"Never discuss politics or religion"

Here's a secret: I don't like discussing politics or religion with people face to face, in real life.

It makes me very uncomfortable. Almost to the point of panic. Especially when it comes at me out of nowhere.  I am almost never the one to bring up such subjects in real life. I just don't do it.

Yet, so many people want to discuss these things with me. They know I have an opinion- and generally even know what it is. But they don't want to learn- they just want to hear me talk about it so they can disagree.

Sometimes I just refuse to talk about it. Sometimes I'm caught off-guard and start talking before I realize what has happened. Then the "fight or flight" kicks in as soon as I realize where the conversation has gone. Probably not a good thing at all.

If there were going to be a good, honest discussion, it would be one thing. But it's not. It's always an attempt to trip me up (doesn't happen); to fling questions at me in rapid succession so I don't have a chance to answer one before 2 more have been tossed out (almost always), or find the areas where I have no simple answers (happens a lot).

In those type of "discussions", there can be no communication.

Yes, these are topics of critical importance. The quality of life- sometimes life itself- depends on getting the answers right. Carefully and thoughtfully. But, people are going to believe what they believe. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind under those circumstances.

I suppose it's the danger of being known as outspoken and opinionated.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

Government is slavery

It was near the beginning of my online life that I realized I am an abolitionist. Slavery is the ultimate anti-liberty. While no person can actually own another, the pretense that they can has been the justification for all sorts of evil throughout human history.

Most people don't seem to realize that slavery is still a big problem- and not just the kind that comes to mind when they think of the word "slavery"- but forms of slavery they they may not recognize and may even support.

Government- The State- is slavery in every sense of the word.

If you are forbidden to do what you have a right to do, you are being enslaved. If someone claims to have a right to tell you where you can live, what you are allowed to put into your bloodstream, how to use your property, can take your property from you against your will, and says they can forbid your right to own and to carry tools, they are trying to enslave you. If they kidnap and cage you for doing what you have a right to do, the slavery has gone from the abstract to the concrete.

How much you allow them to succeed is up to you.

In one sense, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

On the other hand, you must pick your battles. You are no good to anyone if you are dead.

And I can't make that choice for you. No one can. Because you are not a slave, no matter how many want to enslave you, as long as you take responsibility for your own choices.

As long as you do that, I am proud of you.

Be pro-liberty. Be an abolitionist. Be the anti-slave.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

Liberty, anarchy go hand in hand

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 16, 2016)

 Libertarians advocate best government (my chosen headline)

What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

Libertarians advocate liberty. Specifically, maximum liberty and minimum government, because the two are inversely related. The more of one you have, the less you have of the other.  What's the minimum level of government you can impose on others?

"That government is best which governs least" wrote Henry David Thoreau. The best government is zero government.

In the Tao Te Ching, written around 2,600 years ago, Lao Tzu observed "When the government is quite unobtrusive, people are indeed pure. When the government is quite prying, people are indeed conniving." Unfortunately that's what it takes to survive being governed. Government breeds distrust and dishonesty.

There can't be "too much liberty" because liberty, being the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate others, is self-regulating. If an act violates someone, it's not liberty.

Anarchy isn't about chaos, "Mad Max", or "kill or be killed". Those popular misconceptions come from people taught in schools controlled by the state, which has an interest in promoting fear and ignorance concerning a lack of government.

Anarchy isn't a rejection of rules, but of people who rule. You govern yourself, without imposing control on anyone else. The buck stops with you. You are responsible for your own choices; there is no one else to blame.

Anarchy isn't about throwing bombs and growing bushy beards. It isn't against free enterprise. It most certainly isn't socialism or communism- although those groups sometimes misuse the label for propaganda.

Libertarians who don't eventually become anarchists fail to mature. They are ignoring inconsistencies in order to avoid discomfort. They seem to be trying to justify the government functions they support by pretending those aren't based on theft and aggression.

Anyone who carefully considers what liberty means, without making excuses, will eventually see there can be no such thing as a good government, and that evil is never necessary. He may not want to call himself an anarchist, but labels are only words. What matters is what you do, not what you call yourself.

As long as you don't use violence against the non-violent, you respect the property of others, and don't make excuses for people who refuse to follow these non-negotiable rules of society, you are on the right side.

Besides, hasn't this presidential election shown you the folly in seeking political answers to anything?

So, what's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About six months. Or so the joke goes.

-

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.



.

Do you have the right to defend yourself violently?

If you don't have the right to defend your life, liberty, and property, with violence, from ALL who threaten or violate them, government employees included, you have no rights at all.

Yet, there are those who seriously say you have no right to use violence against aggressors, because doing so violates their right to life.

Those who make that claim are wrong.

And, no, it isn't that aggressors "give up" their right to not have violence used against them when they choose to archate- it's that they had no right to do so, and by choosing to do so they violated you, and you have the right to defend yourself. With violence if necessary. They made the choice; they can deal with the consequences.

So, yes, you have the absolute human right to defend yourself- with deadly force if necessary- against violators. Regardless of whether they work for the State or not, and regardless if those who work for the State are "just doing their job". If their "job" is a violation, they are no different from any other violator, and should expect to be treated any different. If they don't like that, they should quit and find an honest job.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

The value of liberty (PINNED)

... and of those working to promote it the best we know how.

Even though my subscriptions are down by $55 from last year, I have been scraping by. That is due to donations which often come in the nick of time. Mostly, it works. Which amazes me.

I love my donors.

I also love my subscribers.

I would really appreciate a few more of both. Or either.

I know these begging posts are annoying- they annoy me, too. I can't expect each reader to subscribe to the order of $100 per month, or many one-time donations that knock my socks off (and I don't expect either), but whatever you can do, if you consider this blog to be of value (and if you can afford it) is greatly appreciated.

Either way, know that I value each and every reader (yes, even you) whether you've ever subscribed or donated or not, and I hope you are getting something of worth each time you show up to read a post. Well, all the real posts, anyway. And I sincerely thank you.

Enjoy watching the train wreck called "politics", if you're into such things. Creepy clowns, indeed.

And if other liberty ideas are more important to you, I welcome your advice on topics you'd like me to explore from my perspective.

Have a great day!

.

From the Extraordinary Claims Department

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim, not with those who scoff at the claim..

Such as the claim that government employees should be allowed to kill people as long as it is called "capital punishment" or "war".

It doesn't matter that governments have been doing both-- and getting away with it-- for thousands of years and few have stood up to say it's wrong. It is still an extraordinary claim.

I can't accept this claim without extraordinary evidence in its favor. And I have yet to see any evidence, extraordinary or not. Lots of claims and emotions and name-calling; religious and statist claims, but nothing more. That won't cut it for me.

My thought on the issue of capital punishment remains the same-- it is murder motivated by revenge. It is a primitive, superstitious cleansing ritual. It taints everyone involved-- no one comes out the good guy. When you hand government the power to kill, there is nothing left to hand it. You have accepted total State domination. It is wrong. Just because you approve of some of the murders doesn't change it.

The ONLY ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge. I understand the lust for revenge in some cases, but I also know it's wrong.

-

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

I come not to praise democracy...

I'm always seeing these embarrassing videos praising democracy and telling people why they should v*te.

What a crock of male Bos taurus fecal matter.

Here's one example, and my response to it.

Video link

Sayu, you are badly off-course. Democracy isn't something to strengthen or promote. There is no good in it. It is mob rule. (As is a republic, which will always evolve into a democracy anyway. Before someone gets their constitutional panties in a wad. Both are just mob rule- "majority makes right" is wrong.)

Governing yourself is a good idea. Even necessary. Governing your neighbor? Well, that just makes you a thug- whether you do it personally, or v*te to have someone do it on your behalf.

