Which one?

I just got this notice on my blog administration page:

 Of course, Blogger gives me no clue whatsoever about which post they are whining about. Is it the one I just wrote and scheduled to post tomorrow? I don't know.

I looked over the past few weeks and can't find any missing posts (when comparing it to the Wordpress backup blog-- if anything, Wordpress is missing a few things I forgot to mirror over there).

If I ever run across it, I'll find a work-around. Still, it's frustrating and odd and is a failure of Blogger.

UPDATE- The warning is gone now. Maybe it was a glitch or a bug.

UPDATE #2- I found the post they were upset by and reposted it after deleting the original.

-

Help

Statists don't-- or can't-- plan ahead

I've pretty much accepted the realization that statists simply can't plan ahead. And they won't accept responsibility when their chickens come home to roost.

They are surprised when massive handouts ("stimulus checks") end up causing inflation. And they'll deny there's any connection even though they were warned well ahead of time.

They are surprised that zero reserve "banking" causes bank failures. They've been warned, but they ignored the warnings. Government told them it would be alright.

They've been told that mandating defenselessness will cause more rapes, robberies, and murders, but they don't listen... and pretend that the cause is too much liberty-- something they didn't do. Gotta close those liberty loopholes! For the children! They were told what the result would be. They can't see it when it is put right in front of their eyes and explained to them as if they are a somewhat slow child.

Anyone with any sense understood that "qualified immunity" would cause the Blue Line Gang to become even more criminal than it was before. Statists can't see what's coming and will deny it if they get warned. And then they'll say it's your fault for not worshiping their "heroes".

If you keep meddling with countries abroad, you will bring conflict (and death) to your allies. Everyone who isn't a delusional statist realizes this basic reality. But look how "surprised" the government supremacists pretend to be when their constant meddling causes a war.

Heavy smokers sometimes act surprised by a lung cancer diagnosis and heavy drinkers often seem shocked when they develop cirrhosis. But, more of them seem to realize what they are risking in the future than the statists who are addicted to political government. 

The statists are the ones in denial who simply can't seem to see what consequences they are bringing on themselves. Not even when they are clearly warned long ahead of time. I try to feel sympathy for them, but they wouldn't listen when their disasters could have been averted, so what can I do now?

-

Help

More communication failures

There are a couple of people in the family who can’t communicate well. For entirely different reasons.

One thing they have in common is they don’t listen to what others are saying and they try to put in their two cents' worth based on what they imagine the other is saying. Probably based on notions they already have in their head. It's confusing to the person they are trying to talk to and either frustrating or amusing to any observer (depending on your level of detachment).

Sitting there listening to them try to communicate with each other is an even more bizarre experience. 

It’s as though each is in their own world, and they don’t even realize it. They just keep talking past each other, misunderstanding everything the other says, thinking they are talking about the same thing, and the conversation goes further off track the longer they talk. I've tried to step in and get them both on the same page, but often it's pointless. Just let them run their course. They'll end up making plans and neither one knows what the other thinks they've agreed to, and then it's up to others to untangle it later.

It's like trying to have a conversation with a statist.

-

Help

Some people are Astronomical Holes

People are like Black Holes. The astronomical kind.

What others see is our event horizon, but the thing that is real, which makes us what we are, is invisible to everyone.

I try to keep this in mind when I run up against someone who wants to violate others in some way-- usually with legislation or other types of government violence. I only see their event horizon, not their true self.

The problem is, a Black Hole can still kill you and destroy everything around it without you knowing "why". Without there even having to be a "why". You'll get destroyed by the gravity well no matter what its motivation might be (if it has one).

I don't have to understand why someone hates or fears guns before I stand up to their attempt to do things they have no right to do to try to keep guns out of people's hands. All I have to do is see the effects of their event horizon on the surroundings-- then warn others about what is happening and label things as they really are.

-
Help

All cops? Yes, ALL of them.

All cops are bad.

That's just because of what they are required to do as a condition of keeping the "job", not because of who they are as a person. It's not collectivism because it is based entirely on what they have chosen to do, not who or what they were born. Like it or not, in this way they are exactly like rapists in that this condemnation is based on actions only.

