Government bad tool for the job

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 30, 2023)

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

This quote is often attributed to George Washington, but scholars insist he never said it. Scholars consistently fact-check away intelligent quotes which support liberty. The most accurate quips and observations are usually denied as ever having been said. That's too bad; if Washington had said this it would have been one of the smarter things he said.

Yet, it's still not quite right.

If government is like fire, it's like a wildfire engulfing a stack of propane tanks under a daycare full of children.

Government is a tool-- a tool invariably used as an offensive weapon.  I've seen some try to compare government to firearms; a tool which is neither good nor bad. Government is much more like a bomb-- a nuclear bomb. It isn't possible to aim it accurately enough to avoid destroying the life, liberty, and property of innocent bystanders. The intention may be to only use it defensively, but this isn't possible in the real world.

Those who founded America tried to establish a defensive government which would do the one and only thing a legitimate government can do: defend the rights of the people from any who would violate them. Yet it took no time for even their young government to start being used to violate people's rights rather than protect them. Even the Constitution rejected pure defense of rights for enshrined government powers which harm life, liberty, and property. The power to tax being one of the worst.

The idea of defensive government is one which fools most people into going along with the institution which is the single greatest threat to their liberty. The tiny risk of terrorism pales in comparison to the real, everyday violations you are subjected to by the government you might believe protects you from the terrorists. You'd be better off without it.

This idea of government to protect your rights has failed every single time it has been tried. Like it or not, government remains the biggest threat to your life, liberty, and property.

When choosing a tool for defense, reach for one which, like a firearm, can be aimed at the threat with surgical precision, not for a weapon of random destruction like the Molotov Cocktail of political government.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

The solution is known

The solution to every issue under the Sun is to get politics-- government-- out of the way. Completely.

As L. Neil Smith used to say, crime is a solved problem. Government just doesn't want to let it be solved. Government relies on problems; it has no incentive to fix anything (other than elections and trials, I mean).

Get rid of legislation, then stop preventing people from defending themselves-- their life, liberty, and property-- from all violators, foreign and (the source of the real threats) domestic.

If you want to keep the problems around and make them worse, then keep throwing legislation at them. That will be the result.

People who propose political/governmental/legislative "solutions" take themselves very seriously. They hope you mistake them for "the adults in the room" just like they envision themselves to be.

They don’t want, and will not accept or truly consider, any solution unless it is a government “solution”.

They are the most foolish, misguided people in society. I simply can't see them as credible anymore. They are spoiled toddlers-- hopped up on "authority"... with weapons. 

They'll dream up every insane "what if" they think might fool you into giving them power. And many, maybe most, people will be fooled. That's how we got where we are.

It's time to reverse the trend. It's time to treat the enemies of individual liberty as exactly what they are, and NOT as sensible, reasonable people who simply have different values.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

Revolving door injustice

Governing others is a crime. A real crime, not a made-up victimless "crime". It is archation. It creates victims. It creates a debt to those victims that requires restitution. Ignoring this is injustice.

Those serial archators, at worst, get a slap on the wrist and remain free to govern again. And they will continue to do so as long as they live. There are no real consequences to prevent it. It's the worst example of revolving door "justice" there is.

One tragic example is all those political criminals who keep making up new anti-gun rules. When their new rule gets slapped down, they just commit the exact same crime as soon as possible. Usually using previous crimes they got away with as justification for the new crimes. They need to be stopped. Hard!

If I were like most people I'd say serial governing is the best argument for "three strikes, you're out". In this case, most politicians would be long overdue for life imprisonment. But I oppose imprisonment, even for something as serious as serial governing.

What I really support is for each and every political criminal's next intended victim to put a permanent end to the criminal at the moment of the attack. "But that's illegal." Of course it is, because the criminals write and enforce the rules. It doesn't make it wrong, just dangerous. 

