The answer the NRA should give

A blog I often enjoy and agree with (although I used to enjoy more and agree more often) has increasingly embraced a disturbing anti-liberty agenda on one small issue. But, with regard to liberty, is any issue truly small?

He asks a question of the NRA, which he says they refuse to answer.

Well, OK, I will answer for them, but he won't like my answer much.

"Can you produce credible data – not opinion, not anecdotes – something that can be independently validated, that 'amnesty' and a 'pathway to citizenship' for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and legally, with CURRENT culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners?

"Can you show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts?

"And can you demonstrate how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts and reverse gains made to date?"

No. But it's a false choice: enforce government borders or enforce anti-gun "laws". Both are unethical, immoral, unconstitutional and a violation of natural human rights. It's the same as the false choice between enforcing borders to keep out "illegals" and keeping welfare going. Liberty isn't piecemeal, and you can't keep the bits of government you like ("borders", welfare) and get rid of the parts you don't like (BATFE, gun "laws").

This is also what happens when you allow people to v*te on other people's rights. That's never going to end well, no matter what unethical "laws" you enforce, using the justification that you are trying to prevent something else.

Again, when you allow government to exist, and to violate people's natural rights, you are going to get results such as this. You can whine about the reasons and results all day long, but until you address the root cause, you'll get nowhere.

Government is a violation of human rights- the right of association, property rights, the right to own and to carry any weapon you wish everywhere you go without ever getting government permission, the right to make an agreement with anyone to work for them, rent from them, buy from them, or visit them. Once you start letting government bullies ration and violate these rights, you can't be shocked when they don't stop there.

Rights are not up for a v*te. The rights of a vast majority don't trump the rights of the one. Not ever, under any circumstances. Bad guys will always be trying to violate you- right now the worst of them just happen to call themselves "government", but they are no more legitimate than any other rapist or mugger. To pretend otherwise just gives them power.

The problem is the "system" you support and legitimize, not the fine details of how it violates people or their property. Play stupid games; win stupid prizes.

Also, as I have pointed out in the past, when you make people see you as someone who treats them as an enemy, how can you be surprised when they join the other side? You are cutting your own throat, and whining about the guy who made the razor you stole from someone else.

I am not a fan of the Constitution, for reasons which I feel should be quite obvious. But, many of those who advocate gun rights, while also advocating violating other rights, claim to be. So the weight of this inconsistency is on them. Which makes this next section stick out badly:

"And then can you then justify why NRA -- mandated by its bylaws 'To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States [and] To promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense' -- remains deliberately indifferent to the gravest threat to the right to keep and bear arms facing us?"

Because immigration control is in violation of the Constitution. You can't "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" while supporting something which is unconstitutional. It's bad when presidents do it, and it's bad when the NRA does it. If you are OK with violating it for one reason, why object to violating it for reasons other people have? If "immigration control", in violation of the Constitution, is OK, why is "gun control", also in violation of the Constitution, not OK? The NRA has its problems- I am a very disgruntled Life Member from way back when- but if it were to support violating the Constitution by doing as you ask, why shouldn't others get away with supporting violating the Constitution just as much in other ways- ways that you happen to disagree with?

"Have you incorporated this into your grassroots programs?  Why not?"

No. Because of what was pointed out above. Either they can stay on mission, or they can abandon all semblance of consistency to appease those who want government to ignore constitutionality for their own agenda.

Politics makes people stupid.

I understand how critically important gun rights are. Really. But you can't protect some rights by violating others, nor by supporting any government programs- even government programs that are currently out of favor.

-

Well, this post is sure to make the donations and subscriptions flow in. Ha. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Politicians' emails are "educational"

Somehow I have managed to get on the mailing lists of a few different politicians. I keep marking them as junk, but they keep coming to my inbox. But I don't really mind.

It is a reminder of the nature of politicians.

I see how they harp on the things that they believe will get them v*tes. You can see there are no principles involved- other than the principle that they lust for your v*te.

They say whatever they believe their constituency (or potential v*ters) want to hear.

I don't do that. As you've probably noticed.

I tell you what I believe. What I have come to think after years of consideration. And sometimes it drives people away. That bothers me, but it would bother me more to lie to you just to be popular. I'm not a politician (although it is amusing to me that those who wish to insult me so often use that word against me).

Sometimes I do hesitate to write certain things, about certain subjects, knowing it probably won't be well-received and wouldn't really advance liberty to write it. But I can't think of many things I have just avoided altogether. And I have never taken a position just because I thought you wanted to hear it.