To change my mind, at least in one individual case, you'd have to show me one cop who has never:

• enforced prohibition in any way.
• enforced a gun "law".
• enforced a seat belt rule or any traffic rule that didn't have an individual victim. No speeding tickets, etc.
• enforced any rule about showing ID when approached by a cop without clear and reasonable suspicion that an individual has been violated. "Resisting arrest" is coved under this, too.
• supported any rule being applied to non-cops that isn't applied identically to cops.
• enforced any rule or policy that didn't have a specific individual victim whose life, liberty, or property was harmed or put under a credible threat of imminent harm.
• Has stood up loudly and consistently, without backing down, against any other cops who have done any of the above.

This is even ignoring the fact that their salary comes from government. We'll ignore that for this discussion. If you can show me one cop who has never done any of those things, I will admit you have found one good cop. If not, stop whining when reality is pointed out to you.

Of course, then the question arises as to how this singular cop has managed to keep his "job" while refusing to do what he is required to do.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Upcoming surgery. Need funds.

I'm going in for colon surgery on April 4. I had a consultation with the surgeon today, and it's going to be more extensive (and expensive) than I had feared. I present some unique challenges, but it seems like the surgeon has it under control. I hope. At least he exudes confidence. 

But the longer we talked, the more upset I became about the whole situation. It's just one of those things.

I started a GiveSendGo (https://www.givesendgo.com/G9WN1). Do you think I should start a GoFundMe, too? If you think I should (and if it doesn't violate someone's terms of service to do both) I'll update this post.

Share the link with anyone you think might want to help. Thank you.

.

Tyranny 'for own good' still tyranny

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 5, 2023)

Almost all of us want the same thing: to live in peace with what we need to survive and enjoy life, free to follow our interests. Problems arise when some of us think we can get there through socialism or legislation.

I believe liberty is the only way to get there.

Thomas Jefferson seemed to have been hinting at the same thing when he wrote: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

That sounds peaceful and civilized.  

He went on to say "I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

It's clear Jefferson wasn't a fan of "law and order". At least, not in the way the word "law" is commonly misused-- using the word "law" when speaking of legislation.

The law is "don't hurt people or take their stuff". Everything else is legislation which goes against the law, and which he categorized as "the tyrant's will". Legislation is always about violating liberty in some way; to prohibit people from living in peace, from having what they need to survive and enjoy life, or from following their interests when a powerful minority decides it should be prohibited.

The result is the same whether the peaceful person is violated by the mob through democracy or by politicians and their hired guns making up and enforcing unethical legislation. The tyrant can be one person or an entire political system-- it's only a matter of what they do, not who they are.

Liberty is important enough that I will stay out of your business so you can live your life unobstructed, even when I don't like what you do. As long as you stay within the limits drawn by the equal rights of others so it isn't necessary to defend anyone from your actions.

It makes me sad to realize this is too hard for most people. It's not asking much, but most can't even respect the rights of others this far. They want what they want, and are willing to enslave and rob you-- for "your own good", of course-- to force it on you. 

Society is run by spoiled toddlers who believe their feelings are the center of the Universe. Only this type of person believes society needs to be "run" at all.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Taxation isn't about funding government

Taxation isn't about funding government so much as it's about defunding you.

Government can counterfeit every cent it "needs" (which is also bad) through the "Federal Reserve" [sic]. It doesn't need to tax you at all. Yet, it chooses to do so anyway. Why?

Part of it may be so it can keep up the charade. Statists want government, so they might be willing to keep paying confiscatory taxes if they believe it's necessary to fund government. Gotta keep that military-industrial complex going and growing!

Mainly though, it seems to be about taking away your money and your options. Keeping you less free than you could be. If you are hurting financially, you are easier to control. The government doesn't need your money, it needs your compliance.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Project on Patreon

I need magic (updated)

Broken tooth, very sick cats, colon surgery consultation, dentist visit, vet visits. 

My week sucks so far and looks like it's going to continue to suck. I hope yours doesn't.

Added 3-7: I've got about half of the Horrible Things behind me now and I'm not so overwhelmed. The sickest cat is on the road to remission and the other sick cat got over it. The dentist appointment is behind me, too.
I honestly think I may have PTSD with regard to doctor/dentist appointments/ If so, I know the events that caused it.
I can think again.