Eventually, it's going to have to become standard practice anyway, if society is to survive. I'm not optimistic. I'm not brave (or foolish?) enough to go first. I expect the situation will continue to get worse for this very reason. Maybe someday, someone will rebuild on the ashes of what we let die.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

Helping, hurting, or ?

It's a question everyone needs to stop and ask themselves occasionally: Am I helping or hurting, or am I completely irrelevant?

I've been told I'm all three. Sometimes on the same day.

Some people have told me of the positive difference I've made. That's always welcome and appreciated.

I'm not going to compromise or equivocate. Some people have told me this hurts the cause of liberty because it's "extreme". This doesn't feel as good as the positive affirmations, but it's still appreciated. Feedback is useful.

Then, others have told me it doesn't matter what I say or do because no one's listening to hear it. I know that's not true since I can see how many hits this blog gets in a day. Obviously, simply seeing the post doesn't mean anyone is getting the message, or that they agree. But it's something. I may still be irrelevant in the grand scheme, but I'm doing what I can do to the best of my ability, for as long as I feel like doing it.

I'm still flyin'.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

Anti-education from schools

Mark Twain once said, “If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed.”

I updated that to: If you don't watch "the news" you might be uninformed. If you do watch "the news" you will be misinformed.

It's time for an expansion covering what goes on in "public" schools. If you don’t attend school you might be uneducated. If you do, you will be miseducated. You will be indoctrinated into believing falsehoods.

The historically Pignorant "teacher" in Colorado who kept insisting the Gadsden flag was supportive of slavery is just one example. What other lies is she repeating to the inmates under her thumb? How are her lies helping these kids? Would they really be worse off doing anything other than sitting in that school?

Update-- I've seen reports the school has backed down. But what other crap are they shoveling into those kids' heads that hasn't been exposed?

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

You can't make other people be responsible

People are irresponsible. If you're one of my regular readers, I'm assuming this observation doesn't apply to you.

I was watching a gun video where the guy was talking about a place he has used for shooting over the years; where other shooters left so much shot-up trash around that the state has closed the area for a couple of months as a warning. And they might make the closure permanent because people aren't responsible. 

The people who are the problem aren't going to change or learn. They never do.

If you go to a place to shoot, it's up to you to pick up your own trash. Not only that, it's up to you to pick up other people's trash because they won't do it. Sure, you could say that's not your responsibility. I don't care. You need to do it anyway. Or plan on losing your favorite shooting spot.

Personally, I dislike shooting ranges. But ever since my mom's cousin sold his farm, that's my only option until I hit it rich and can buy my own land.

Near my home in Colorado, there were huge expanses of BLM land. There were two specific places where I would go to shoot. And so would lots of other people. I always picked up my own stuff before I left. Of course, other people didn't do the same. So when I finished shooting I would spend time picking up their junk, too. Sometimes a lot of time. I knew if the area wasn't taken care of, the feds would use that as an excuse to ban the activity. It wouldn't have been my fault, but I would have suffered. 

As much as I hate The State, I know that wouldn't have really been government's fault, but that of the irresponsible shooters. One type of irresponsible person or archator isn't really worse than any other. They all ruin the world for the rest of us.

No, I didn't get all the junk and trash cleaned up. That would have been impossible for one person in one day. But I always left the place better than I found it. That's always my intention, no matter the topic. Always leave things better than they were when you arrived. It's a big part of the motivation behind my writing. Spreading an understanding of liberty improves the world.

As I've mentioned before, I was an (actual) environmentalist long before I understood liberty. Understanding liberty didn't make me care less about taking care of the world. It made me care more. If I don't, who will? It's not the state's responsibility. I don't want to be taxed to fund the cleanup. It's my responsibility whether I want to face it or not. So I do.

Government doesn't really care about the environment-- it's just an excuse to control what you can do and where you can go. I've seen what passes for statist "environmental protection", and it is worse than worthless. You and I can do better, but we have to make the effort.