I guess that separates me from the politicians. That, and I don't invade your inbox.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Don't help cops violate others

As I was driving down the road one recent day, I saw a truck which the local road pirates had stopped. I don't know why, or anything about the situation, but I noticed a tow truck moving into position to hook up and take the other truck away.

My suspicion is that it wasn't due to mechanical trouble- usually I see the trucks being worked on by a mechanic in that case. I suspect that for one reason or another, the cops were taking possession of the vehicle due to some "law" being broken.

Maybe that wasn't the case this time- but it often is.

If I were a tow truck driver, I wouldn't help cops.

Sure, if a cop called for me to come tow away a car after an accident or a breakdown, or an abandoned car, I would do that- in an attempt to protect the private property of an individual. I wouldn't tow it to the cops' "impound lot" though.

And if a cop called me to come tow a car that the cops were stealing, just no.

If a driver was discovered to not have a "license", and the cops wouldn't allow them back behind the wheel, I wouldn't help the cops steal the car.

Or, if the driver hailed from a different tax farm, and didn't have his mandatory government permission slips to be in this particular tax farm.

Or, if the cops found drugs or other types of contraband in the car, same thing. I would not help the road pirates steal.

My mission would be to help people and protect property, not to help cops victimize people.

I realize cops would quickly stop calling me for anything, and I could live with that. Nothing good can come from associating with the police.

And, even though I am not a tow truck operator, I can still choose to never help cops violate anyone. It is part of my pledge to my community.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Absurd to say Gadsden flag racist

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 19, 2016)

Gadsden flag only offends the offender‏ (my chosen headline)

Recently the Gadsden flag-- the yellow "Don't tread on me" flag which has been around since before the American Revolution-- was denounced as "racist" by the "social justice" crowd and other government extremists. How absurd.

This is the same silly controversy which surrounded the "Confederate flag" last year.

Sure, most people are probably racist to some extent, and that's not right. Some people who are overtly racist display the Gadsden flag. When they do, they are being hypocritical. Some racist people fly the US flag, or any other flag you can point to. It's never the flag's fault.

The Gadsden flag is only a threat to those who violate others. It has nothing to do with where a person was born, the color of his skin, the language he speaks, or his religion. As long as you don't tread on others, the flag isn't about you. It isn't in any way racist, nor does it support the agenda of those who are.

People will look for any reason to categorize each other, and outward appearances are convenient for the purpose. You can feel any way you want about others as long as you don't violate their life, liberty, or property. It's a pretty simple concept: "Don't tread on me", which comes with an unstated promise some want to ignore- "I won't tread on you, either".

Race, if it even exists, doesn't cause anyone to behave any particular way. But cultures can. Some cultures are passed down parent to child, while others are adopted by joining a group.

Some cultures are better than others.

Almost all cultures have good points and bad points; it is up to you as an individual to embrace and encourage the good things about your culture and reject and shame the bad points.

If your culture encourages you to "tread on" others by attacking them or violating their property-- no matter why you do it-- your culture is degraded. Such a culture is inferior.

It doesn't matter if "everyone else is doing it"-- if it violates life, liberty, or property, don't do it. If others in your culture mock you for doing the right thing, they expose themselves as bad guys. They are holding your culture down. They are your enemy, no matter how connected to them you feel.

Don't tread on me; not personally, and not by sending thugs to act on your behalf. I won't tread on you, either. It isn't racist; it's the foundation of libertarianism. It creates the condition called "civilization". Anything else is uncivilized.

-

If you get any value from my writing, consider rewarding me with your financial support commensurate with the value you receive. You can also do that with zero cost to yourself by upvoting my posts on Steemit. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me keep writing without the fear of saying something to get fired over. I really, desperately could use some more help; please don't depend on the same people always helping out. .

Stupidity has consequences

If you ignore the existence of gravity, there will be consequences. You may not be around to learn your lesson.

The same goes for ignoring the Zero Aggression Principle. Everyone is subject to it, whether they "accept" it or not. You archate; there will be consequences. And, you may not survive to learn your lesson.

I know it seems there are a lot of people who not only survive, but thrive while ignoring the ZAP and property rights. And you're right. But there are still consequences. Look how many archators end up being violated in the same way they violated others.

Even if the only consequence is being recognized for what they are by nobodies like me, it is still a consequence, and I know from personal experience that it eats at them when they are aware of it.