.

Leave if you can

Found at Bryan Hyde's site

Over the years I've been hard on Scott Adams. Especially his bad takes on guns.

As I've pointed out several times, he's usually right about things, and when he's wrong, it's invariably because he has taken the government supremacist position. That's just always going to be automatically wrong, even if it's popular.

His latest mess wasn't due to government supremacism, and not coincidentally, he isn't wrong. 

If you discover that a lot of people among some identifiable group don't like you-- don't even respect your right to exist-- why would you linger in their presence if you are able to leave?

Hating, and canceling, him for saying this is ridiculous. Probably evil.

And, as he pointed out, the advice would be the same no matter who you are or who it is that doesn't like you. Get away if possible. Shunning is always the ethical move.

I've noticed that most of those who have a problem with it didn't hear what he actually said, but are going by what someone incorrectly claimed he said. In other words, fake news. Maybe even a hoax, depending on whether it's intentional.

Found on Twitter

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Offering an alternative to "national divorce"

There's been a lot of recent talk about a "national divorce". In other words, secession.

I am unwaveringly in favor of secession. In every instance, down to the level of the individual. I do not believe a bigger government is ever good for liberty, mainly because smaller governments might be easier to resist in the long run. It's also good to pit governments against each other so that liberty can thrive in the spaces between. 

All political governments must be resisted if liberty is to survive. That's just the way it is.

The anti-secessionists are practically having a meltdown over the idea even being discussed. One part of this faction wants everyone subjected to the tyrannical rules they want to impose. The other seems to be the "We're number 1!" club, vicariously feeling relevant because of the US government's power and influence, and they fear losing that feeling. Both are just run-of-the-mill government supremacist types.

However, I am willing to offer them an alternative to secession-- at least a temporary compromise until they can adjust to the idea of secession (which they will because it is inevitable in the long run).

The alternative to secession— a national divorce— is to roll back the power and influence of the US feral government to the point where it’s no longer tyrannical, nor relevant to the daily life of any resident of America. Make it so weak it is safe for most people to ignore it.

The entire reason a national divorce is necessary is that the feral government has become too overbearing. It has intruded into every facet of life, and reasonable people find this intolerable. There is a solution, but government supremacists will find it unthinkable. Make them think about it.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Irrelevant concerns

I don’t care what color someone’s skin is, where they were born, or what language they speak. 

What I do care about is if they embrace a culture of archation. Wherever that culture is based. Those cultures are found all over the world, with a high concentration in inner cities and in every government office. But those aren't the only places they exist.

Such cultures are worse than worthless. And membership in one is what makes the biggest difference in whether someone will make a good neighbor or not.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Carrying weapons a human right

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 29, 2023)

Politicians and their allies who want you unable to defend yourself from violent attackers are at it again.

They are pushing for more anti-gun rules. I don't say "laws" because they can't be laws-- the U.S. Constitution makes all such rules illegal. You can't have an illegal law. Even the Supreme Court has admitted this, although they apparently try to play both sides.

Even those supposedly on the side of liberty fall into the trap of using the enemies' words, sometimes calling standard semi-automatic rifles "assault rifles". They aren't. An assault rifle is capable of firing automatically; it continues to fire bullets with only one pull of the trigger until the trigger is released or the ammunition runs out. An assault rifle is a machine gun-- which, by the way, is something everyone has a natural right to own and to carry, in spite of what politicians claim.

A semi-automatic rifle shoots only one bullet with each trigger pull, no matter how fast or hard you pull the trigger.

At least assault rifles are real, unlike "assault weapons". Those don't exist except in the minds of anti-liberty activists. The term can be traced back to 1988 when anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann wrote that this term should be used because it would confuse people who were clueless about firearms and would increase public support for anti-gun rules. It was a calculated lie from the start.

Well-meaning people argue over which weapons the Second Amendment covers, and by doing so demonstrate they've missed the point. The Second Amendment doesn't "cover" any weapons-- not just firearms, either-- because the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to tell the people what government is not allowed to do. Making up rules about weapons is one of those explicitly prohibited things.