Publicly praising democracy is the same as publicly praising other forms of theft, rape, kidnapping, and murder. Don't do it- and if you insist on doing it anyway, own it. Accept what you are praising and promoting. Understand why this makes you a bad guy. Understand that your condemnation of your critics is as empty as the protests of any other bully when people stand up and refuse to pretend you have some imaginary "right" to bully them.

Calling what politicians do "public service" is a lie. A nasty one which harms the innocent.

It doesn't matter what "race" or gender a politician is, or where it was born or hatched- NO ONE has the right to violate another using the excuse of governing.

A good politician (if such a thing were possible) wouldn't advocate for (or against) anyone based on "race" or gender or anything else, because all humans have equal and identical rights. It wouldn't matter who or what that politician is.

If you violate one person, you are violating everyone. If you leave everyone to live their life as they see fit (free of archation on their part), and free to defend their life, liberty, and property from those who violate them, it doesn't matter who you are. Just like it doesn't matter who you are if you violate others.

It doesn't matter who is governing- it matters that you allow governing to happen right in front of you. That's wrong.

You do get one thing right though: You admit that politics is about fear and taking things away from others. And yet, you want to promote more of this. Sayu, politics makes people stupid. Looks like you are suffering from exposure and you need to find a cure. Or, at least take that first step. You can't even know the meaning of liberty or freedom until you turn away from politics. I hope it's not too late for you.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

What are people worth?

In politics, one's worth is almost entirely subjective.

Sure, all humans have a baseline "worth" simply because they are humans. From that level ground, they either add to their worth during their lifetime by being kind, helpful, or productive, or they subtract from their worth by being aggressive, unpleasant, or parasitic.

Since politicians are some mix of both- with the unshakable reality of aggression and parasitism attached by definition to the poor choice of being a politician- they have to appear to lean heavily toward the positive human traits to break even. Very few manage it even for a short time. Think Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi as prime examples of those who gave up even trying to appear pleasant. Or even human.

Someone is not worth more due to being president, a congressvermin, or any other political position. In fact, by my estimation, the very best possible outcome for a politician's worth is that he'll be as worthwhile as any random person you might encounter on the street. That's just hypothetical, of course, since the reality is none have even approached that level.

But, for those blinded by the star-power of politicians, they imagine them to be of a higher class than the rest of us. "Worth more". It's a silly opinion, but it's what they believe. You aren't going to reason them out of their delusions.

Your worth is also subjective to a politician. What can they get from you and how can you be used? Beyond that, you are nothing to them, no matter how they act to your face.

-

(Steemit link for those of you who "do Steemit" and would like to help out without actually donating or subscribing.)

-

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

When "Don't tread on me" just isn't enough

(Steemit link)

Prohibition dangerous as addiction

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 9, 2016)

Prohibition is drug abuse‏ (my chosen headline- I didn't even try to come up with something they'd use this week)

Drugs can make people crazy. For proof, just look what drugs have done to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.

His craziness apparently doesn't come from taking drugs, but from his murderous lust to prohibit them. Like so many prohibitionists in the US.

He's a perfect role model for supporters of the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Particularly for those who have the political power to continue to impose prohibition on society.

People who support prohibition are some of the most dangerous drug abusers out there. They abuse the excuse that some people will use drugs, some of those who use drugs will abuse them, some of those who abuse them will become addicted, and some of those who become addicted will be harmed to find justification for harming everyone; drug abuser or not. In fact, the drug war has been used as a model for the equally perverted war against gun owners. This chain of linked excuses can be used to violate any liberty you have.

Drug abuse is dumb, but prohibition is evil. Prohibition never has the effect its pushers claim, but instead adds crime and corrupt law enforcement to the list of harm the drugs may do, without preventing the harm done by drugs.

Most of the harm claimed to result from drug abuse-- legal trouble, loss of jobs and social standing--  can be traced more to the effects of prohibition than to the drugs themselves. And prohibitionists are OK with that-- anything to punish drug users. To prohibitionists, it's worth any collateral damage.

Those who advocate prohibition are effectively saying "Drugs are bad for you, and to prove it we will destroy your life, and maybe kill you, if we suspect you possess drugs". It's one of the craziest acts ever committed in the name of "for your own good".

Prohibitionists are on the wrong side of morality, and on the losing side of history. One day their crusade will look as backward and evil as the acts of those who supported the runaway slave acts. On that day those who enforce prohibition will be seen in the same light as those who captured and returned-- or killed-- runaway slaves in the name of "enforcing the law". In fact, growing numbers of us already see them this way.

Some of us also see them as absolutely crazy, like President Duterte, and hope they come to their senses before they do more damage.

-

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.


.

Rule yourself

There are those who prefer the idea of autarchy over anarchy. I believe they are basically the same thing- if you have no king, then you rule yourself... which means you are your own king.

Get your own crown

The only "problem" with the word "anarchy" is that bad guys have used the word to describe their non-anarchist acts, and other bad guys embraced and spread the misinformation. Not much you can do about that, besides use the word correctly when you use it.

Maybe the word "autarchy" has less baggage (not none), but if it started being talked about, it would gather baggage very quickly. I don't really see much point in abandoning a word you like to use due to baggage. But, whatever.

None of that changes the basic fact: You are the rightful king of your own life- including of your liberty and property. No one else has a higher claim on it, and if they try to act as if they do, they are the bad guys. It doesn't matter if they call themselves "the police" or the mayor, or anything else. No one else has a legitimate claim on your life, liberty, or property unless it is due to a debt you took on. You can't take on a debt by being born in a particular place, or by a gang coming together to assign a debt to you.

Those who believe they can create a debt for you to owe, against your will, or without you archating, are liars. Don't fall for their lies.

If you let someone rule you, they are probably going to violate you in some way, and they will definitely have you violating someone on their behalf- even if it is just through your silence in the face of the evil they do to others.

Anarchist, Voluntaryist, abolitionist, autarchist, libertarian... whatever you call yourself doesn't really matter, as long as you don't archate, and don't support or excuse those who do. You are your own king. Be a good one.

-

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


(Steemit link)

What do I know?

I prefer to only blog about what I know.

That's fairly easy because that's what I find myself being passionate about; what I want to write about.

Of course, there's always a chance that in my passion I am wrong- and if I am I hope you'll straighten me out (but you have to convince me with reason rather than with emotions or superstitions).

But, really, what chance is there that theft and aggression are better things to incorporate into your life than mutually consensual, voluntary interactions- and self defense against those who refuse to reject theft and aggression?

The rest of the stuff I'll either not talk about, or I'll tell you what I think, while letting you know I am not sure about it. That's why you don't see some subjects that other blogs dwell on here.

I hope that works for you.

-

(Steemit link, for those who are on Steemit. I sure could use some upvotes...)

-

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

Politics- bullying writ large

In the past I have referred to politics as an attempt to live among people you hate.

Now, I think I'd modify that somewhat and call it an attempt to force people you don't like or trust to do what you want, while avoiding seeing yourself as a bully.

But, if you use politics and v*ting (or anything else) to force your opinions on others, you are still a bully.

Yes, I realize "they" are doing the same to you. They are bullies, too.

I wish everyone would just leave me out of their childish, yet deadly, squabbles. Keep your filthy politics and evil government to yourself. Hands off my life and the lives of my kids.

Of course, this is easy for mature people to do, but almost impossible for DemoCRAPublicans to live with. For them, it's all about the politics. And that is really sad.

-

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


(Steemit link)

America to USA to ?? GIF

Judgmental, but not controlling

For all my faults, I am not a controlling person.

I notice that things others do, things which don't bother me in the slightest, drive some people nearly insane. I look and try to figure out what the exact problem is, but all I see is "they are doing something I don't like!!"

As long as a person isn't archating, I'm going to be pretty much OK with whatever they do. (If they are archating, then it's my business because violating anyone violates everyone.) Sure, I might recognize that what they are doing isn't something I would do, and I might even consider it disgusting or immoral, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it.

But in most cases I see, it's nothing even that serious.

Whether it's a neighbor who hasn't mowed in ages (I can be guilty of that myself), or who has a lot of (what I see as) junk in his yard, or a house with "too many cars", or "possibly illegal" Mexicans living a couple houses down. Whatever.

I really see no reason to start trying to tell them how to live.

It strikes me as strange when others think any of those things are their business, and I see it as wrong when they sic the State on them in order to have their opinions forced on others.  

-

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


(Steemit link)

Trump's taxes, and everyone else's, too

I don't want Donald Trump to pay any taxes.

Nor do I want Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson to. I don't even want Bernie Frickin' Sanders to pay taxes.

I don't think churches should be taxed.

There is no such thing as "your taxes", no matter who you are.

For one thing, the word "tax" is a lie.

Taxation is theft, no matter who the target is, and I don't want a single, solitary cent going to fund government at any level. I'd rather my worst enemy keep all his money than to force him to give any of it to government.

If the money was collected dishonestly, give it back to the victims without giving a cut to The State. If giving it to the victims isn't possible, let him keep it. It's still better than letting the government get any of it.

Now, if anyone is so stupid as to want to send government his own money, I wouldn't stop him. Anyone can waste their money any way they want- even to the point of giving it to thugs who will hire bullies to try to molest me. I have the right to stop those bullies and those who sent them, obviously.

People who are in favor of taxes could easily send as much of their own money to the State as they want. But that's not what they really want. They want to force YOU and ME, at gunpoint, to send our money, too. That's evil.

-

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)

Just get it DONE!

(Previously posted to Patreon)

But, maybe not quite the "it" you imagine.

I recently found a guy on Youtube who doesn't beat around the bush. Well, I mean, he does beat around The Bush, but in a very constructive way.

The guy does Stone Age living skills in Queensland, Australia and I am utterly in awe of his skills. He makes me feel like an absolute amateur.

I mean, he does some of the same things I can do, but he does them more "naturally". Like he's not even trying- but I realize that's not the case, it is just how it looks to someone who hasn't got his skills. But, having barely enough skills to appreciate what he does makes me recognize the almost unimaginable amount of work he puts into learning, practicing, and perfecting the skills he demonstrates. Again, I am totally in awe of him.

I don't have any idea of what the guy's "political leanings" are, or if he even has any, but I would love to hang out with him for a while, learning at his side. I can't imagine a man who took the time to learn the skills he has learned would be a cowardly, needy statist- but I could be wrong. He has things to teach me in any case.

And, this brings me to another point.

I wish I could do for liberty what he does for self-sufficiency with mud, stone, and plants. I spend more time than you might imagine reading, absorbing, internalizing, and then pondering the ideas and principles to draw out more connections and conclusions concerning liberty than you might think. But is it enough? Is it even "the right thing"? Does it make any difference?

Who knows. All I can say is that I can't imagine doing anything else. Even if I were out in the Bush building mud huts with self-fired terracotta roofing tiles, I would still be pondering liberty. I know, because of prior experience in somewhat similar situations.

 I know I am not nearly as impressed by what I do as I am by what he does.

He doesn't just talk about Stone Age skills (in fact, in his videos, he never says a word), he just goes out there and does it. And, when it comes to promoting liberty, just living it makes a lot more difference than a hundred people like me yammering on about it.

When something matters, you need to just do it. If liberty matter to you, you'll do more than read about it. So, prove to yourself that it matters and get out there and live it the best you can.

(And on he's on Patreon, too! So if you feel inspired by his efforts, throw him some support.)

-

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

Government real outlaw in crises

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 2, 2016)

 People naturally solve problems (my chosen headline)

Recently, in Belarus, smugglers took a neglected gravel road and fixed it. They made it better for their own purposes, while helping others in the process. Just what were these black market villains smuggling on their newly improved road? Drugs? Weapons? Slaves? Not exactly. They were smuggling fruits and vegetables.

