Sometimes I'm struck with the realization of just how strange my life is compared to the lives people have lived throughout most of human history and prehistory.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
I worry about my finances.
I worry about my health in non-specific ways.
You know what I don't worry about? Covid-19.
And that refusal to worry upsets too many people.
I like to prep. I don't prep because I worry, I don't worry because I prep. I think everyone should prep at least a little. I don't freak out on other people who don't worry about not being prepared. It is what it is, even though their lack of preps could impact my life.
I don't understand those who are angry that I don't worry about coronaviruses. Why would anyone want others to worry? What good does that do anyone?
Don't let the lack of standing water fool you into thinking you're safe from leeches.
There is one deadly kind of leech that doesn't require bodies of water: the po-leech.
Most of them even appear to be human. Don't be fooled!
They latch onto society. They'll suck the lifeblood right out of you if you let them close enough. There doesn't even have to be physical contact for you to be harmed by their parasitism. Avoid them for your own good.
Seriously, that's what they do almost every time without exception. Sometimes they also disparage my looks, my upbringing, and tell me to "go back where I came from" (which I did and why they are subjected to me). But, almost every time they include the barb that I need to stop writing until I change my opinion to agree with them. Without them giving me any reasons why I should agree with them.
An unhappy reader of this week's column ended her email with these words: "You need to stop writing until you face reality."* What "reality" is she referring to? I suppose that shutdowns are necessary and doctors say so.
It's the same story time after time. Critic after critic. No reasons, just "stop writing". My words are so dangerous they can't be allowed out into the world. Or something.
Which makes me think they know they have no ground to stand on.
-
*Full text: "Inconsiderate
You tell people to go ahead and get out in the same paper that the doctors are asking us to stay in as much as possible. You are incredibly inconsiderate. You go ahead and get out and when you get sick, we’ll just say 'Sure there was a cost' but he knew and was happy to risk it.
You need to stop writing until you face reality."
But, she's right about one thing. I know there is a cost and I'm happy to risk it. Even if I get sick and die.
You have the right to join with others to form a government, even one based on politics. You have no right to impose that government on anyone else outside your group which explicitly consented. Implied "consent" isn't real-- it is a euphemism for aggressive molestation.
You have a right to have police. You have no right to impose those police on others who haven't been violating your life, liberty, or property directly, nor to force anyone else to help you fund them. No one owes your police anything-- not respect, obedience, or deference. If your police violate anyone in any way, you are as guilty as they are because you hired the gangsters and they work for you.
On the above issues there's a very narrow scope that is libertarian-- only the first sentence of each paragraph-- where you have the right to do those things... up to a point. But once you cross that point into the following sentences you are archating. You have no right to archate. No matter how you spin it.
If these things are difficult for you to understand or uncomfortable to face, the problem is yours. No one is obligated to explain it to you or to coddle your feelings.
If you do the first, you are a "real libertarian". If you're the second, no, you're not a libertarian.
It's not really a difficult thing to figure out. Some people try to make it harder than it is.
But I do think Left-Statists may be the more dangerous of the two.
Left-Statists want to dictate the very words you can use. Not words of "obscenity" or actual hate-- which shouldn't be banned either-- but words which might speak a truth that upsets them. This is truly totalitarian and nasty. Left-Statists have even perverted the words "liberal" and "progress", applying them to the opposite of what they mean, to fit their dishonest agenda.
Neither side is a fan of science, evidence, and reason when those things go against what they want to be true. They just vary on the specific areas they want to be shielded from scientific inquiry.
Left-Statists want to dictate what you can put into your body just as much as the Right-Statists do, but based on different criteria. While the Right-Statists want to ban things that might make you feel nice but (in some cases) harm you if abused, the Left-Statists want to dictate what you ingest based on what they imagine current nutritional science says. Yes, potential harm is still the excuse and it is still no one's business either way.
Right-Statists generally want you able to defend yourself, they just don't want you to defend yourself from America's largest and most aggressive gang. Which is a really bizarre exception to make. Left-Statists don't want you to be able to defend yourself at all if it means using tools they are scared of.
Right-Statists don't usually riot and destroy property and kill "noncombatants", while Left-Statists seem more than willing to encourage each other to do so, and to actually sometimes do so. If you aren't rioting with them, they assume you are their enemy. Not a smart strategy.
I'm not on the side which wants to dictate anything. I dislike statism but I'm not stupid enough to propose banning it. You can't fix the world by becoming that which you believe is wrong.
They'll say you can't have liberty or you'll be invaded and defeated by warlords or other countries (as if there's a difference).
They'll say you can't have liberty or you'll be robbed, raped, enslaved, or murdered.
Of course, they don't frame their position as arguing against liberty unless they are a Left-Statist, but they all are.
You can show them their fears are unfounded or overblown, but they don't relent. They are so opposed to liberty that they can't even imagine how it could work. They spend all their energy finding ways to scare themselves-- and you-- away from it, instead.
They'll often say things about the necessity to accept "incremental moves toward liberty" while advocating you v*te for politicians who would move society away from liberty.
They'll propose their "compromise" between freedom and tyranny by saying you "need" police and a theft-funded military to keep from being overrun by (other) bad guys. But liberty? Unthinkable!
Honestly, they make me sick. Cowardice isn't attractive.
I would much rather someone provide a product or service and be rewarded with profit for doing so.
An ethical non-profit would only be supported by charity, since charity is purely voluntary. Someone sees the value being provided and chooses to chip in to help keep it going. A voluntary trade still occurs. If it can't attract enough support to keep it going, it goes away. This is as it should be.
If something can't make it without being funded by theft it needs to die. No matter how important someone imagines it to be. That doesn't only apply to institutes and social programs. That goes for roads, libraries, schools, police, the military, museums, etc. No exceptions.
Even though it doesn't claim the title, all of government is a coercive non-profit organization-- no profit, but great, dishonest financial gain for the players.
If government can be financed by either attracting voluntary customers who carry the entire costs of maintaining it-- earning it a "profit"-- or by attracting voluntary charity, then you can keep your government. Otherwise, let it die a well-deserved death. I neither want nor need it and I certainly can't afford to keep funding something as unwanted as that obsolete "non-profit", theft-funded institution.
Someone recently asked about "the knife" I carry on a daily basis. Actually, I carry 5, at a minimum, at all times.
I've written about some of them in my EDC posts, but here are all the knives in one place.
This is what I am carrying today, but I enjoy switching them up a little sometimes.
Going from left to right, top to bottom, the bone-handled primitive folding knife is just a cheap Pakistani knife that I carried in my mountainman gear long ago. It's not the best steel, but unlike some other Pakistani knives I have seen, it does a decent job of holding an edge. It has been on my belt for a couple of months this time.
I usually carry this Buck 501 instead, but this is some of that switching it up I like to do. Sometimes I carry a Buck 110 as my main folder, but I find it a little too large to be as versatile as the smaller folding knives. But I do enjoy carrying it, so it may be next in the rotation.
The big fixed blade is the Kershaw Deer Hunter my dad gave me for my 12th or 13th birthday. It has been my main carry knife anytime I am in "modern" clothes. So, I didn't carry it as much when I lived in Colorado, usually carrying my Green River knife and my handmade Bowie, instead. But for the past decade, it hasn't left my side.
The Kershaw and the folding knife are the two which get the vast majority of use.
But there are the others.
I have two hobo tools, both with their own knife blade. The one with the bone handle is unmarked, so I don't know who made it, and the stainless one is a Coleman (I carry it as a loaner-- the blade doesn't hold a good edge). The unmarked one is razor-sharp and holds a good edge, but I save it for food cutting.
The SOG key knife stays on my key ring. It's cute and sharp and I only use it occasionally.
I also have a Buck 397 that rides in a sheath on my "Indiana Jones" shoulder bag strap. (No, the bag isn't an actual MkVII gas mask bag, but it serves the purpose when I need to carry stuff.) It was sharpened to "razor+" sharpness by one of my readers. I include it because I do carry that bag pretty regularly, especially when I walk to the post office (since we don't have home delivery in town).
I also carry other knives based on my mood. And I'm always in the mood to carry knives. If I had the money for more knives I always have a list of knives I'd like to get. "Too many knives" makes no sense to me.
For a limited time, you can gain free access using coupon code PANICDEMIC (from October 15, 2020, until October 29, 2020... if I did that right).
Please spread the link around to anyone who might benefit.
I hope to see you there.
Those things can be a symptom of a general disregard for Law, especially if it results in widespread violations of life, liberty, and property. However, enforcement of legislation also results in widespread violations of life, liberty, and property. Just institutionalized rather than freelance.
Yet, legislation enforcement is often-- maybe normally-- against the Law. Legislation enforcers are ignoring the Law in favor of legislation; counterfeit "law". By enforcing legislation they are breaking the Law. They are criminals in the purest sense.
There is no difference between a burglar stealing your TV and a cop "confiscating" someone's Cannabis or guns from their home, except that legislation forbids the victim to shoot the cop, but not (generally) the freelance burglar.
By contrast, the Law-- real Law-- recognizes the absolute human right to defend your property from anyone who tries to violate it. Legislation is against the Law.
You don't need legislation or legislation enforcers to enforce the Law. It's YOUR responsibility, even if you don't want it. You can't legitimately abdicate this responsibility. To decry the abolition of police as advocating "lawlessness" demonstrates gross ignorance and a lack of respect for the Law.
The Law is simply: Don't archate. Or, more completely: "You have no right to archate, and if you do, your victims have the right to defend themselves, others, and property from you".
You don't need legislation or legislation enforcement officers to have the right to defend against archators. You can hire your own if you wish, but you have no right to impose them on others or force others to fund them. Doing so is against the Law; it is an attempt to spread "lawlessness" to society. It is antisocial.
It's a strange thing to watch happen. No, I'll never get credit for being correct all along because I'm an invisible nobody. I still find it oddly satisfying to see.
Am I happy that non-credible government-supremacists are following the evidence to lead them to where I've always been? Not exactly. Having people of that small caliber agreeing with me isn't a ringing endorsement.
I'm not going to change my mind just because they finally agree with me, though. I staked out this spot first, they are the latecomers. It's just amazing that they ever got here at all.
I don't have a crystal ball. I'm almost definitely wrong.
If you can see it coming, it's not going to happen. That's almost a guarantee.
Just like the Coronapocalypse came at us out of nowhere, triggered by unexpected government overreactions to a fairly normal virus, a more serious event will also be a surprise. Consider the Coronapanic a practice run. It should have shown you the holes in your preps if you were paying attention.
I lucked out with the panicdemic because I was ready. Well, maybe it wasn't completely luck; I've prepped for years "just in case", and it finally paid off. I was pretty sure I wouldn't see it coming when it finally happened, and I didn't. But it didn't matter because I stay ready all the time-- and I have done so since well before the Y2K fizzle. I intend to be just as ready, if not more ready, the next time something comes along.
Now, even though governments are still desperate to fan the flames of concern with regard to Covid-19, most people (excepting raging government-supremacists) are over it.
It would be easy to breathe a sigh of relief now and let the prepping slide. It's hard to keep up with it all the time. Other things seem more pressing during the calm after the storm. I can't let myself fall into that trap, even if it means I am at odds with those around me. After the storm is also-- in every instance-- before another storm. This isn't going to be the exception.
I feel an internal pressure to keep up the preps. I'm going to listen to it even if I look silly for doing so.
-
I'm considering starting a subscription-only prepping/survival blog. That or a subscription-only beginner homeschooling blog. Either one would be from the perspective of someone who is NOT an expert and doesn't really know what they are doing, but is learning as they go. If it happens, I'll announce it here. Or, if you have a better suggestion, let me know.