It doesn't make exceptions if you believe something is "too dangerous" or unpopular.

Proposing an anti-gun rule and pretending it is law is a serious crime. It should be treated as such... and would be if more people understood what is going on.

The good news is no matter what rules the political criminals impose, the natural human right to own and to carry whatever types of weapon they choose, everywhere they go, without asking permission from government, will forever remain unchanged. It doesn't hinge on constitutions or politicians' opinions and it never will.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Reject all governmental poisons

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 22, 2023)

Why can't most of the public see how ridiculous it looks to fight over the various forms of government? They argue over whether to be ruled (and to rule each other) with socialism or capitalism, communism or theocracy, by a dictator or by the mob through democracy. It’s like arguing with others over what kind of deadly poison to add to your soup.

The right choice is to rule your own life and not try to rule anyone else; to not add any sort of poison to your soup.

Each of these government options is antisocial because all political government is inherently anti-liberty. Liberty and the state-- political government-- are mutually exclusive. Yes, that includes constitutional republics.

You should still accept that some poisons or forms of government rule are worse than others. Of course they are, but none of them are good and none should be intentionally added to your life. To fight and argue over which one you want instead of kicking them all out of your life is insane.

Consider how many millions of people have been murdered in wars, and how many more will suffer this fate in the future, all because people want to impose their own preferred brand of evil government on people who prefer a different brand of evil government. Think how close civilization has come to nuclear annihilation on the altar of which government is best.

In spite of patriotic noises to the contrary, it's not even a matter of conflicting principles. Just look at the past century of American history if you don't believe me.

The conservative faction is constantly fighting against the policy changes pushed by the progressive faction. The "right" versus the "left".

Yet, when leftist policies, even actual socialism such as Social Security, get entrenched enough that they are part of a historical legacy, conservatives start wanting to "conserve" them as well; to keep them around. As the saying goes, the left wants exciting new evils while the right prefers traditional evils.

In the former Soviet Union, I'm sure it's the conservatives who want the return of Communism. The progressives are probably the ones who are pressing for more democracy, without realizing they are promoting mob rule; might (through superior numbers) makes "right". Pick your poison? I reject them all.

I'll keep pushing for liberty while those who want to add poison to society keep fighting for which type of poison they prefer.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Do what works

As much as I dislike pragmatism, I may have to use it.

No matter how hard I work, or how many hours I put in on my various projects, they never pay off very well. I usually end up losing money. 

(If you're still reading by this point, you're probably unusual.)

Writing this blog comes the closest to "paying off". I'm kind of ashamed of how little it comes to per hour, especially if you include the newspaper column as part of the blog, but at least it continues to bring in something. If money were the only reason I write, it wouldn't be worth it, but it isn't.

On the other hand, asking for donations pays off about a quarter to a third of the time. It has also cost me-- how much, I don't know-- because I've had people leave in disgust because I asked for money.

Perhaps they were like my first wife and were just looking for an excuse to leave and that gave them one. I'll never know.

So, to be pragmatic for a change, I'm asking for donations and subscriptions. Because it has a decent chance of working. 

If you don't want to see me asking in the future, don't donate. Maybe even berate me for asking. If it completely stops working or draws too much hate I'll stop asking.

.

Is communication impossible?

No one understands anything. Myself included.

I had someone tell me, using words, that words are meaningless. I asked why he used words to try to communicate this idea to me, then. He said he could have used GIFs. I'm skeptical. How could he be sure I would interpret the GIF as he intended? He couldn't.

Then, I had someone disagree with me that "conservative" and "liberal" are both incompatible with liberty. He claimed to be a "classical liberal" who is also an anarchist. I said I can't be a classical liberal since I don't believe in the "night watchman" state. He replied that he doesn't believe in that either, so I asked in what sense is he a "classical liberal" since (my understanding is) that this is the defining characteristic of the group. He said he believes that definition is outdated, but when asked, he couldn't give me his updated definition. He said he'd have to think about it.

You may not agree with me, but I think I can at least explain my position-- using meaningless words, unfortunately. Words which I can also define (using more meaningless words, I suppose).