Initiating force and violating property is its own special kind of stupidity. You and I can see it. I hope you will point it out to those who don't see it. Maybe eventually, they'll see it, too.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Drifting, shifting blogs

There are blogs I used to follow more closely in the past than I do now. In almost every case my falling away has been due to the author drifting either right or left. Embracing exceptions to Rightful Liberty that they personally like.

More of them have recently shifted right than left, but that may just be an indication of the current political climate- "immigrants" and Islamic mass-murderers and a reaction to Hillary Clinton.

The sad fact is, they are ignoring their most powerful ally. Rightful Liberty, without exceptions, can solve any real problem, and expose any illusory "problem" for what it is. Property rights are especially good at this, if they are truly respected. Self defense can solve most of the rest.

But, they can't claim exceptions and violate their enemies just because they want to. If your enemy has no right to do it, neither do you. If you do it to them, you are a hypocrite when you complain they do it to you.

If you can't be consistent when problems crop up, then you may not have been on the side of Rightful Liberty from the beginning. You may have just been using it for your agenda, ready to toss it aside as soon as it got in the way of what you really wanted.

That doesn't mean I stopped reading those blogs- it just means I pretty much stopped engaging and commenting. They still have useful things to add- you just have to be able to discern the gold among the statist crap. And, really, that's pretty easy.

Does it claim governments have rights or "authority"? Statist crap.
Does it claim that "the people" can delegate "rights" they can't have as individuals to a third party to act on their behalf? Statist crap.
You get the idea.

I'm sure those blogs don't miss my participation, but I do miss feeling like they were on my side.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

"Our government"? Don't be absurd

When people use the words "my government" while referring to some gang of bullies, I may roll my eyes and feel pity for them.

But when they use the words "our government" I have a hard time not getting angry.

I promise you that you and I don't share a government.

I govern myself and I don't govern you. End of story.

That doesn't mean there aren't gangs of bullies trying to govern both of us. We probably even alter our behavior due to their presence- just like we'd walk around a huge steaming pile of dog feces. But unless you feel their governing to be legitimate and go out of your way to obey, they aren't "your government", and they certainly aren't mine.

If you want to be governed by a gang of bullies, that's your business. Just don't include me.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Don't be a "freedomarian"

There's a reason it's "libertarian" and not "freedomarian".

 Yes, freedom sounds great- doing whatever you want, with no limits. Until the guy next to you is doing the same. Then it's not so wonderful. In fact, it's often unsurvivable.

Freedomarians would not be good neighbors.

On the other hand, liberty is self-limiting. You can never have "too much" because as soon as your "freedom" violates someone else, you don't have the liberty to do it.

Libertarians recognize this fact. Thus, libertarian, not freedomarian.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

(Steemit link)

.

Resisting the opportunity to be evil

I have more respect for those who have the opportunity to be evil, yet refuse to give in to it, than I do for those who are naturally good with no trouble.

That probably doesn't sound nice.

I expect good people to stay good- which is why I am so disappointed when they support cops or other acts of evil.

But a good person who has the opportunity to not be good, and who wouldn't really surprise anyone by doing evil, yet stays good anyway is refreshing. And someone I can learn from.

I suppose we all have the capacity for evil, but some people are much less likely to face serious consequences for giving in to it. Due to their family, or social connections, or some other factor. I mean, if you pretty much know you can get away with murder, but you don't murder, that is a good thing in my eyes.

And besides, unless you are a Clinton, you never can be certain you'll get away with it.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.



(Steemit link)

Actual human blog readers are the best

"What a dаta of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious familiarity regarding unexpected feelings."

That lovely bit of prose, my personal favorite, comes courtesy of Chinese spammers. I laugh every time I see it. And I can't make heads or tails out of it.

When they visit my blog- always in league- they can add 947 (an actual number from a recent spurt) or more visits in an hour or so. That artificially boosts my stats, but somehow doesn't really make me very happy. I want the people who visit my blog to be able to read what I write and to gain something valuable from the experience. I have my doubts they do either one. Or, that they are even people.

I suppose in that case it's unreasonable of me to expect them each to donate $500 or so when they drop by. Right? Although it would be nice.

I'll let you in on a secret- it would be unreasonable of me to expect anyone to donate or subscribe.

Unreasonable or not, expected or not, it sure does brighten my day when it happens.

It gives affirmation that I am providing something valuable that people are willing to spend money on. Which is a very uplifting thing for me.

