort of believe in the alien explanation for some UFOs. I can at least sympathize with the believers. But when I hear a nonbeliever shooting holes in the arguments in favor of "alien origin", it's clear they are familiar with and understand the arguments the believers make. They just don't buy them. 

But I don't get the same sense from the believers when they try to address the arguments made by the nonbelievers. It often doesn't seem like they understand the nonbelievers' arguments very well, and certainly not as well as their arguments are understood by the other side. Often, it seems like they aren't even familiar with the arguments made by the nonbelievers. 

And this is definitely what I see happening when statists- those who "believe in" governing others- try to address the arguments made by anarchists- those who don't believe in such behavior as an ethical thing. The statists don't even seem to know what they are talking about, but they certainly have a lot of confidence.

Be familiar with, and try to understand, the arguments made by those who disagree with you. Then you won't be relying on straw men or grasping at ad hominem attacks when you get frustrated by their stubbornness. You may not even get as frustrated.

 -
Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

"See how it turns out"

You don’t need to wait to see how something turns out to know whether doing it is ethical or wrong.

You don't need to wait to see what effect tariffs have. Imposing them is unethical because they are a tax, and taxation is theft.

You don't need to wait to see if the next anti-gun rule reduces murder or suicide, because disarming people is wrong.

You don't need to wait to see if banning food dyes- or mandating vaccinations- improves "public health", because such edicts remove personal options concerning personal health decisions. This indicates you are someone else's property- a slave. Slavery is unethical.

You don't need to wait to see how ending drug prohibition would turn out. No one has the right to control what someone else consumes; doing so anyway "for their own good" is wrong. As is criminalizing defending yourself and your property from those under the influence of drugs.

When doing something you have no right to do, the only reason to say you need to "wait to see how it turns out" is because you are addicted to controlling things that are not yours to control. You are rejecting ethics in favor of pragmatism.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

A One-Act Tragedy

A cop initiates an encounter with an armed individual who wasn't violating or threatening to violate anyone.

Cop: "I'll need you to hand over your gun for both our safety."

Innocent person: "I'll need you to do the same, for both our safety, since cops are statistically much more likely to kill an innocent person than I am. We are both safest if we each keep our own weapon."

The cop then shoots and murders the innocent person for non-compliance, thus proving the victim's point. He's right, but dead. 

Copsuckers: "He should have just obeyed! You have to obey, even if the officer is wrong! If the officer is wrong, stay alive and work it out in court later. He was just doing his job and the criminal made him fear for his safety!"

Liberty continues to die a little more each day.

    The End.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Liberty matters

Liberty is important. It's critical. It's essential. It's non-negotiable.

It’s important enough to go through the pain of facing reality and rejecting things that stand in its way. Things such as your biases, government, laws, "authority", and even loyalty (when it’s misplaced).

Does liberty matter this much to you? It does to me, which is why I've questioned and examined each and every one of those items on that list at one time or another. I expect to keep questioning and examining these things- and more- in the coming years. Regardless of how things turn out.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

A "jobs program" for losers

Legislation- "the law"- is welfare (a "jobs program") for losers who have no actual skills other than being a bully. 

It provides them with the opportunity to wear a badge and bully people in exchange for a paycheck funded by theft. They are using their victims' own stolen money against them. And they are allowed to murder anyone who resists their bullying.

Good people don't do this, nor do they excuse it.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

The system is anti-liberty

Your liberty depends too much on the whims of the current rulers. 

Even if one ruler respects liberty, the system is designed to destroy it. Because the next ruler probably won't- few, if any, have ever understood or respected liberty. It's not in their interest to do so.

But, if one did- You might have liberty until the next ruler comes into power, and then you could lose it all. Then the next ruler after that might be better again. Or worse. It’s a terrible system.

If rulers were scared to violate liberty- and I mean scared to death to violate liberty in the smallest way- then, perhaps, tolerating rulers might not be the worst thing. But the system isn't designed to protect liberty, it is designed to protect those who violate it. Again, it's a bad system. One that's incompatible with human flourishing and liberty.

Those who support such a system don't understand or support liberty. That's why they tolerate government. They want everything to be subject to government permission. They can't even think outside that box.

If you tell them that you don't like something, they automatically think you are saying it should be illegal and people should be punished for doing it. Even if you clearly say that's not what you're saying, it's as if they can't see those words. They hallucinate that you are advocating that liberty be violated. They literally can't think outside the statist box. And these are the people who are empowered to v*te to violate your liberty.

It's fascinating to watch happen in real time. It's frustrating to try to communicate with such people. Because you can't. They are immune.

These are the type of people who put their support behind a broken system and demand everyone play along. Liberty doesn't register with them. They just want their anti-liberty side to "win" for now. They are willing to hurt themselves to further that goal.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Principles more important than politics

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 19, 2025)

If you put your faith in any politician, sooner or later, you will be betrayed. Whether you admit you've been betrayed depends on how fervent your faith in this politician is.

The same goes for loyalty to a political party.

I remember the political party my parents belonged to when I first became aware of such things. I also remember when they changed parties because the party they had always belonged to had turned into something they could no longer support. They stuck to their principles. I've noticed most people change to follow the party rather than let it go when this happens.

Then there are those of us who don't belong to any political party because none are principled enough for us. Or they have the wrong principles entirely.

It's more important to stand for good principles than to be loyal to a party or to have faith in a politician.

I value the principle of liberty over all else. I am able to agree with any politician or party when they support, respect, and defend liberty and to oppose them in the same breath when they violate liberty. It's up to them to stay with me; not up to me to follow them when they charge down the wrong path.

It's important to be able to define your principles and to be able to explain and defend your definitions to others, since people will define things differently. Politicians and political parties blow with the wind; principles don't change-- you either stick to them or abandon them.

Politicians lack principles. They promise things (both good and bad) and then break those promises. They'll blame their opponents while appointing people-- people who have no intention of carrying out those promises-- to the positions responsible for keeping the promises. It seems many people are surprised when this happens, as it inevitably will. Or they'll be fooled into not seeing what's happening right in front of their eyes just so they can keep the faith.

If you aren't anchored in principles, you'll be easier to fool. You'll accept pragmatic compromises, even though any evil can be justified with pragmatism. Those who want you to compromise will get angry at you. They'll call you names and threaten you. Let them. As long as your principles are rooted in ethics and worthwhile morals, you are the one who is right. The flaw is with them.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

It's a net negative

Taxes paid are not added to society.
That money is taken from society and given to society’s primary enemy. Taxes fund government.

"Paying taxes" isn't helping.

It can't be entirely avoided, so I don't blame the victims. I only blame those who are proud of being "taxpayers", and those who want others to also pay, or pay more.

The only right, ethical level of taxation is zero. If you can't fund the projects you want under that condition, then your projects are harmful to society and to the individuals who comprise it.

-
Thank you for reading.

Show your support.