Face the fact that other people aren't responsible. They can't be turned responsible by punishing them. Be responsible enough that their irresponsibility doesn't hurt you more. It's more work, but responsibility is the hard half of liberty.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

"Rich men" aren't the problem

That song that's going around has some good points. 

I watched one "reaction video" where the guy watching said he doesn't know what's going on over there around Richmond, but it must be bad.

Sigh.

That's as misguided as thinking "rich men" are the problem, rather than understanding that the problem is that the rich men (which includes women) he's criticizing got rich by doing things no one has a right to do. 

He points out "they all just wanna have total control, wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do...". This lust to control-- which leads to ill-gotten riches through the political means rather than honest riches attained through economic means-- is obviously the problem.

The problem isn't that someone is rich; it is when they got rich by governing and other forms of wrongdoing.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

Liberty always the civilized choice

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 23, 2023)

If you don't understand, love, or want liberty-- fine. If you'd prefer having powerful governments take most of your money, tell you what you are allowed to do, and watch your every move, go for it. It's not my place to deprive you of what you want.

I draw the line when you don't return the consideration. When you say I am required to live under your conditions when I don't place the same constraints on you. When you are willing to throw people in a cage for preferring liberty over authoritarian government and acting on their preference.

I wouldn't do the same to you because it would violate my principles.

This is why liberty will always be the civilized choice.

I envision a world where you are free to form silly little clubs whose members take turns governing each other to their hearts’ content. Where all your arbitrary rules apply only to those who explicitly join your club and agree to play by whatever rules are dreamed up. Arguing over how much each member must pay to fund this year's club leadership's pet projects. Where you can fight other clubs without involving anyone else.

A world where no one would be in danger for ignoring your clubs and the quirks of the club members.

I wouldn’t join, but I’d leave you alone to play your club’s games by your club’s rules. I would expect your club to stay out of my life completely.

If your club makes you feel like someone is taking care of you and keeping you safe, I understand. If your club leaders want to steal operating funds from the members and call this "taxation", fine. Just leave those of us who don't swallow the lies-- about the legitimacy of government through the "consent of the governed"-- out of it.

If your excuse for pretending your club should control my life involves a social contract, I would point out that a social contract can't impose an anti-social institution on those who haven't seen, read, or signed it. If it were a true social contract it would read "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff", not something anti-social like: "You will let me hurt people and take their stuff if enough others agree and no one stops me".

You are free to establish your club, but not to impose it on everyone who lives where you think your club should rule.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Calling human rights "Constitutional rights"

I am uncomfortable with calling any natural human rights "Constitutional rights". You may have noticed I don't use that phrase anymore (if I ever did).

I don't like it when people talk about "our Second Amendment rights", for example. 

For one thing, I don't like "our" being used in that collectivist way, and for another, the rights placed off-limits to government attention (oversight or scrutiny) don't hinge on the Second Amendment. 

That ignored amendment makes all government gun rules a crime. It doesn't "give" anyone any rights to do anything.

If the totalitarians of the state decide ignoring the Second Amendment (which they've gotten away with doing for around 90 years) isn't good enough, they can simply abolish it. 

But the natural human rights it addresses will exist unchanged. Forever. They'd rather you not realize this fact-- if they are aware of it.

Referring to the rights to own and to carry weapons and to form militias that are armed with weapons equal to or better than those wielded by government's military, as "Second Amendment rights" cheapens those rights; makes it easier for the anti-gun bigots to attack them through government violence.

But the rights to own and to carry weapons and to form militias aren't the only rights abused this way. Any natural human right called a "Constitutional right" or referred to by an amendment number is the same. If it's a right nothing can change that. Not government opinions, not mob rule, and not time. If it isn't a right, calling it one can't turn it into one.

Thinking rights come from or depend on documents or government opinions means you don't understand rights.
Until you understand and respect rights, you can't understand liberty.
If you don't understand liberty you'll probably never have it.
This isn't an academic exercise.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

Scrape it off and burn it with fire!