In another instance I said there are no "good cops" for exactly the same reason there are no "good rapists"-- the actions they choose to take are not actions a good person would take. Someone demanded to know if I was comparing all cops to all rapists. I said, "I’m saying it’s legitimate to judge a group of people by the actions they choose to commit." Of course, the message couldn't get through his conditioning.

The current Scott Adams/Dilbert mess is also based on a breakdown in communication. He used words that people interpreted to mean what they wanted them to mean (and take out of context).

It makes me wonder-- and I know I've expressed this before-- if communication between people is possible beyond a simple "Me Tarzan. You Jane." information exchange. I guess these days, even that breaks down. What a mess.

Maybe it's time to revert to a pre-linguistic state and just grunt and point and whack each other with sticks.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Don't be hobbled by unfortunate people

Over the decades I've heard some of the dumbest well-meaning people proclaim: “Don’t waste money on space (travel, exploration, commercialization, etc.) while there is poverty and suffering here on Earth.”

If that’s your standard, nothing worthwhile will ever be accomplished. You'll be trapped by the existence of unfortunate people, never to escape. Unfortunate people will never be totally eliminated by spending money on them. Since they'll always be around, you'd never be able to spend money on anything else. Not even those things which might have a long-term positive impact. Such as opening up a whole new frontier full of options and opportunities.

Why only complain about space? Don’t waste money on art, either. Or anything else that makes life better or more colorful in the long run.

I agree governments shouldn't be spending money on space (or on anything else), since governments have no money to spend without stealing it or counterfeiting it. But if you have the money and that's what you want to spend it on, go ahead. Then, if you have some left, you could even send a little my way.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Losing the ability to violate others (without consequence)

Would it scare you to lose your ability to violate other people’s rights and get away with it? 

Or would that anger you?

I'm betting if you're reading this, it would do neither.

I think the vast majority of people have one reaction or the other. They believe they are entitled to violate the rights of others, and they have a negative reaction when something makes that harder to get away with.

Most people take the slimy path of dishonestly violating others through political government rather than doing the hard work themselves, but there's no ethical difference. And they don't like it one little bit when their ability to get away with violating others gets hobbled in some way. Is it fear or anger?

Sometimes fear and anger look the same to an observer, so I'm not ever quite sure which I'm seeing. Sometimes it looks like anger and other times it looks like fear. It always looks negative.

Imagine being this addicted to violating others. Who would want to live like that? Statists, that's who.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Project on Patreon

"You don't care"

Many times in online discussions, someone will scold me that I "don't care". It might be because I am against mandatory shots or masks or shutdowns, because I am against censorship, or because I am against anti-gun rules.

"But Grandma/children/I might die!"

The fact that this "argument" doesn't sway me is used as evidence to my critic that I don't care.

Well, looked at a certain way, they are right. I don't care to impose "safetyness" tyranny on people; to violate their liberty for imaginary "safety".

Life isn't safe. No rules will ever make it safe. You and I aren't going to avoid death. I would rather live free than live as a slave to people who hallucinate that they know how to keep everyone (and their feelings) safe from the real world.

If "caring" means enslaving everyone for some psychotic karen's fears and feelings, then I don't care. I can't care.

If "caring" means respecting your liberty, and helping you if I can-- without taking away your autonomy-- then I care a lot.

I care, I just don't care to make you a slave. If that's not good enough, then you're out of luck.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Tolerating the pro-slavery coalition

Imagine a group of politicians who could be counted on to submit bills every year to reinstate chattel slavery. No matter how badly their bills failed, they'd keep trying every year like clockwork just because they can't take "No" for an answer. They will keep trying, hoping for a favorable political climate where their pro-slavery agenda can be pushed through.

Should these criminals be tolerated?

Well, that's the situation, only it's a group of congressvermin who keep submitting anti-gun bills every year. They will keep trying and trying until or unless they are decisively stopped from ever trying again.

I don't have an answer as to how this can be accomplished.

No, I'm not under the impression that any legislation they manage to force through has any "authority". No one is obligated to obey any such rule. It is unethical. It is illegal (if you care about that). It is anti-liberty and anti-human. 

And they keep trying to impose it anyway. It's time to stop tolerating these criminals.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating.