Government makes killing elephants more profitable

Here's a snippet from December 29, 2006 (just because I saw the topic of ivory bans come up again recently):

The environmental mindset of government was witnessed years ago when some "ivory smugglers" were caught.

In order to "save the elephants", ivory had been tightly controlled.

Some government now had "confiscated" tons of a precious material. How could they have destroyed the market for ivory and put the poachers out of business? (Not that I believe they should, just as a thought experiment) They could have released all that ivory into the market and caused a glut, sending the prices down and making it less profitable to kill elephants.

What did the governments actually do? They burned the ivory.
There, in a nutshell, is how governments think they will save the planet.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Missed Blogiversary

My 19th blogiversary passed on September 3 without my notice. I'm now in my 20th year of writing this? Really? How can that be right?

If anyone had suggested I'd still be writing this blog after 19 years, I would have thought they were crazy.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Statists participate, but add nothing

Statism makes people stupid. Some statists celebrated the recent murders of the "drug cartel" boat crew. I understand their feelings- I usually understand everyone's feelings- but they are wrong.

One of them expressed her deeply held feelings on the matter:

I can't believe I'm watching people defend the Venezuelan Cartel dug [sic] smugglers. They're terrorists ok. Does the left really think they would agree to a stop and search?! I do not care that they are dead. I do not care about their rights. I care about American lives. 

Some people need to experience the loss of a loved one from Fentanyl or a terrorist terrorizing their home in order to understand that these people are NOT DESERVING of human compassion. (And no, I'm not hoping it happens to anybody, but damn the virtue signaling will be the death of many more Americans.) 

Stop defending terrorists. Just STOP IT.

I responded:

No one has a right to prohibit free trade in substances, or murder those who ignore the prohibition. And since rights are individual, not collective, and governments are collectives, governments have no rights (or imaginary “authority”) at all.
https://kentmcmanigal.blogspot.com/p/kentforliberty-drugs.html

Another statist replied:

This is why no one takes libertarians seriously.

My comment to this bit of wisdom:

Thanks for playing.

He deserves a participation trophy in the contest of having principles and independent thoughts.

Someone scolded those opposed to this murder by saying that if they'd lost anyone to "illegal drugs", they would feel differently. Hmmm.
I lost my older daughter almost 10 years ago due to someone else's abuse of substances. It still doesn't excuse prohibition.
Just like the fact that I've lost people close to me to evil losers shooting them, and this in no way justifies anti-gun rules.

Of course, the statists miss the point. As they always do.
I wasn't defending the Venezuelan drug cartel members. I was standing up for liberty and against tyranny. Standing up for natural human rights- rights government and its fans don't care about. Or actively hate.

Liberty matters, even if you don't care.

If I must become a stupid statist to be taken seriously by the stupid statists, I'll pass.

If someone can't stand up for principles, even when they have deep feelings on the matter, they're useless. Well, useless for any good purpose. They're very useful to tyrants and political criminals. 

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

There were signs

What obvious symptoms of mental illness was the evil loser in Minneapolis showing?

• The biggie was that he shot into a church full of people. Children, mostly. Intending to kill as many as possible. By this time, it was too late to do anything about him. Mentally healthy people don't do this.
• He had sexual dysphoria and body dysmorphia.
• He had written a manifesto full of hate.
• The things he had written on his weapons and magazines.
• He was hyper-politicized. 
• He blamed others for his problems.
• His social media posts.

These weren't the causes of his mental illness, but they were symptoms. Any single symptom- other than the shooting itself- was just a symptom. Having one or two symptoms doesn't guarantee someone will choose to be an evil loser, but the more symptoms a person has, the more likely it is to happen.

Mental illness frequently manifests as hyper-politicization. You’ll see it all over the place if you’re paying attention.

Some symptoms were cries for intervention, when it could have made a difference. Before it was too late.

There's a guy who lives about 3 houses from me. He spray-painted a sort of manifesto on the sides of his house a few years ago. I used to talk with him fairly often. When I talked with him, his thoughts were full of irrational beliefs, apparent hallucinations, and magical thinking. One big problem I had with him was that he seemingly developed too much interest in my daughter, and she was 6 or 7 years old at the time. So, yes, I distanced myself and watched him closely. He ended up in jail on drug charges for a while, and has kept to himself more since then- which isn't necessarily a good sign. 