Some topics just make me feel dirty. And sick. Politics is one.

Yesterday's post for example.

I didn't think it was that political when I wrote it, but after re-reading it, I noticed it makes me feel a little queasy. Anything to do with government or v*ting has that effect-- even though I wasn't suggesting anyone v*te (or don't v*te) for anyone. I was just mentioning something that came to mind, something to do with a politician. Something which could save that politician's life if she read it and listened to me.

So, just realize when I mention a rule (a "law"), a politician, a bureaucracy, or anything political, I am doing it in spite of my own well-being and self-interest, to help someone else.

If it helps you in any way, you're welcome. If not, the wounds will probably heal and the scars won't be too bad.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.

Kamala Harris is in peril

If I were Kamala Harris, I would be in fear for my life.

The Democratic Party (including the FBI, CIA, and the corporate media) needs to get rid of Biden before parts start falling off. But they've got a problem, and her initials are KH.

They can't allow Kamala to take over the "job". 

They can't admit she was a DEI hire and is incompetent. 

They need someone else in her "job" before they can let go of Biden.

They also need an event to pin on gun owners (and a gun design they want to demonize) so they can scream for more anti-gun rules. 

It's a perfect storm on the horizon.

If I were her in that situation, I would resign before they could "retire" me.

If you think I'm joking you'd be wrong.

But, maybe I am wrong, and "no one would ever do such a thing for political reasons, you crazy conspiracy nut!".

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 
Thank you.

I HATE lying anti-liberty bigots!

This is a re-post from October 28, 2012. I'm not only reposting this because I'm lazy (I am), but because it's still relevant.

____________

I get drawn into these "discussions" with lying anti-liberty, gun-hating bigots.  I know I shouldn't try to reason with them, but I do.  I am tired of pretending that their ideas have any validity, and tired of pretending that they are anything other than mass-murder enablers.  I try to be civil, but they are so incredibly dishonest and ignorant that it is really difficult.

Anyway, here is a recent exchange from Opposing Views/Facebook:

_____________

  "You have a curious concept of the word compromise."

 No, that's the anti-liberty bigots' concept of compromise. My idea of compromise is "I give up something and you give up something". The gun haters have never given up anything at all, but have only demanded "just one more little 'reasonable' law" each time they got gun owners to "compromise". Screw that.

"... the 20K number was completely invented and has no connection to reality"

You're probably right- it is undoubtedly much higher now. And although any single individual might not be subject to all of those "laws"- and many of them are the same "law" imposed on different places- each of those "laws" gets a veil of legitimacy from the existence of all the others, and they ALL hurt everyone. I don't want a person in NYC to be victimized by an anti-gun "law" any more than I want to live under one. Because I value EVERYONE's liberty. Even one anti-gun "law" is too many. The exact number doesn't matter.

"...how about you suggest a few gun laws that you think should be eliminated..."

I want ALL anti-gun "laws" eliminated. "Compromise" is your Trojan Horse. In any compromise between poison and food, or between liberty and oppression, only the poison and oppression win.

"Let's start by closing the gun show loophole."

There is no such thing. Gun sales at gun shows are subject to the *exact same* counterfeit anti-gun "laws" that gun sales anywhere else are subject to. Stop lying.

"I hope we can all agree that felons with a history of violence shouldn't be allowed to buy guns."

No, I don't agree to that at all. Because there is no way to stop violent felons from buying guns, no matter what "the law" is. And if they can't buy them they will steal or build them. Plus if someone can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted, period. Once someone has been released from prison they should not have their rights continuing to be violated. Many "felons" did not even commit acts of violence in the first place. Plus there are plenty of false convictions. Nope. I'll gladly take my chances with other people's liberty, rather than give a criminal gang the "authority" to decide who may or may not exercise a fundamental human right.

"So, why would we allow people to bypass the background checks needed to check if someone is a violent felon?"

"We" don't. Not from gun dealers. What you want to do- the reality of the false "gun show loophole" lie- is to ban ALL private gun sales unless they are government approved. Stop lying.

"Next how about a mental health background check."

Ever thought about who is permitted to decide what constitutes a "mental illness"? I have, and I don't trust them to not use political measures, just like the Soviet Union did. It has already been proposed that the desire to own a gun constitutes a "mental illness". Convenient, huh.

"If this was required 'Batman' shooter would have been unable to buy all of those guns."

Only through gun stores. And wait, wasn't it illegal for him to *shoot* people? Why would he be willing to break that BIG law, but be stopped by some minor "law" that is supposedly about stopping him from buying or possessing a gun? And even if he was somehow magically prevented from possessing a gun, would a crazy person be unable to build explosives? Or grab a machete and start hacking? Why is being murdered by a gunshot supposedly worse than being murdered in some other way? He was a killer with a captive victim pool which was disarmed by "law" and which had limited ability to escape.

"I hope we can agree that he was clearly not mentally stable enough to buy a gun and had a clear history of mental health problems that would have shown up on a check."

Just because he was not mentally stable the day he committed the murders doesn't mean he wasn't mentally stable months before. Things change; people snap.

"There, 2 reasonable gun laws."

Not "reasonable" at all. Try again.

"Of course we can show that places with more permissive gun laws have more gun related deaths so that would indicate that they do prevent tragedies..."

Except that it doesn't work that way. Places with stricter anti-gun "laws" have higher rates of murder and violence. Even with guns. You know this as well as I do. Stop lying.

"How about you tell me some times that gun owners (not the police) have prevented a tragedy with their guns."

I could give you several examples, a couple that I have personal knowledge of. Without a shot being fired, by the way. I could also direct you to websites that collect stories of armed people stopping attacks. It happens more than you know because most of these incidents never get reported to the police. But a lot still do get reported. If you were serious about wanting to know about those you could find them easily. There are lots of them.

"Can you give me any examples of mass shootings that were stopped by a private citizen with a gun?"

Yes. Pearl High School, Pearl Mississippi. October 1, 1997. But, like all stopped mass shootings, it was stopped before it became too "massive". And there are many more. Look at all the cases where an armed assailant with lots of ammo and multiple guns is stopped before the body count gets anywhere near where it could potentially go. It never becomes a "mass shooting" precisely because someone with a gun stops it. Therefore the news coverage is muted. But if you want to know, you can find out about them.

"You mention that the second amendment says that the right to bear arms 'shall not be infringed' but you and I both know that's not true."

Read it again if you believe that isn't true.

"We both agree that violent gang members should not be allowed to own guns right?"

I don't agree to that at all. Let them be armed, and let their neighbors be armed, too. They'll either calm down or die. We outnumber the violent bad guys overwhelmingly, and had government not been so successful at convincing people that armed self-defense is somehow "unseemly", and criminalizing it, there wouldn't be a gang problem.

"That's infringement."

Yes, and it's illegal.

"We both agree, I assume, that people should not be allowed to own fully automatic military grade machine guns right?"

No, I don't agree. People CAN own fully automatic military-grade machine guns now; they just have to pay an illegal "tax" and go through an illegal "approval process". The Second Amendment makes it clear that this regulation is illegal. What difference does it make how fast a gun shoots? The bullets still come out of the barrel one at a time. And it's expensive to shoot an automatic. Your petty thug isn't going to use one, and if he does he'll run out of ammo really quick.

"I hope we can both agree that people should not be allowed to own surface to air missiles or RPG's."

Why not? And why bother? How many people would risk abusing them, knowing that those they target would also have access to the same things? The State owns them, and misuses them. "The People" should always be in possession of superior arms over and above what The State possesses. That is why the Second Amendment was written.

"That's infringement of your right to bear arms. In other words, we all agree that the right to bear arms has to be infringed."

No, actually we don't. Yet, even if we did, it would still be illegal to do so.

"It's just a question of where the line is drawn. So, maybe we should have a 'national conversation' to discuss where to draw that line."

Sure. That's very easy. The "line" is drawn at misuse, not possession. Possession of ANYTHING can't be a legitimate "crime". Yes, that includes "drugs", too.

And, I'll fill you in on another inconvenient detail. The right to own and to carry any kind of weapon we desire, everywhere we go, openly or concealed, without ever asking permission from anyone predates the Second Amendment. You could repeal it and the right would still exist just as it has since the first human evolved. It exists in Texas, New York City, Tehran, Beijing, Sydney, Tokyo, BFE, and Washington DC whether the local "authorities" respect the right or not. A right can be respected of violated- there is no other option. I choose to respect everyone else's rights because I only deserve the liberty I respect in others. And because I am not a pathetic, whimpering coward begging Big Brother to save me from all the scary people and their tools.

*** Next comment***

"See, I assumed you were a rational human being with a grip on reality."

Funny how your kind sees "rationality" to mean that I'll give up my liberty to the most murderous gang on the planet. No thanks.

"...but since you were unable to give evidence..."

I did give evidence, but people like you are not worth my time. I am not writing these responses to you, but only to show others how dishonest and evil the anti-liberty bigots truly are. I could give case after case, all day long, and you'd deny it ever happened.

"I could again ask you to give one shred of evidence to the widely spread claim of 20K gun laws in this country but you couldn't before and you can't now because it's a blatant lie."

As I said, the exact number is irrelevant. Even one anti-gun "law" is one too many. You Mass Murderer Fan Club folks would rather see a woman raped in an alley than see her standing over the body of her attacker, a smoking gun in her hand. And if you deny it you are lying again. Each and every one of your "reasonable gun laws" will lead to this inevitable result.

"I could point out that your idea of compromise, that I give up everything and you give up nothing, is the exact opposite of what the word compromise means."

And as I have pointed out, this isn't my idea of compromise, it is the anti-liberty bigots' idea. This is what they have been demanding of gun owners since the first of their kind got the notion to pass the very first anti-gun "law". First it was just that they'd only ban machine guns. Few refused to comply. Then it was any gun that wasn't suited for war. Then it was any gun that could be used in war. Then it was guns by mail, and guns without getting government permission, and then it was sport utility guns- oh, I'm sorry, that would be "assault weapons" to you. Then it was background checks and waiting periods. And cheap revolvers. And normal capacity magazines. And the list goes on and on and on. Each time your kind has said if we just compromise this time... and each time the anti-liberty bigots lied. The goalposts keep being moved away from liberty and closer to a total gun ban. Enough! Not one more inch!

"I could even re-post the link that shows that gun deaths are considerably more common in places with more lax gun laws but you clearly ignored it the first time so why bother this time?"

A lie from a well-known anti-liberty organization is still a lie no matter how many times you post it. And the results have been the same for hundreds of years- places where the people are armed are safer than places where only the government is armed.

"...anybody who thinks that any individual, whether they be a criminal, a terrorist or mentally insane, should be able to walk into a store and, with no background check whatsoever walk out with surface to air missiles is a f***ing moron who is so disconnected from reality that clearly having a rational discussion about gun rights in this country will be impossible."

The rational discussion is: Not one more inch. You try to take our guns and we will defend ourselves to the death. Are you ready? How many guns will you personally try to steal? Or will you only send thugs with guns to steal the guns? Bring it on, Liberty Haters.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 
Thank you.

My favorite kind of DEI

I mean Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated; the original DEI.

Both kinds of DEI are supposedly evil, but Doofenshmirtz fails to be truly evil. At least he isn't associated with any governmental goons. Quite unlike corporate "DEI" pushers. And I think he could be reasoned out of his mission. If his opposition had any good arguments on their side-- and presented them.

His archnemesis, Perry the Platypus, is the real villain. He works directly for the Military Industrial Complex.

The world would be a better place if corporate/governmental DEI were replaced with Doofenshmirtz Evil Inc. Replacing the real harm of "DEI" with fake "evil" would be an improvement. The less of the dishonest kind of "equity", the better. The less "diversity" and "inclusion" for the sake of diversity and inclusion, when it makes no actual sense at all, the better. 

I'd take Doofenshmirtz over any bureaucrat or politician any day. After all, if he can be thwarted by a platypus, I'm not going to worry much about his "evil" schemes.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 
Thank you.

Our lying minds

Our brains, and more specifically our minds, are always lying to us. 

Our eyes are parts of our brains that stick out of the front of our heads, exposed to the light, giving input to our minds. Our eyes deceive us pretty often, so the input going from them into our minds isn't always trustworthy.

Our ears are tunnels through our skull to our brain; funneling air vibrations right into our brain for our mind to interpret and use. But how often have your ears played tricks on you? Or, is your mind only making you believe your ears are at fault?

Then our brains, probably through a process of spontaneous order, give rise to our minds which create our perceived reality. With all the possible issues along that pathway, how can we be sure we are on track?

The only way we can catch our minds in a lie is by using our minds. Including the sketchy input from our eyes and ears and our mind's questionable reason and rationality.

This doesn't seem like an optimal situation.

Generally, though, we somehow make it work. We cobble together a picture of reality that's good enough to keep us alive for a while.

I think it's better to respect other people's liberty. And this works really well for me.

Someone else obviously thinks it's better to stomp on others to get what they want, and I'd be lying if I said this never works out for them. They usually end up ahead of people like me.

I believe their mind is lying to them more than mine is lying to me-- in this example, anyway. Even if I'm wrong, my logic and ethics make it impossible for me to live as they do. I can see the consequences that would result if everyone acted like them and I don't see it as a good world to live in. 

Whereas, if everyone lived as I think is better, I don't see any real unsolvable problem arising. At least, that's what my mind tells me. Is this a lie my mind is telling?

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 
Thank you.

Running others' lives wrong choice

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 16, 2023)

You've probably been told you should try to make a difference in the world. This is stated, especially to the young, as if it were undeniably true. Who pauses to clarify that it's vital to make the right difference?

Before you try to make a difference you need to think about whether the difference you want to make would be helpful.

Every mass-murdering head of state has unquestionably made a difference. Millions dead, and millions more enslaved to an authoritarian government isn't a difference I endorse.

Few people get into politics intending to make things worse. The problem is, politics makes people worse.

Getting into politics changes good people into bad people. I would never encourage anyone I respected or liked to run for office. A person's ethical core is destroyed by governing others. You won't clean up sewage by pouring a bucket of clean water into it.

Author J.R.R. Tolkien observed, “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.” Getting involved in politics is the fastest way to turn a saint into a demon.

Similarly, I don't encourage people to vote because voting won't make a positive difference, either; it isn't allowed to. At best the election swaps out one monster for a different monster. Anything which would make a positive difference isn't allowed on the ballot. This is why "None of the above-- abolish the office" isn't the default option at the top of every ballot.

Maybe you suppose I'm promoting apathy. Not at all, although setting out to make a political difference is often worse in the long run. Sometimes making a difference is worse than doing nothing at all.

Apathetic people, by definition, don't seek to make a difference. You may blame them for sitting by while passionate people make terrible differences, but if so you'd be blaming the wrong people.

Passionate people, when they are passionate about imposing their will on everyone else through government and legislation, are far worse for society than apathetic people. The world would be a better place if those who want to make a difference by ruling others would adopt a little apathy instead. Running other people's lives is never the right difference to make.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

One of the finest explanations of liberty

Soon after I first discovered the liberty community, I ran across this video, posted by someone somewhere as a tribute to the artist who had just died. 