And, yes, it is very important to try to convince people to reject theft and aggression. It's one of the most important things there is. It impacts everything. It is the choice at the center of every act in your life. Will you do it, whatever "it" may be, by mutual consent, or by force? Will you archate or will you do the right thing?

Are you a helpful individual, or a predatory one? Because you are an actual human reader of my blog, I am convinced I know the answer to that question, and that it's a good answer.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.



(Steemit link)

Using law against someone uncivilized

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 12, 2016)

Using laws to meddle is uncivilized (my chosen headline)

I can relate when someone gets upset about laws being used against them. Especially the phony laws which have nothing to do with protecting life, liberty, or property. To me, this is the height of uncivil behavior. 

If someone has a problem with me, and goes behind my back instead of bringing the problem to me first, I can't take them seriously. Involving the law seems, to me, a cowardly act. They skipped right past being an adult and ran to tell mommy. Or Big Brother, as the case may be. It's as if their very first response to a problem is to pull a gun.

People like that aren't people I can respect or deal with.

So, when anyone has a counterfeit "law" used against them, I understand the anger and frustration they feel.

What is beyond my understanding is when the same people who don't want the meddlesome laws used against them turn to the same sort of law as a weapon to use against others.

What are they thinking, if they are thinking at all?

You only deserve the liberty you respect in others. If you run to report anyone for doing things which upset you-- things you may even feel are wrong, though they don't violate you or any third party-- how can you complain when someone turns the tables and does the same to you? When it comes to "an eye for an eye", I want to be selling eye patches.

You don't like someone's sex life? They may not like yours, either. It's not the law's concern.

You don't like what someone smokes, drinks, or otherwise consumes? Maybe they don't like something you do. Perhaps they even believe something you do is wrong and should be punished.

Maybe you suspect someone doesn't have their papers in order, or is breaking some law you support. On average, you commit three felonies every day without intending to, or even realizing it. No one is law-abiding.

To send the law after people is hypocritical, or worse.

It doesn't matter that some politician once had a warped idea, made up a law about it, and has an army of hired guns at his disposal to enforce his opinion under threat of death. If you send the enforcers after someone because they violated one of these "laws", you have broken the truce society depends upon for its very survival. If there is any such thing as a "social contract", you have discarded it.

-

If you get any value from my writing, consider rewarding me with your financial support commensurate with the value you receive. You can also do that with zero cost to yourself by upvoting my posts on Steemit. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me keep writing without the fear of saying something to get fired over. I really, desperately could use some more help; please don't depend on the same people always helping out.

It could be worse- you could be a statist!

I am a much less angry person since I dropped any belief in "authority" of The State (or anyone).

We AVAL (Anarchists/Voluntaryists/Abolitionists/libertarians) are always accused of being what we are because of anger, but the angriest people I see are statists. Maybe that's because nearly everyone I see is a statist.

But, really, statists are just consumed with anger. Sure, they hide it behind euphemisms like "rule of law" and such, but scratch the surface and you'll see the true foundation of their belief.

But, me?

I don't have much desire to punish others, or control them. I don't expect perfection, but I will hold people accountable. Is expecting accountability "anger"? Well, when the bad guys don't want to be held accountable, I suppose it looks like that to them. Also, they really hate it when they force you to defend yourself from them- and they will call you names for that, too. But, again, the anger and hatred is theirs.

That doesn't mean it's all sunshine and roses. It is often painful to see things as they really are, rather than as you wish they were. And it can be lonely, too. With life, it's always something. But, it can always be worse by being a statist.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

(Steemit link)

Dealing with government-lovers and their kin

Part of the reason I acknowledge the fact that there are no good cops, while admitting there are "nice" ones, is because of the cops I have known and those I have talked with. When cops are being truthful, because you are a Nobody who can't touch them, they are really scary.

Another part of the reason is simple logic: you can't enforce "laws" without doing evil. It's just not possible at all.

But, I'm not generally going to make it an issue as long as someone else doesn't make an issue of it first. I really don't go around looking for a soapbox or an excuse to "preach" at statists.

So it is with the National Socialist Pledge to SkyCloth or the National Love Song to Imperial War. They are basically non-issues to me because they aren't important enough for me to waste time stressing over. No, I won't participate in rituals that are wrong, but as long as you don't try to force me to, your participation is irrelevant to my life.

Smoke crack, worship bullies, or perform superstitious rituals-- whatever you want, as long as you don't violate anyone else. But why is it that State addicts can't be like crackheads and just leave people alone? (I suspect it is because superstition is more addictive than any drug, and misery of that type demands company.)

But some people are much more confrontational than me. That's fine with me- it's going to take more than one approach. But, how far removed does someone have to be from any of those vile people, rituals, or behaviors before you don't have a dogmatic need to harp on it? I get it if they are married to a government employee, or the parent of one. But if their cousin works for the State, do you really feel like hitting them over the head with it if they aren't bragging about that fact? I don't. Not usually.

Now, if someone keeps rubbing it in my face, then all bets are off. I'll be painfully truthful about your evil bully loved-one if you don't let the issue drop. And in that case, don't blame me for your hurt feelings.

(Steemit link)

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

Prohibitionists and other nasty diseases

You might suspect I hate prohibition. And you would be right.

Do I want to abuse all manner of drugs without the risk of being "legally" destroyed for doing so? Not exactly. Although, if I ever find myself in the position where a doctor is scared to prescribe me the pain relief I need due to "laws" which could end his career if he gives me what I need, you'd better believe I will want all the drugs I can get, "legally" or otherwise. And if I can get them, I will, with a perfectly clear conscience. Drug use is not wrong, even though drug abuse is often dumb.

However, prohibition isn't just about drugs. It is about some bully telling you what you are allowed (or forbidden) to do with your own life.

Prohibition is one of the most evil acts governments commit. And every act of government is evil at some level, so there is quite a competition for the bottom.

Guns are another popular target for prohibitionist pecksniffs. And again, it is people bullying you "for your own good"... and I hate that kind of person. No matter what they want to prohibit.

Governments- through those vile bullies- also enact prohibition against knives, self expression, information, sex, travel, and anything else they believe they can get away with. They are never right to do so, because prohibition is people control, nothing else. And as such, I despise it in all its forms.

(Steemit link)

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

Did you really come out "OK"?

(Previously posted to Patreon)

If you go through something and claim you came out OK, yet it causes you to support that which you went through being done to others, you may not be OK. You may be brainwashed.

I see this when the issue of "spanking" comes up. Libertarians who spank claim it doesn't violate the ZAP, when it can do nothing but. Whether it is one of those times when you "must" initiate force and then deal with the consequences, is another issue altogether- I won't open that jar of fruit flies right now.

I unwittingly performed a lifetime experiment in spanking. My first crop of kids were spanked. My current kid never has been. I see zero difference in the impact on encouraging good behavior, but a 100% improvement in how I feel about myself as a parent, and as a person. Yes, small sample size and zero objectivity.

I also see the same thing with regard to government schooling. People claim that they went through it and survived- and even got an education- so it must be fine to force everyone else to go through the same thing.

Well, I survived it too. And that is why I believe it needs to be abolished, burned to the ground, and bulldozed out of existence. Because "surviving" something is a sign it is probably not something to encourage more of. If you toss your kid off a cliff and she survives, is that a sign you should make tossing your kids off a cliff mandatory? What if you toss 100 kids and 99 of them survive? What if many of those who survive end up with lifelong disabilities due to the experience?

That people can go through government school and still support it only shows how good it is at brainwashing kids. It is a clear sign of the lifelong disability which results.

When you go through something like that and come out claiming you are OK, and not seeing that you claiming you are OK is evidence that you are not quite OK, I see something that needs to be abolished, not encouraged.

As in so many things, just because it was done to me- and I may have even done it to others, and I would prefer to not think of myself as a bad person- doesn't mean I am unable to see the harm in it, and doesn't mean I think it should be done to everyone.

Even if you survived it, don't inflict it on others "just because".

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

Too many cops committing too many wrongs

If the cops in your town are claiming that your town needs another cop because the current cops are too busy with drug cases to do anything else, it's a sign your town cops are wasting their time doing what they shouldn't be doing. Things they are completely in the wrong for doing.

That is the excuse the local Chief Wiggum has used to inflict another tax junkie on my neighbors and me. And, yes, obviously the corrupt and cowardly city council gave in to his demands. Spineless jerkwads.

Look, I don't want cops at all. Ever. Anywhere. Period. But, if there are to be cops, they certainly should only be acting to protect rights and property. And this isn't it.

The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is only about finding new and creative ways to violate rights and property. That's what bad guys do. If cops do that, by enforcing anti-drug "laws", they ARE the bad guys. Much worse than those they are committing their acts of enforcement against.