I'm not a trained psychologist, but I can tell you for sure this guy seemed to be mentally ill. You could see it on his face and in his eyes. I consider him a potential danger- as does probably everyone who has met him. Since I haven't spoken to him in several years, I might be wrong. He may be fine now (although I've seen no signs of that, either). Am I going to take the risk? No. He showed enough signs that he seemed like a threat.

There's another guy in town who shows clear signs of mental illness. You can see it in his face. He's a cashier in one of the few local stores. I go there less than I used to before he worked there, especially since his problems became more pronounced. He always seems miserable and quite angry at the world. I do worry he might snap one day, so I limit my exposure, smile, and remain alert. If I knew him better, I'm pretty sure there are more symptoms I'm not aware of. I might be wrong, but it's not worth the risk.

There are others in town who I would consider more quirky. Maybe not quite in touch with reality, but harmless and even happy. The elderly woman who tells me the town council is using witchcraft to cause dirt to pile up in her yard so they can steal her house doesn't seem like she'd hurt anyone over this complaint. She's not a miserable person in spite of being magically targeted by the Satan Worshipers she says run the town. (I can't rationally dispute this accusation.)

Mental illness isn't a guarantee that someone will choose to be an evil loser. Most don't. But evil losers come overwhelmingly from that part of the population, so you need to pay attention and not ignore the signs and symptoms. 

It's not polite or socially acceptable to observe that someone is showing symptoms of mental illness. To say you can see it in their eyes and face. I'm OK with not being polite, if that's the case. And I've never been particularly socially acceptable anyway.

-

Thank you for reading.
Cash App ($dullhawk) please!

A temporary (?) glitch

I'm having a bit of an issue with PayPal at the moment, and am unable to access any of the money in my account. It's due to a glitch that they reluctantly admit is their fault. Mine is not the only account affected, I've found two other people already, but it takes a lot of pressure to make them admit anything is wrong. They keep trying to blame my bank until I tell them I have the receipts. Which I do.

They are "very sorry" this has happened, and "guarantee" it will be fixed ... in a month. Maybe less. Funny how fast they are to act if someone else makes a mistake, but how they drag their feet when the error is theirs.

If they don't fix it within that timeframe, or if they make me more angry than I already am, expect a scathing post about the whole fiasco. What is strange is that I've been unable to find anything online about this problem. I might fix that for them. This blog had over 207K views last month, and I'm sure people would be interested in what is happening. If you want to know what happened now, I have been documenting it all on X.

In the meantime, I need some operating funds. Probably the best way at the moment is Cash App ($dullhawk). Thanks.

PS: I can even return the money after PayPal fixes their mistake, if you'd like. Just label the money as a loan when you send it.

UPDATE: As of evening 9-4-2025 my account has been fixed. Nine days was better than a month or so, but I was concerned.

.

Liberty better than government overreach

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 30, 2025)

I've been told liberty isn't as important as making money or raising a family. If someone doesn't understand how critical liberty is to both of these tasks, and more, they might believe this.

Without liberty, you, your family, the economy, and society will suffer.

If you don't have the liberty to negotiate with a potential employer, you may not get the job you want. When government intrudes into the negotiations, you both lose. This has happened to me. I once saw a business I wanted to work for; they needed an employee, but couldn't afford to pay the government-mandated minimum wage. I was willing to work for less, for the experience, and to show the employer how I could help him. He wouldn't risk doing something which would have benefited us both because of government rules. We were both worse off because government was protecting us from liberty.

Then, when you have a job, government demands a percentage of the money you earn- or else. You've lost more liberty. Your family is poorer. Your employer is poorer because of the cost of complying with all the government rules involved in having an employee. You are cheated out of reaching your full potential because both you and your employer are forced to support this parasite.

It gets worse. Government wants your children held captive in its indoctrination centers. They used to claim this was about education, but few people are still falling for the lie. At best, schools babysit so parents can go out and earn money to be taxed away by government.

Government will threaten to take your children if you don't go along with the latest social trends. No matter how bad a parent may be, government isn't the answer. It sacrifices as many children as it saves, and so many slip through the cracks. You must have the liberty to protect your children from government help and other dangers.

Liberty works better than having government tell you what's best for you. Government wants you to believe it's your savior, but it's a deceiver. A liar. It's a thief in the night... and in the bright light of day. You may be violated by a freelance criminal someday, but it's guaranteed you'll be violated by government every day you live. If you don't believe this, you're living in denial.

Give liberty a chance. It is more important for every aspect of your life than you realize.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

The progression

To fight crime, tyrants ban certain people from having firearms. Most people beg for this, or are OK with it.

