Computer trouble

My laptop has locked me out.

I’m working on it. I’ve tried everything I could think of and I’ve asked people who know more about computers than I do. So far nothing has worked. 

"People will never let go of government"

In any discussion with statists, at some point I will be told that people aren't ready for liberty. That they will never accept the responsibility of governing themselves. That they'll continue to insist on being governed, and someone will step in to fill that position.

So what if they're right?

Maybe people aren't ready for liberty.
Maybe they'll insist on having political government and on being governed.
Maybe.

That doesn't mean you have to accept their weakness. It certainly doesn't mean you are wrong for not sharing in it.

They'll never grow up unless they are pushed. 

That's why we need to keep pushing. Keep ridiculing statism-- because it is ridiculous. Keep pointing out the evil stupidity of political government. Keep showing them that not everyone accepts the premise that government is good or necessary. Keep expressing the many reasons we don't accept the premise. The reasons we never can.

Yes, (the superstitious idea of ) government exists. So? I don't share that belief- not in government as a concrete thing that people have to have. It's an obsolete belief that evil people use to control gullible people. Once the belief cracks, it's never as powerful against you.

Yes, those who believe in it will continue to be a danger to you and to society. I wouldn't expect anything else. There will always be bad people doing things they have no right to do. The hallucinations inside their head that cause them to justify doing those things may differ, but it's irrelevant. I don't care why they do wrong; only that they do. 

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Too much government deadly to liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 18, 2024)

Too much government is a problem. I'm not talking about too many governments, but too much. Global government-- one government-- is the worst possible scenario. The fewer governments, the worse the problem generally becomes. Political power-- the power to govern, murder, steal, imprison, and enslave-- gets more dangerous the more concentrated and centralized it is.

The best number of governments is exactly the same as the number of people alive. Neither more nor fewer. Each human has a right to govern himself, and no one else.

A hierarchy of governments-- national,. regional, and local-- isn't a substitute; it adds too much government to the mix. That kind of structure allows governments to gang up on individuals to crush their liberty.

Governing others is a form of collectivism. It's a bad idea and worse in practice. Whether you call it communism, socialism, or fascism (versions of the same thing), or a constitutional republic, the last thing you want to do is allow too much government to exist.

Government collectivism and liberty are mortal enemies; they can't coexist. Watch what is happening in formerly "Great" Britain if you don't believe me. First, the people were disarmed and now they are being arrested-- kidnapped by government-- for social media posts the British government doesn't like. This is where democracy leads. The people voted this into existence, and now they are paying the price.

The British subjects may be wishing they hadn't allowed the British state to violate their rights so completely. It's going to be harder now to regain liberty from too much government. I hope they manage.

Too much government can impose some truly awful ideas.

Too much government might impose diversity-- not the consensual, organic, bottom-up kind, but the coerced, destructive, top-down form. When you force people together it doesn't go well for society. It gives governments an excuse to crack down on the people who are reacting to the unlivable situation, though. This is probably why so many governments are forcing this policy on their populations.

The worst government idea of all is "equity"-- forcing equal outcomes, rather than respecting everyone's equal rights. It's one of the most brutal authoritarian plots communists have come up with so far.

Every human being alive has equal and identical rights. It doesn't depend on whether the regional government respects these rights; they exist regardless. If this fact is being suppressed, you have too much government.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Don't fall into this trap

Believing a leader is necessary (or wanting one) is weakness.

Mistaking politicians-- rulers-- for leaders is stupidity.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Where are they now?

Do you ever wonder "Where are they now?"?

I was just wondering about the person who, in response to my newspaper column about Covid hysteria in October 2020, wrote this to me:

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.

Yes, I was happy to risk it. Yes, I've probably had the illness 3 times so far. It was worth it to not be a prisoner in my own home. She's welcome to feel differently.

I wonder if she ever caught on that the thing was mostly (or entirely) a scam to control the population. That many of those doctors now admit there was no scientific data behind the mandates. 

I wonder which of us was more in tune with reality.

Is she still trying to hide from the virus?
How many shots and boosters did she get?
How many times has she had the Fauci Bug?
Does she blame me for every time she caught it?

I wonder if she is even still alive.

She never wrote to apologize for being crazy. Some people eventually do.

I'm fighting an urge to reply to her old email and ask how she is doing. But I won't. I doubt my email would be welcome.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

The Difference

When I don't like what others are doing I'll refuse to take part. I'll speak out against what they are doing. I may ridicule it. I'll only use force if I have to do so to protect life, liberty, or property from an archator.

When a statist doesn't like what others are doing, the statist will threaten (and use) government violence against them to stop them from doing it, whether there's an individual victim or not.

We are not the same.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

I'm not signing

If someone came to you today, with a document to sign that said the exact same thing the US Constitution says, would you sign it?

I wouldn't.

I was told I will be forced to sign some constitution, so I'd better sign this one or I'll be signing one that's worse.

I am not signing.

I was told they don't care if I don't sign. They'll insist on governing me anyway.
So, then, why would I sign?

I was told I must have a PLAN! to deal with thugs who would insist on governing/molesting me anyway. I pointed out all plans fall apart as soon as other people are involved. What is his plan? Signing their one-sided "contract"?
The best thing to do is to have principles that you can act on.
I'm still not signing it.

I was asked what I do when armed people show up and demand I pay their "taxes". I asked if he has a plan to deal with muggers.
How would signing a constitution eliminate the thieves? Why didn't it work this time?
I'm not signing anything.

So I was told all I have are principles and ideas that can't be put into concrete action. What an odd thing to say. Especially from someone whose plan seems to involve signing documents forced on him by criminal gangs. Documents which will be interpreted and enforced by the people employed by the criminal gang.
Not gonna sign.

Then he said I was claiming persecution, simply because I pointed out that criminals will always exist, whether you call them rapists, cops, murderers, tax collectors, rapists, or whatever. If you can't live free in spite of them, then you'll never be free.
All I'm saying is that I'm not going to sign, not that I'd try to stop him from signing.

So I was told again that I "hate" the Constitution, that I "keep pretending as if the binary is between 'a perfect stateless system or the imperfect constitution' when in reality the choice is between this imperfect constitution or some other constitution that is worse." Which I never did. In fact, I pointed out several times that Utopia is not an option.
But, I wouldn't sign his constitution.

This was another of those self-proclaimed "libertarians", doing anything he could think of to force people to live under a state because he couldn't imagine any other way.
And, I still wouldn't sign his constitution.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Things that make you say "Really?"

Curious whether "someone" has made political donations in your name without your knowledge? (Or want to see who the latest wanna-be assassin has been donating to?) Go to https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts and find out.

I was relieved to not find my name anywhere on the list. But I did see something a little suspicious.

One of my relatives seems to have made well over 200 donations in the last year she was alive-- up until 8 days before she died in January of this year. Mostly $3 each (198 of them!), with some smaller, some slightly larger, some amounts of a greater order of magnitude, and a couple of $250 donations. All but one going to ACTBLUE. 

Maybe she did... but it looks fishy.

She suffered a stroke several years ago and hadn't been 100% since then, unable to speak and be understood by anyone but her immediate family, and unable to walk. I'm not really sure how good her mind was otherwise.

It wouldn't shock me to discover she was a leftist, but it shows she made 13 small donations in one day, and on several days she apparently made 5, 6, or 7 donations. 

She probably had the money to do this, but it looks odd to me. There was one other person in this ZIP code with a similar donation profile, also mostly giving to ACTBLUE, but with only about half as many individual donations. This relative of mine beat everyone else in the ZIP code for the number of donations, but not the dollar amount. (One other relative made around 70 donations to various Republican groups and candidates in the past 2 years. This also seems excessive, but as there wasn't only one main recipient, it looks legitimate.)

I'm not going to mention this to her family. As I say, she could very well have been a lefty, and what's done is done. I don't corner people over politics. I can't explain peoples' political behaviors. Plus, it's none of my business. I didn't even intend to see this information, it was an accident as I was looking for my name and didn't know quite how to work the website. It just makes me wonder.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Spending all the time on the crazy half

I've always said I agree with the Right and the Left on the half of things they are each correct about. That hasn't changed. Given all the positions of each side, in raw numbers, they are still right on around half the topics.

Something else has changed, though. They are no longer correct half the time.

Both sides are focusing most of their time and effort yapping about the things they are wrong about.

Their statist positions disgust me. 

The Right would probably claim they push their bad positions-- pro-cop/"lawn odor", borderism, imperialism/militarism, etc.--  as a reaction to the nutty stuff coming from the Left. That excuses nothing.

The Left may still be correct about half of the time-- but they have pushed that half almost completely aside. They've swept it under the rug and focused hard on the things they are wrong about. Things like having government traffic people, banning guns, sexualizing kids, etc. (Things they lie and say isn't what they are doing when it really is.)

Why have they stopped talking about the things they are correct about-- ending prohibition, for example-- and started going so hard for the crazy stuff they are wrong about? Perhaps they'd claim it is in reaction to the nutty stuff coming from the Right. It excuses nothing.

I find it so hard to relate to statists.

(Image made on Gab.ai- look at all those fingers! The better to pick your pocket with.)

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

However election ends, you'll be fine

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 11, 2024)

No matter which politician attains the office of President after the upcoming election, you'll probably be fine. I know it's more popular to say we are all doomed unless a certain politician wins. The truth is, no President has had much effect on my life, regardless of whether I liked or despised him. Or potentially, her.

If they imposed unconstitutional legislation I didn't like, I probably ignored it or found a workaround. We all commit an average of three felonies per day, according to author and attorney Harvey Silverglate; what's the harm of a few more? When the laws are wrong, good people are outlaws.

This time, some activists tell us if the candidate they hate wins, he'll round up all those who oppose him or who live a different lifestyle. It's not going to happen. Not even if he actually wanted to do it, which he doesn't.

I don't think America will allow anything like the Japanese American internment camps of World War 2 to happen again. If you want me to rise up, try it.

Nearly every time we've been told a particular segment of the population will be rounded up, they haven't been. "January 6" protestors, drug users, and gun owners are obvious exceptions, and in those cases, neither party has been willing to end the atrocity. Both are guilty. It should have been resisted from the first, and it wasn't. This was a mistake... and a lesson.

If things get bad enough that your friends and neighbors see the need to rise up to save you, we will. And we'll win. Government doesn't realize they are playing with fire now.

The warning doesn't apply to only one political party, either.

I think every election since I've been an adult has been "the Most Important Election in Our Lifetime". Each one had at least one candidate who was a threat to the very fabric of America, according to the other party and the corporate media representing that side. I don't even think they are wrong. Anyone who seeks political power over others is unworthy of it and dangerous. Some are worse than others.

Whichever way the next election goes, you'll be fine. If it looks like you won't be, it's time to forego voting and protesting. "Never again" doesn't only apply to the Holocaust, but to any government overreach posing a threat to life, liberty, and property. I've had enough. Have you?

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Destroyers vs the rest of us

Every government agency is established to destroy whatever is in its realm. 

If it’s in the name, that agency is working to destroy it. 

Or, to at least destroy the credibility of that area of human work and study. NOAA probably can't destroy the atmosphere and ocean, but it can utterly destroy the credibility of those working in that arena. It can prevent any real progress from being made.

Just try to find an exception.

I'm not saying they'll limit themselves to destroying only that which is in their name, though. The FAA (Feral Aviation Administration) is working to destroy not only aviation but also space flight and the very future of humanity. "Good job", clowns.

If you want government oversight over something, you're looking to destroy that which you claim needs this government "help". Why?

Some just hate progress (a defining characteristic of "progressives"), but some seem to think they can profit from the broken pieces that are left after government steps in. Maybe they can, if they are evil enough.

If you call for government oversight over something, I see you as wanting to stop or destroy that thing. I don't see you as a serious person, looking to make the world better, but as a micro-tyrant hating to see anything good succeed or survive. Which is the same as destroying it.

(Image made on Gab.ai)

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Your primary earthly enemy

In everything it does, government proves it is liberty's enemy. It is your enemy. The Ancestral Enemy, because it has been the enemy of humanity-- including all your ancestors-- since the day the first crooks came together to create it.

Government makes up "laws" on the spot, violates its own laws, and then acts like you're the criminal for not submitting to their criminal behavior. I was going to link to a video from the UK of police doing this (and then posting an apology for "getting it wrong") sent to me by a reader in the UK, but someone has had the video taken down. Cops are scum in every country.

Government traffics humans, calls them "refugees", and then prohibits you from defending yourself, your property, and your cats from them. It claims its "borders", open or closed, negate your property rights.

Government steals your money, calls it "taxation", and pretends it has the "authority" to steal it. And that it's a good thing they do. They used to pretend this was how they fund government, but it has always been a way to defund you, instead.