In another show of outlawry, the recent floods in Louisiana brought out neighbors in boats to rescue people from danger. They willingly accepted risk to themselves to help people they may not even know. These heroes are known as the "Cajun Navy".

Louisiana lawmakers want to make sure events like this are prevented from happening again. Not the floods, but the unregulated rescues. In fact, so deep was their concern, they sent police to stop rescuers from getting to the people in need. It was more important to stop people from helping, than to actually help.

When there is a problem, the natural tendency of people is to solve it. Unless, apparently, they have banded together as government to prey on the population. In which case, obedience to rules becomes sacred.

The Louisiana situation is a repeat of what happened after Hurricane Katrina in 2005: people left to suffer, and volunteer rescuers threatened with violence, because government employees believed they had a monopoly on assistance-- while refusing to do anything toward that end. In fact, government's "help" made the suffering worse.

To those who believe government is a solution, things like this may be dismissed as extreme cases. But they aren't.

In the example of the Belorusian road, as soon as government noticed the increased traffic, they sent agents to steal from the entrepreneurs. They call the theft "customs".

The black market road builders are heroes, and those who follow them to rob the traders are the bad guys.

The Louisiana lawmakers may be even worse.

If you want to help people, do it. You can't foresee and avoid every eventuality. It isn't possible. There are too many crises which can happen; too many circumstances where people need help. There are always risks.

Going into a situation where someone's life is in danger puts you in danger. You still have an absolute human right to try to help, without asking permission from anyone. Some even see it as a responsibility. True heroes don't wait for permission to help, and accept that there are consequences to every choice. True heroes don't look to government for guidance.

-

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

Be relentlessly annoying

If you see a person walking toward the edge of a cliff while wearing a blindfold, should you say anything to them?

If they don't react the first time, should you continue to say something?

Is this "harping on it"?

Well, people who continue to archate or support those who do are walking straight toward a cliff, wearing a blindfold, in the dark. If they notice your warnings, they usually just get angry and want the noise to stop. They are on a determined path, and nothing is going to stop the vast majority of them.

But, occasionally, you get through to one individual who will stop, take off the blindfold, and try to find a light.

That's what keeps me going, in spite of the anger of the majority who deny the existence of the cliff.

-

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)

Government is wrong

Government, and support of government, is parasitic. It is wrong. Just so wrong.

The political means is the method of the parasite. Where one lives at the expense of others. Where there is a winner and a loser. The political means is what rapists and muggers and cops and burglars and DMV employees employ. It is wrong. Even if you can't imagine life or civilization without it, it is wrong.

Its opposite- the economic means- is the method of the decent person; the non-parasite. Where both parties win. Where interaction is by mutual consent. Where there is no punishment for choosing to not interact.

You can see the evil inherent in the political means more clearly by using the economic means as a mirror. Doing so, honestly, you can't fail to see that government- The State- and all associated with it are in the wrong.

Is this judgmental of me?

Yes.

I am judgmental toward people who commit acts of pure evil and destroy the lives of others; who act as parasites so that they can win while others lose.

The question is, why would anyone not be?

-

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)

Willful blindness?

The nicest government employees are blind to what they are doing.

They are like crew on a cruise ship. They see the beauty surrounding them, and see the things they produce and believe those things are good. They see the satisfied passengers and believe that is a clear sign that they are doing the right thing. They feel pride in what they do.

They don't recognize that their ship floats on an ocean of crushed bodies, is fueled with human lives, and uses people as the raw material for everything it produces. Bodies and the property of the innocent and guilty alike; stolen and fed screaming into the furnaces and the grinders to provide fuel and raw materials for everything they do. They don't see it. Maybe they choose to not see it, because it would make them uncomfortable.

The worst offenders are those who do see the dirty side and refuse to admit what it is. Or those who empower the destruction. Those are the politicians, bureaucrats, cops, judges and others whose job involves manning the death stations in one way or another.

Those who are a step removed could be excused for failing to see the death and misery beneath all they accomplish, but those involved in stealing lives to feed to the ship have no excuse, and should face serious consequences.

-

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)