When that doesn’t work, they expand the ban to other people, certain types of guns, or guns in specific areas. 

When that doesn’t work, they try to ban all guns. 

When that doesn’t work, they start banning certain knives. 

When that doesn’t work, they ban more knives. 

When that doesn’t work, they ban swords or machetes. 

When that doesn’t work, they ban the next thing on their list. Then the next and the next. 

When that doesn’t work, and it never will, they ban self-defense altogether. 

Bad guys will always find something to use as a weapon, and government will always reach deeper to find something else to ban.

Tyrants- governments- will never be satisfied as long as you have hands and a mind capable of using anything as a weapon. They want you to be a fluffy, harmless pet. Their fluffy, harmless pet, loyal to the death.

It should have been stopped the first time some control freak made up the tiniest anti-weapon rule. Since it wasn’t, it needs to be stopped now, which means it is going to be harder, and it’s going to hurt them much worse. But it must be stopped. With finality and prejudice against it ever being allowed to happen again. Then this attitude needs to spread worldwide.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

The solution to crime isn't more crime

Government is crime. More government means more crime.

When government "fights" crime, it is simply replacing some freelance crime with government crime.

At best, freelance crime perhaps decreases by 10% while government crime increases by 20%. I recognize that it seems most people are OK with this. They've been trained to not see government crime as crime. But it is.

You can have freelance criminals or you can have police criminals; government doesn't offer the option of less crime.

Ending all anti-defense rules would be the only way to get a net decrease in crime. This is why government won't consider this option.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Equal. Identical.

This can't be emphasized enough:

All humans alive have equal and identical rights. Rights can't be "lost"; they can either be respected or violated. Rights never actually conflict.

You and I have the exact same rights; no difference at all. It doesn't matter who you are, where you live, what you've done, or how I feel about it. This includes, but is not limited to, those rights sometimes referred to as "gun rights". Rights are rights, and all rights are essential.

There's no such thing as a "right" to violate others, including the act of governing others.

Archators have the exact same rights I have.

The mentally ill have the exact same rights I have.

A guy living in the gutter in Ghana has the exact same rights I have.

A heroin addict has the exact same rights I have.

People I hate, or who hate me, have the exact same rights I have. My enemy has the exact same rights I have.

The individual trying to kill me has the exact same rights I have- but I hope I prevail against his attempt, and I will do my best to make that happen. Because there is no "right to murder", but there is a right to kill in defense of self or others.

It is my responsibility to respect everyone's rights. I will stand up for everyone's rights.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Throw off the conditioning

Humans evolved to recognize mental illness in others- for self-preservation. 

You know it's true. If you've interacted with a beggar on a corner, you've probably experienced this effect. You can sense it when someone isn't right in the head. No degree in psychology is necessary.

One time, I was staying with a friend, and while she was gone, a guy she knew (but who I didn't) came to the door. I made the mistake of opening it to speak to him, and I knew instantly I was in danger because he was mentally ill. And drunk. (I was glad I was armed, and I was holding my defensive tool out of sight as I coaxed him back out the door.)

That's not the only personal example, and I'm sure you have some of your own.

Most people have been conditioned to be too polite to call it out when they encounter mental illness, and this keeps leading to tragedy. Throw off the conditioning. People will get angry at you. It's a small price to pay.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Criminals who are "tough on crime"?

Anyone who claims to be “tough on crime” while enforcing illegal anti-gun “laws” (which is all of them) is a hypocritical laughingstock.

They're not “tough on crime”, they’re a criminal who is tough on liberty. An enemy of human rights.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Scottish girls have the right to own and carry weapons

You can never trust "the news" to be entirely accurate or complete, so I have to be careful, but...

When I come to the defense of the 14- (or 13-) year-old Scottish girl who chased away molesters with a knife and a hatchet, some people take this to mean I am opposed to migrants.

No, I'm opposed to archators.
I am opposed to governments that protect archators.
I am opposed to governments that import people (human trafficking).
I am opposed to governments that treat defense from archators as a "crime".
I am opposed to governments that regulate tools.
I am opposed to governments that punish defenders.
I am opposed to governments because governments are always archators.

If the story is true as I read it, I am in 100% support of her right to use weapons in defense of herself and others against freelance archators who enjoy the protection of government archators. No matter where those archators were born, or what they believe is the proper way to treat 12-year old girls, like this brave girl's younger sister. Only a criminal government would seek to punish her for her act of defense.