I don't need cops, and neither do you.

(Steemit link)

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

Weekly CNJ column

It is in the paper, with the headline "Prohibition dangerous as addiction", but they haven't put it online yet.
And may not.
If they do, I'll link it here and in its own post.
If not, you can read it in a month (unless you have a subscription to the paper, then you can still read it now).

UPDATE: It's up.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

Liberty Lines- Sept. 8, 2016

(Published in the Farwell, TX/Texico, NM State Line Tribune)

Drug abuse is dumb. I understand why people want programs and strategies they believe would lower the risk of someone abusing drugs. However, very often the things they grasp at are counterproductive and actually increase the risk. They are feel-good, knee-jerk reactions based on ideology, not grounded in reality.

Study after study indicates that one of the biggest risk factors involved in drug abuse and addiction is a lack of quality social connections.

One of the primary justifications for the athletic programs in government schools is that it creates camaraderie between the kids; the very type of social connection which would decrease the likelihood of drug abuse becoming a problem. If this is the case, shouldn't you be encouraging at-risk kids to get involved, rather than erecting barriers which will scare them away before they even give it a try? Programs which will end up causing greater isolation?

I understand when people pursue a chosen path in order to stay true to their ideology, but when that ideology is standing firm against science, reason, ethics, and morality they should reconsider their stance.

When a mistake has been made, publicly, it takes a big person to admit it and change course, rather than batten down the hatches and proceed onto the reef as stubborn people generally do. Correcting a mistake is the right thing to do. It takes bravery. It may cause embarrassment. But it needs to be done. Now.

The Farwell Independent Schools' "random drug testing program" is just such a mistake, and needs to be abandoned before it creates more of what the school administration and community say they want to prevent. If the school goes through with it anyway, you will then know where they stand, and why.

(Steemit link)

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

Archators: "pillars of the community"

It's disheartening.

People who work for government harm people while being paid with money stolen from those they harm.

Yet they are considered "pillars of the community" and given respect.

My disgust and disappointment at this state of affairs isn't going to change anything, even if I don't participate in the charade.

What I can do is treat all people as people, based not on their "job" or position, but on how they treat others. Until someone isn't nice to me, I will be nice to them. I will give them the benefit of a doubt, as a person, even if their "job" is evil and disgusting. If someone is a jerk, their "job" doesn't change how I see them.

If they live on theft and by aggression, I'm not going to excuse them because of the position they hold. Archators are archators. I will expect better of everyone.

(Steemit link)

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

All politics, laws lead to slavery

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 5, 2016)

Political slavery hidden in plain sight (my chosen headline)

All politics comes down to slavery; mainstream politics being pro-slavery, regardless of any denials.

The "Right" and the "Left" may quibble over details, and whether you are owned by "society" or "the State" (usually conflating the two), but they never question that you are owned.

Under politics, you-- life, body, labor, and property-- can be used against your will, and most believe you should accept your lot.

You can be prevented from ingesting what you choose. This drives prohibition-- The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and anti-alcohol laws-- as well as laws against large soft drinks, raw milk, and experimental medicines.

Your labor can be taken against your will. One form of coerced physical labor is conscription: "the draft". We may soon see it again; this time to include young women.

You can be forced into labor to maintain your property as the local rulers demand. Do you prefer wildflowers or a garden to a mowed lawn? Too bad. Your property isn't yours; you must work to maintain your property as government specifies. Another part of your life taken against your will.

Your property can be stolen outright, as with "taxation" or eminent domain, or some of your property's value can be destroyed by preventing you from using it as you see fit. Since you spent part of your life acquiring that property, taking any of its value from you is the same as stealing some of your life. It's time you can't get back.

Believe you own your house or land free and clear? Try not paying the annual "property tax" ransom on it and see what happens. You are forced to keep working for someone else, giving them some of your property, or government steals it all.

You can also be punished for using your body in ways the state doesn't approve, such as with prostitution or gambling. Laws similarly prevent you from contracting with a potential employer outside the bounds of what the State allows, as with "minimum wage laws".

If you'll notice, all the above are interconnected- they are all the same: slavery.

I am an abolitionist; I don't want you to be a slave. I oppose slavery in all forms- even the types you might say aren't too bad, or believe necessary. I hope you realize you own yourself and can decide where your life, labor, and property go, even if you choose servitude. Please don't let any person or group of people enslave you.

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online. I really, desperately could use some more help; please don't depend on the same people always helping out.