I just buried a cat and I'm not in the mood for anything.
RIP Ghost. You were a good boy and I loved you. Thank you for choosing me.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
RIP Ghost. You were a good boy and I loved you. Thank you for choosing me.
Very few who scream and threaten "law and order" care about Natural Law one whit; they want their counterfeit "law" imposed at the barrel of a gun. They demand a police state so they can have their precious "law and order"! No matter who it kills.
Dead people are quite orderly. "Law and order" fetishists are fine with that if that's what it takes to get the temporary and imaginary safety they seek. This is typical of government supremacists.
Their modern rallying cry is the opposite of Patrick Henry's. They scream, "Screw liberty, Give me legislation and order!"
They are no different than any other archator, including the protesters who violate the life, liberty, or private property during their protests.
I'm sure some people are thrilled about it. I'm not.
I wouldn't really be able to care too much if they were targeting archators; those who violate life, liberty, or property. Government agents are all, by definition, archators, too. In that case, it smells like intergang warfare to me. Not my circus; not my monkeys.
Ignoring government opinions about where you are "allowed" to live isn't archation. Unless you subscribe to the communistic notion that the collective "owns" the "country", rather than the ethical position of "property lines, not government borders".
I'm not brave or foolish enough to go in guns ablazin' to stop the abductions. I'm not proud of that.
And it continues today.
All other holocausts are merely chapters in this one.
We've had the means to end it.
If you aren’t 100% enthusiastic about letting government track your every movement, spy on all your communication, control every dollar you spend, turn rights into privileges, etc., they consider YOU the terrorist.
You are the target of these programs and this legislation or policy. If it happens to catch a real terrorist somewhere along the way, that's just the cherry on top that they'll point to when claiming success. And most of those terrorists are probably their guys in one way or another.
Government considers you the enemy, and it will show you by what it does if you're paying attention.
Imagine being gullible enough to believe government protects you and is essential for your well-being. Or to conflate government with society.
Perhaps I should take this as a sign I ought to pretend there are good cops. But that would be a lie. Why would I participate in a lie? Especially one as dangerous as that one?
It's painful for them to be exposed to the truth, but sometimes pain is the only way people will take notice. Don't you think family members were desperate to believe their loved ones in the SS, doing Hitler's work, were good guys? Of course!
Except they weren't good, even if they were nice 99.99% of the time. Nice isn't the same as good.
Most rapists are probably nice to nearly everyone they encounter. Otherwise, they'd rarely survive long enough to violate their next victim.
Same with serial killers, who are often very nice and charming- until they aren't.
Cops are no different, unless they are worse.
Even if you have a cop who has never once helped enforce a counterfeit "law"- an illegitimate rule which violates life, liberty, or property- this cop has allowed others (who are in the same gang) to do so with his/her knowledge. This cop has not stood up and stopped other cops from committing these violations, even though they are equally armed and could have done something. This cop is not good.
Support for cops is a line in the sand. I'm not going to throw rocks at you- or cut you out of my life- if you're standing on the other side of the line, but I'm also not going to play along. If this makes people walk away from me, so be it. I'm not going to lie so they'll feel better.
There is no such thing as a good cop.
Anti-gun rules inevitably result in more deaths, injuries, and destruction. But this failure is used as an excuse for more anti-gun rules. So, from the perspective of the anti-gun bigots, is this a failure or a success?
Letting others govern you is supposed to keep you safe and prosperous, and make it so you don't have to worry about how to keep things running. But it always results in less liberty and self-determination. And when things inevitably get worse, this is taken as a sign that the people aren’t yet governed hard enough.
People are scared of crime, so they support police. Cops, being criminals, get away with too much because they can’t be held accountable. So those who want them to be held accountable are said to be the problem. And cop behavior gets worse, and they still aren’t held accountable. Then dumb people say more cops are needed, and we need to respect them so they can do their "job".
Or, you can see through all these statist lies and pursue liberty.
I've even seen a lot of otherwise "libertarian" folk get confused about this one. Even those I admire.
I get it. "More criminals" is a bad thing.
But, statists can't see how their "border rules" select for people who are willing to break counterfeit "laws", and are then more likely to break real Laws because they don't understand the difference.
Just like prohibition selects for violent criminals to enter the freelance drug market.