Scottish girls, of any age, have the equal and identical right to own and carry weapons as every other human on the planet, regardless of the worthless opinions of the regional political criminals. And they have the right to use those weapons in defense of life, liberty, and property against all credible threats.

This right doesn't come from America's Second Amendment. It comes from being born human. No government legislation can overrule it. All the Second Amendment does (or tried to do) is make it a crime for the US government to impose any rules concerning weapons. It created no rights, only an obligation to respect a right that has always existed everywhere and always will. Including in 2025, in Scotland.

Any government that behaves like the Scottish (or UK) government behaves in example after example like this (a credible threat) needs to be overthrown immediately, in whatever way is necessary.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Best to live as though rights are concrete

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 23, 2025)

People who want to find a way to justify doing bad things to others will often claim rights don't exist.

"Can you touch a right? Can you smell rights?" No, but this isn't the "gotcha" they want to pretend it is.

Anti-rights people say "Rights are a social construct". Yes, they are. So?

If rights don't exist, then no one can have the right to claim another's body, life, liberty, or property. No one can have the right to rule others. This brings us back full circle, and I'm fine with that.

Rights are a useful social construct- something our brains have made up in order to navigate the world of other people. Just like the constructs of "justice", "duty", "kindness", and hundreds of other things we act as though are concrete so we can live among other humans without it becoming an extinction-level bloodbath of anti-social constructs on a daily basis everywhere we go.

All real rights are "negative rights"; things no one has a right to do to another. It's easier to say "You have a right to..." rather than "No one has a right to...", but the second way is more accurate if you want to nitpick.

"No one has a right to murder you" is a good example of a more accurate way to say "You have the right to live".

I have yet to find an example of a person who argues against the existence of rights who doesn't want to harm others in some way; by taking their life, liberty, or property. They are searching for a loophole.

They will say, "There are no rights; it's all about force or power". Who has the power to do what to whom? Who is able to use force on others to make them live as the stronger one wills them to live? This argument puts them on the same level as the murderer, even if they claim that's not their intention.

If "negative rights" are a social construct, they are still the only thing short of violent self-defense keeping the wolves-in-human-form at bay.

I will behave as though your rights are a concrete thing I can touch, see, feel, taste, and smell. I can't control how you'll treat me, but this doesn't affect my promise to you. I'm not looking for a loophole I can use to excuse violating you.

(The newspaper edited this one heavily when they published it. This is as written, not as published.)

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

The urge to control

One way I see people sabotage themselves is with their drive to control others. They want to control their family members, their friends, society, and criminals/politicians.

You need to control yourself. You don't need to control anyone else.

It's hard. It's frustrating! I struggle with this myself.

Reality is that other people are going to do things you think they shouldn't do. They might even be wrong- but so might you. Even if they are wrong, your responsibility ends at defending yourself (and other innocents) if necessary. You have no responsibility to control those you see doing the wrong thing; either unethical acts or just individually stupid behavior.

By constantly being frustrated because someone isn't letting you control them, you're messing up your own life. I can't control you and make you stop, but I can point out how you're damaging yourself and your peace.

What happens next is up to you.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Make war hurt only the warmongers

War is the health of the State.

It's true.
As long as this is true, States have no incentive to stop being warlike. To stop inciting war. To stop violating life, liberty, and property.

To change this, States have to be the ones to suffer from war. Not farms, peasants, storekeepers, homes, or infrastructure. States- government employees, generals, bureaucrats, politicians, and Deep State creeps. It has to hurt them more than it hurts "the regular people" whom they are willing to sacrifice to make war.

This means the only possible legitimate target in war is the politicians and government "assets". When this becomes the reality, States will stop pushing for war. Because then it will cost them more than they are willing to pay. Not before.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Appeasing the tyrant

You have no obligation to coddle or appease anyone who is scared of liberty. That's strictly their problem.

European governments have imposed censorship "laws"- in addition to their copious victim disarmament rules. The US government has no obligation to negotiate with these anti-liberty bigots. There's no reason to try to find a middle ground that works for both. 

Americans also have no obligation to coddle or appease the US government because it is scared of liberty. And it is scared of liberty.

Anti-liberty is ALWAYS the wrong side.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Statists depend on Straw Men for their arguments

Statists have nothing on their side other than straw men. No matter the topic or issue.

When you point out the rights violations inherent in “immigration [sic] control” they’ll pivot to arguing that you don’t care about government importing foreigners into a small town and overwhelming the population.