It embedded itself deeply into my mind. 

It's one of the best explanations of liberty and self-ownership I've ever run across. Even to this day. It gets the point across in a simple way. I've never seen anyone able to refute it with counterarguments, no matter how they try. It just is.

Yes, the animation and music are dated now. I've seen updated versions, but this is still my favorite just because it's the one I first encountered.

I'm sure you've seen it before, but enjoy it again.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 

Thank you.

Cops as victims

Most cops are victims. Victims of brainwashing and bad information.

I suspect most cops honestly believe they have rights above and beyond the rights possessed by everyone who isn't a cop. They don't, and if they believe this it is a clear sign that they were misinformed.

A typical cop believes he is the only one with the right to wear his gun into a post office or a courthouse. This is the result of bad education resulting in a lack of understanding of what rights are.

A typical cop believes he has the right to stop travelers who are going faster than some arbitrary speed and extort money from them. And shoot them if they resist the attempted robbery. A cop won't keep his "job" if he questions this extra "right" that he's told is his.

Being a victim doesn't excuse their behavior, but it can explain it somewhat and help us understand why they act as they do. 

There is still no such thing as a "good" cop.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal or Venmo 

Thank you.

The v*ter's criticism

If you don't v*te, are you "sitting out the fight"? 

Or, are you fighting the wrong fight by participating in a rigged, illegitimate system if you do v*te?

I can see both sides. Even if I currently lean more toward one particular side.

If you believe you should v*te, go ahead. Feel free to make your case for doing so-- you might even convince me.

But don't pretend those who refuse to v*te are not in the fight or are helping the bad guys win. They are simply fighting on a different front.

--

I really need money for expenses. 

PayPal and Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. 

Thank you.

The grief entitlement

Residents of Maui are telling visitors to stay away, "with one angry resident telling the BBC she saw visitors swimming in the water that 'our people just died in three days ago'.” [link]

You don’t get to shut down the world because "someone died".

It would have been unreasonable of me to demand that the section of road where my daughter died be shut down for a month or so to keep people from going anywhere they might have enjoyed. I didn't have that right.

It's unreasonable for anti-gun bigots to demand new gun rules because some evil loser used a gun to murder people. They have no such right.

Your pain and grief doesn't give you the right to shut down the world. It doesn't give you the right to control others. It just doesn't.

I can understand if locals tell visitors they'd rather they not come now. Or warn them of the situation and how amenities may be unavailable. I could even see locals simply refusing to do business with visitors, and instead focusing on their neighbors. But, you don't control others. You can refuse service, but to scold them for being in the ocean, when they were apparently already on the island, is too far.

--

I really need money for some unexpected expenses on top of the expected ones. 

PayPal and Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. 

Thank you.

Seeing a difference where none exists

If a mob boss controls an area, extorting "protection" money in exchange for not burning down a business and breaking the owner's legs, I think anyone in that area would be completely within their rights to sneak up behind the mob boss and shoot him in the head. Even as he sits "peaceably" in a theater. 

Even though the mob boss may never do any of his thuggish activity himself, employing underlings to carry out his will. He is still the aggressor, right at this moment. Shooting him is an act of self-defense, not revenge. 

It may or may not be smart to shoot him. It could well be a suicide mission. But it isn't unethical to do so. 

His continued existence in that "job" is harming the shooter's life, liberty, and property in the current moment and into the future as long as he continues to do what he does. 

Obviously, the mob will say you aren't allowed to kill mob bosses, and it will punish those who try.

Will shooting one mob boss, while the mob continues to exist, make any real difference? No. He'll just be replaced by the next in line. So it's pointless and dangerous to do so. But it can't be wrong.

Some people see politicians as somehow meaningfully different from mob bosses. Those people aren't me.

--

I really need an infusion of money for some unexpected expenses, on top of the expected ones. 

PayPal and Venmo are faster, so that would be preferable. 

Thank you.