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?