When you point out the rights violations inherent in anti-gun rules, they’ll claim you don’t care about murdered children.

Neither of those straw men are on the same page, or even on the same map, but that's where statists have to go because they can't address the actual issues without losing. Fast and hard. Statism is empty and illogical.

They simply can’t face any issue with honesty because that wouldn’t support their story.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Decoupling actions from consequences

Government appears designed (or implemented) to be a consequence short-circuiting device.

Government protects stupidity and evil from facing the natural consequences they have earned.

Government imposes harsh consequences for doing the right thing and for being smart.

Government's existence encourages stupidity and evil by making them safe choices, and makes it dangerous to be smart and ethical.

This doesn't end well if it continues. Which it will as long as government is tolerated.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Bans won't work

If you let rulers (politicians and bureaucrats) ban or "control" firearms, when that doesn't work (and it won't), they'll try to go after knives.

When that doesn't work, and it won't, they'll go after something more obscure.

When even that doesn't work- and it won't- they'll always find something else to ban or "control". Not because "Weapons!" But because they mean to control you!

No one has a right, or the imaginary "authority", to ban or "control" your tools/weapons. Not for any reason. 

If you allow them to do it anyway, it's not going to reduce crime, so they'll have to try something else. Since they don't want to try something that might accidentally work, they'll keep doing the stupid things. The evil things.

Here's a secret: They aren't trying to make you safer; they are trying to make you helpless against them and their plans for you. So, no ban will ever be enough as long as you aren't a helpless slave, relying on them for everything you need, and handing everything you own to them for "the common good". This is what they lust for. Don't give it to them for any reason.

All of these people are evil; some are also idiots. None of them are on your side.

Do not comply.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Political drama – equally bad positions

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

Half of the world thinks America has become a fascist state. Half of the world thinks America has finally turned away from fascism. Almost none of them can define "fascism". And I know all government is fascist at its foundation, no matter how it's set up or who's in charge of it.

Around half of the voters think the 2020 election was rigged; the other half thinks the 2024 election was rigged. I know all elections are rigged so government wins and individual liberty loses. As long as "None of the above; eliminate the office" isn't the default on every ballot, the election is rigged in government's favor.

Half of Americans will get in your face to tell you Donald Trump is the worst thing to ever happen to America, while half of them will scold you that he's going to save it. I think he's reversed course on some really bad policies, instituted other really bad policies, and that government shouldn't be allowed to have policies at all. Or exist.

This is why it's hard for those who believe there's an imaginary right to govern to have a useful conversation with those of us who know no such right can be created.

I don't believe in giving bad people the opportunity to prey on us while hiding behind a veil of legitimacy labeled "government". These are the people most attracted to government power. Human nature means the smartest bad people will choose to commit legalized crime, where they can steal from and molest their fellow residents using the law as their excuse. It's safer for them. It would be silly to deny human nature.

People are invested in their political team. They don't want it pointed out when their team, Left or Right, is on the wrong side, as they are at least half the time. Libertarians can see both the good and the bad. It's often more fun to focus on the bad- it may also be more useful since it's frequently more important to immediately stop doing the wrong thing than to start doing the right thing.

Most political drama is between equally bad positions. It's dangerous to get involved; you risk being pigeon-holed into a side where you don't belong. But it may be unavoidable for principled individuals.

Without someone bringing principles into the conversation, America would go off the rails even worse. Having worthy principles won't win you friends, though.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Solving the crime problem

Solving crime would be simple.

But, one side can't break their cop addiction, and the other side can't shake the anti-gun habit. So crime thrives.

The answer isn’t more legislation or police. Those things increase crime.

First, you’ve got to stop calling mala prohibita acts “crime”. That would take a big bite out of crime all by itself. Every new "law" makes more crimes out of things that weren't crimes before, thus, more crime.

Next, you’ve got to respect the natural human right to defense of life, liberty, and property, and the right to own and carry the proper tools with which to engage in effective defense.

Then you have to stop making exceptions for government when it violates rights- they are criminals, subject to the same consequences as any other criminal. They don't have extra rights.

These are all hard for "lawnodor" drones to accept, as they are hard for "fairness" nuts, but they are essential. Unless you actually like crime and want more of it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Swimming upstream

Conservatives love government, cops, the government's military, and deadly order more than they love liberty.

"Liberals" love government, self-flagellation, the false sense of safety, and self-destructive "fairness" more than they love liberty.