Both "border controls" and prohibition are filters; selecting for rule breakers who don't understand the difference between rules that are valid ("don't violate life, liberty, or property") and rules that are illegitimate ("government says don't do this thing you have a natural human right to do").
It can't be otherwise.
If the State would stop violating your right to defend life, liberty, and property from ALL violators, the issue would go away. Maybe this is why they don't stop. They are using migrants, your fear, and your reasonable and rightful response to being violated as excuses to crack down harder on liberty. Liberty is what government hates and fears the most.
It's been going on for a long time. This isn't a Trump thing, although Trump has used it to his advantage and to get support from borderists.
Back in 2010, I was forwarded an email along those same lines. An email that missed the point. It began like this:
BUTTE, MONTANA
Shotgun preteen vs. Home Invaders : Illegal alien Butte,
Montana, November 5 , 2009
Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26,
probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old
Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home... read the rest of the story, along with my commentary.
I am also aware that when the government archators get away with doing things like this, it emboldens them to do more of it. And when a large percentage of the population is asking them to do it, even though it's wrong, they'll do more of it with enthusiasm.
The ethically correct position is "property lines, not government borders". But it's a hard sell to people who have been trained to be unable to think about things clearly; without assuming government has "rights" or "authority".
As do most statists- of whom the same question could be asked.
Either way, truth is their enemy. It offends them.
They don't like it when people are able to think.
They can try to ban thinking.
It won't work.
So they'll fall back on censorship and "cancelling" those who continue to tell the truth; those who think outside the lines they are only allowed to "think" inside.
The imbeciles will continue to be offended. Not because of what the intelligent people say, exactly, but because the imbeciles won't understand it, but will "know" it's about them and their delusions and lies.
It's a them problem.
Just in (some) different ways.
Both are authoritarian.
Both love prohibitions.
Both are socialists.
Both fear liberty.
It's only in the minor details where they disagree.
Use your brain. Don't be a statist.
This time, for no reason I'm aware of, a theme song from a television show that was on the air when I was 3 years old, and that disappeared to never show up in reruns (as far as I know), suddenly started running through my mind. The song brought with it a dim memory of the show.
I hadn't thought of the show since it aired. No one ever mentioned it to me again. But the theme song was in my head and made itself known, and when I looked it up on this electronic wonder, it was just as I remembered.
Brains are kind of amazing!
Again, this gives me hope that things you and I have said to other people, including to our kids when they were young enough to listen, will stay with them far into the future. Maybe pop back into their minds when they least expect it, but when it's needed.
If you value liberty and have talked about it to anyone, there's a good chance it's still embedded somewhere in their neural network. Maybe long after you and I are gone, words we once spoke will still be doing some work behind the scenes. (That's not counting things we've written down for posterity.) I think liberty gets in your head and makes a home there, waiting to be called up to work.
Stranger things have happened.
Liberty is a natural human need, even if most people have been brainwashed to think it's not. Keep infecting those around you with the liberty virus. Your great-grandchildren will need it.
If society isn't doomed; if the problems will work themselves out, then maybe you and I can be a small part of that. Help spread ideas that will help others solve the problems. Keep poking holes in statism's lies. Keep pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy. Keep finding and creating alternatives.
Keep yourself on course. Do right. Avoid doing things that make things worse. Maybe you'll inspire others to do the same, and if society isn't doomed after all, perhaps your legacy will be to be a part of what keeps it from collapsing.
I know it isn't always possible, but it would always be better for you. And, by extension, better for society.
Don't rely on the State.
Don't be dependent on handouts from the State. This doesn't mean you should feel guilty about using government's roads- you are forced to fund them, and you have a right to use what you pay for, even if you know there are better ways.
Don't count on government coming to save you when trouble strikes. It's as likely to send its incompetent, drug-addled employees to shoot you as to save you. You're your own security force. Your own emergency response.
Don't work for the State (unless you can monkeywrench it from the inside without joining The Dark Side and fooling yourself about what you're doing).
Don't get tangled up in worrying about the problems government faces. Especially when it tries to fool you into believing its problems are your problems. Decoupling from the State will make you safer.
Don't base your opinions on the opinions of political criminals. Don't ask whether every little thing you want to do is "legal". Assume liberty.
In every way you can, make sure your fate isn't tied to the fate of the State. It will then be easier to ignore it to death.
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.