It's an uphill battle; swimming against the current. But liberty is the correct choice anyway. Every time, in every situation.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Another conservative's opinion

The conservative thought he had a gotcha when he said, "Libertarians will look you dead in the eyes and tell you these are law abiding citizens who should be able to own guns".

No. I will look you dead in the eyes and say no one has a right to forbid them (or anyone else) from owning weapons. They are able to own guns, regardless of what your rules say. No "law" will physically prevent it. Believing otherwise is exposing your superstition.

If they are bad guys, as he indicates he believes they are, they won't obey the "laws" he wants to impose on us all, anyway.

As someone else pointed out, any "laws" he would want enforced against them would be turned against him. And you and me. It's always that way. This means that the bad guys will still have their guns, but the stupidly compliant good guys will be disarmed and helpless.

Conservatives are dumb. About as dumb as their Leftist opposition. They are being political and politics makes people stupid.

I will also tell you that if the above-referenced individuals use their weapons to archate, I hope they get Darwinized without mercy.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

"Law & order" or liberty? Choose

Here's how a normal conversation with a typical "pro-gun [sic] law & order" conservative goes...

Me: The cops who are enforcing this anti-gun "law" are criminals.

Him: While I agree, it doesn't stop corrupt [sic] government from arresting and prosecuting people for exercising their rights despite unconstitutional laws.

Me: Criminals do criminal things. That’s what makes them criminals. Criminals will always exist- they’re a fact of life.

Him: You're welcome to carry an AR-15 into DC openly and see where that gets you. Bet it won't end well, though.

Me: Because the local criminal gang (Blue Line Mafia) will molest or kill me. I’m not arguing that they won’t. If you believe I am, you’re hallucinating.
They are enforcing a counterfeit "law".

Him: Whether or not it is counterfeit doesn't matter at this point. The law in DC is "no concealed carry without a permit and no open carry". Do either and get caught, you will be prosecuted. If you want to do something about it, then get off the internet and get into city hall, where you can actually voice your concerns and be heard.

Me: I’m not going to act as though their counterfeit “laws” are real laws (they are crimes), nor do I ever have any reason to set foot in DC.
But v*te harder or beg the criminals to change their ways if you think that’s helping.

Him: Take it up with the lawmakers. I don't get why you think arguing with random people on the internet is gonna change anything.

Me: I agree. Arguing with random people online won’t change anything. To change things, stop asking permission from political criminals and their henchmen to exercise your liberty. Once you act as though your rights are subject to their opinions, they’ve beaten you. Legislators and courts don’t matter at that point. You’ve handed them everything they crave.

Him: Whether you like it or not, you will be jailed if you try to exercise those rights in certain jurisdictions. Lucky for me, I live in a Constitutional carry [sic] state, so I don't have to worry about what laws DC chooses to enforce. But by all means, go ahead and test the fences.

Me: Again, I don’t disagree. Criminals do criminal things. I wouldn’t expect the Blue Line Mafia to act in an ethical way because they are criminals. Criminals kidnap, rob, and murder because it’s their nature, whatever excuse they use.

Then there's the other conservative path...

Me: You shouldn't support criminals (the cops enforcing the anti-weapons "laws").

Him2: I don't (right after arguing that it's right to arrest people for carrying without a permit).

Me: If you’re supporting those enforcers targeting/arresting people for carrying firearms, you do.

Him2: I support law enforcement. Permits are required to carry in DC.

Me: Those permit requirements are illegal. Imposed and enforced by criminals who ignore the law. If you support them, you’re supporting criminals. Period.

Him2: Challenge them in court, then.

Me: You would have supported slavery until the “laws” changed, then. Good to know.

Him2: Injecting race is a Democrat talking point. ("Don't inject even one marijuana or race!")

Me: Seeing that as racial is hilarious.

And these exchanges demonstrate, yet again, why I can't be conservative. I don't like the taste of boot polish enough. Nor can I get my mind to twist that hard.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Do the death-slap

Funny jokester.
Rights aren't transferable between species.
Exercise your right to defend yourself and your blood. With violence, when necessary.
Just the same as you have the right to do if those were people, who are obligated to not violate you.

I'm so glad mosquitoes find me unpalatable. It has made me the envy of companions (who were covered in mosquitoes) on several occasions.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

The Nobel Prize in Internet Reasoning goes to...

I guess it’s part of, or related to, the Dunning-Kruger effect, where the less someone knows about a subject, the more confident they are of their competence, but I've noticed they are also less aware of when they decisively lose an argument. They'll just keep going and strutting and crowing about how great they are, and calling the smarter person insulting names.

Also, it may appear to average observers that they really did “win” because the person who knows what they’re talking about can be stunned into silence, and the audience doesn't understand any of it. I understand the stunned silence. 

I mean, what can you say to someone who is obviously missing the whole point, but is acting like they just won a Nobel Prize in internet reasoning?

I've watched this from the sidelines many times. Rarely getting involved beyond a "like" because there's no point. But it almost makes my head swim sometimes. 

There are a couple of great debaters- dare I call them Master Debaters?- on X that I love watching totally destroy those who (try to) argue against them. It's shocking how often the one who has been destroyed declares themselves the "winner" and seems to honestly believe it. It's kind of funny, but it does prove Unfortunate Truth #1.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

We need to outlaw government slavery

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

Note: This is NOT the headline I would have written for this.

Defenders of government like to pretend government isn't slavery. They also pretend government is necessary and ethical; without it, humans would not survive and would have never advanced beyond the Stone Age.

Supposedly, government ended slavery. Government also legalized and enforced slavery for thousands of years. Now, because of rules which replaced the old rules, individual humans can no longer pretend to own other individual humans, but we are all required to act as though we are owned, collectively, with government as our master.

Our money isn't ours until government scoops its percentages out of the middle. Then it skims off more of our money every time we make a trade- and sometimes, like with property taxes, into perpetuity because someone bought property in the past.

Laying claim to the fruits of another's labor is a defining feature of slavery. Your body isn't your own, and the value its work creates is claimed by someone else. In this case, the "someone" isn't an individual who can be defended against, but a spectral collective which is nowhere, yet everywhere at once.

Government tells you what you mustn't put into your body. It forbids certain medications, and requires you to seek its permission for many more. Your body isn't your own, and government doesn't want you damaging its property.

Government would prefer you not have the most effective modern tools for defense. Not necessarily because it sides with criminals (it does), but because its employees fear you might come to realize that you need to defend your life, liberty, and property from their legalized daily assaults and theft more than from the occasional freelance thug.

Abolitionists of the 19th Century faced the excuse of "Without slaves, who will pick the cotton?" Abolitionists of today are asked, "Without government, who would build the roads?". Or invent new technology, fund science, keep a record of who owns which property, settle disputes, or dozens of other things government currently does, no matter how poorly.

Is government really necessary for these things, or have you been blinded to reality by government and its childhood indoctrination centers called "public schools"? Has this crippled your ability to think of alternatives to having the cotton picked by slaves?

If you can't figure out a way to accomplish great or mundane things without letting someone or something assert ownership over human beings, you shouldn't be making decisions about the future.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Violating norms

I saw a strange criticism from someone who ought to know better. He complained that Trump is "violating political norms". 

Basically, for doing more of what his predecessors were doing. The argument is that this has threatened the traditional "truce" between the factions. 

Have you seen what passes for "political norms"? They need to be violated, torn down, shredded, and burned.

Politics should have never been normalized. It's criminal. It's cheating. 

Using government against your enemies, whatever lipstick you put on it, is evil. Whoever you are and whoever your enemies might be. To expect that this won't be turned against you at the next opportunity is spoiled-toddler-level stuff. Now some of those spoiled political toddlers are crying that it's their dirty diapers in the crosshairs. Before you know it, the roles will reverse again, and the whining will continue.

I don't want a truce between the bad guys. I just want the rest of us to stay alert and avoid the crossfire.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

"Insider trading"

"Insider trading" can never be a real crime. It shouldn't be a crime at all. It isn't for congressvermin, and the same standard should apply to everyone. All humans have equal and identical rights, after all.

I understand the excuses for making it a "crime", but to criminalize it in any way just gives criminals, like congressvermin who made up the rule, an advantage.

Everyone can have extra knowledge and information about a specific stock or industry. It's not wrong to take advantage of that, unless you're a congressvermin who is able to do things with legislation that manipulate (disrupt and damage) the market. Which they do all the time.

If it's to be criminalized at all, it would make more sense to criminalize it for congressvermin only. The exact opposite of the current situation. But since there's never a way to single someone out without hurting the innocent, government just needs to keep its filthy hands off.

Legislation makes things worse every time it is tried. So just don't.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Is it a curse?

To be able to see both sides sometimes feels like a curse.

Even though I can usually see both (or more) sides doesn't mean I think both sides have equal validity. One side is usually more right than the other. Usually. Not always.

Often one side is completely lacking any principles whatsoever. Or they are operating from a broken and worthless morality. The other side may have flawed principles and a sketchy morality, but still be slightly more right than their opposition. Or sometimes one side may be operating from bad information or a misunderstanding that's not completely their fault.

I can normally see their side, though. Especially if I can see why they believe what they believe.

Acknowledging the point of one side doesn't mean I think they are the good guys. It may simply be that the others are a little worse. Either way, I often get accused of agreeing with those I don't agree with. This is why it feels like a curse.

I can live with it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

"The lottery is a tax on people who are..."

If I won the lottery, I wouldn't tell anyone, but there would be signs:

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Looking to the future

If, hundreds of years from now, my frozen corpse is found in a glacier (or floating in interplanetary space), I give my consent for it to be studied and displayed in a museum, along with whatever EDC is on it, for all to see. Even to gawk at and mock, if they want. 

My descendants have no claim on it and can be ignored if they demand that it be destroyed and lost to science out of misplaced notions of "respect" or any superstitious reasons.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

The subtle change

"...Over time, and apparently without the slightest shred of self-awareness, they traded the swastika for nose rings, brightly colored hair, and truly stunning amounts of projection."
   ~ History lesson of the future

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Don't be afraid to exercise your liberty

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

Your liberty- your freedom to do everything you have a right to do- doesn’t hang in the balance, weighed against someone’s fear of what you may do with it. No one has a right to prevent you from using your life, liberty, or property as you wish as long as you don’t violate any other individual’s equal and identical rights. Their fear isn't your problem, unless they choose to make it your problem- which they have no right to do.

Government preys on the fears of those who don't want you living in liberty. Fear is like winning the lottery for government, so it fans the flames of fear at every opportunity. Don't play. Don't be afraid, but if you can't help being afraid in the moment, don't let fear control you.

Never let government use your fear as justification for striking against the liberty of others. This is what happened after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, when government's political criminals took on the job they claimed the terrorists wanted to accomplish. Government hates you for your freedom, so they destroyed much of what was left of it. Given the chance, they'll do it again. Don't give them that chance.

Everyone feels fear. Bravery is being afraid and doing the right thing anyway. If you can't help but be afraid, find your brave inner hero and respect liberty in spite of the fear. Don't allow government to use your fear as an excuse to put "common sense" limits on natural rights. It's never common sense to violate the rights of individuals. You don't gain real security by giving up liberty.

Government will always try to bully you into thinking of your rights as privileges, subject to its political criminals and their legislation. This is a lie. It's a way to make you hesitant in doing all you have a right to do. It's the basis behind every license, permit, and tax levied on a right.

There's no need to be timid in exercising your rights. You're not violating anyone. You're not doing anything wrong. Those trying to scare you out of living your liberty to the fullest are the ones in the wrong. Every time.

Be brave. Be bold. And, if it gets too dangerous to exercise your rights openly, be sneaky. The good people- those doing the right thing- were the ones hiding Jews in the attic and lying to law enforcement about it. So will it always be.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

A hunger for competence

I want to be capable of anything I need to do, and I want to be good at the things I value.

It's hard to admit when I'm not good at something- but if you've been reading this blog for a while, you've seen me admit to many things I'm not good at, or in some cases, apparently incapable of. Just know I hate admitting it.

YouTube- as much as I hate their draconian and hidden policies- has helped me do many things I didn't think I was capable of doing. Saving hundreds of dollars for me and for my parents (I have repaired more things than I can count for them- they just pay for the parts).

I have learned I'm able to do more things than I thought. Often, when I really can't do something, it's a lack of the proper tools or an inability to find the parts. It's not me!

Saturday, while I was grieving a feline friend I wasn't able to fix, my parents' car- which my sister was depending on while she got her car repaired (or not- the dealership service department is famously incompetent and is going to have to try again)-developed a problem that made it unusable.

But, with the help of Grok and YouTube, I was able to diagnose the issue and make a temporary (maybe?) fix that saved the day- or the week. And saved my parents hundreds of dollars, at least for now.

Long ago, I worked with a girl who shocked me one day when she told me she had replaced the fender on her car over the weekend, all by herself. These days, I shock myself by doing things I never imagined I could do.

I would still pay someone else to do most of these things if I had the money, but I'm glad to have options. It's nice to feel a little more competent all the time.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?