Government rations your tools of defense, then acts like it does so to make you safer. But does nothing to fill the gap this leaves in your defenses. And then it becomes what you need to defend yourself from.

Government violates your rights and acts as though this somehow promotes social behavior. Being "social" by being antisocial? How is that supposed to work, exactly?

Government goes around the world creating enemies who are willing to die to kill you, then it wants you to thank it for "protecting our freedom". Government is a liar.

The ways government shows itself to be your enemy are too numerous to list. I can think of more ways faster than I can type them down.

If you still think any political government is good or necessary, you're deluded. It's useful... if you're a bad guy who wants to govern others. Otherwise, no. If you can't do what you want to do without the power of government, you have no business doing it at all.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Propaganda as press releases

I've mentioned several times all the mailing lists I have ended up on, probably due to my newspaper column making my email address public. Lists I really don't want to be on, but that I don't usually immediately unsubscribe from because I know I can learn things from them.

I've learned something new. Or, at least I've recently noticed something.

The "conservative"/Republican newsletters don't pretend to be anything other than biased opinion-- even when they present it as "news", they don't try to pretend to be neutral. They don't try to look like press releases.

The "progressive"/Democrat newsletters pretend to be unbiased press releases. They pretend to only be presenting the facts-- facts no one could argue with.

I get them all the time on the issue of "climate change". They have language about "how to talk about the climate", and all the experts they offer come down on the climate crisis side, but they still present themselves as unbiased information. As a neutral press release for "science".

I got one just now on the topic of "immigration". Again, all the talking points and all the experts were on one side of the issue. None on the other. Since it was presented as a neutral press release, all the bias was pro-"immigration". All the voices were obviously Democrat-adjacent.

Make of this what you will. It's just interesting data to me.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Obey, or suffer

Once again, I hear people saying that if you don't follow the rapist's directions to the letter, and immediately, don't be surprised when the rapist hurts or kills you.

Oops, I mean "police officer", not "rapist". It's understandable confusion due to the fact they both use the same methods and excuses.

Copsuckers disgust me to the core.

Yes, bad guys will hurt you if you don't obey their demands-- because they are bad guys. Saying that people must obey cops without question because they are cops is the worst opinion out there. It may be safer in the current environment, but that doesn't make the cop right. Cops don't have "extra rights".

I don’t know who the guy is that the cop attacked. He may be an entitled jerk. What he was doing may have been dangerous. What the cop did was also entitled and dangerous. Both can be in the wrong. Bad guys often clash with bad guys.

Cops are not automatically the good guys- it's more likely in current times that they aren't.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Don't eat MY cats

I'm skeptical. I have my doubts that Haitian refugees are eating pet cats. I have somewhat less doubt they may be eating waterfowl from the parks.

If you're starving, you do what you gotta do.

However, if anyone tries to eat one of my cats, it's going to be a bad day for them— quite possibly their last day. Then, I'll feed my cats whatever is left of their earthly remains. Chopped fine, with gravy.

Yes, this means I value my cats' lives over the lives of people who would try to kill animals I am responsible for rather than just asking me for some food. I don't value the lives of thieves, and if what you're stealing (and killing) is one of my animals, then I value your life even less than that. So little an electron microscope wouldn't see any trace, if my valuation were a physical thing.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

He's lying about his books being banned

Stephen King says Florida has banned 23 of his books. Yet, "banned" would mean the Florida government has made it illegal for bookstores to carry those books for sale. Maybe even criminalized the possession of those books in your home or on private property. Like when drugs or weapons are banned. Is this what has happened? 

Or is he lying? 

It seems he's just mad that an institution he probably supports isn't providing his books for the inmates to read.

Telling schools they can't provide sexually explicit materials to kindergarteners (or other pre-adolescents) isn't censorship. It's not an example of "banning books"; it's being a responsible adult by keeping powerful things out of the hands of those developmentally incapable of properly handling them, primarily due to their age. 

It's like being responsible by not handing an unsupervised 6-year-old a loaded and cocked pistol and sending him out the door. Maybe school libraries shouldn't provide guns for the kids to check out, either. As much as I support the natural human right to own and carry weapons, I know this wouldn't be the right thing, or the smart thing, to do. This isn't supporting "gun control"; it's not being part of a problem. Stephen King is part of a problem.

I'm opposed to government making up legislation on either side of the issue-- or, about anything at all. I'm also opposed to the existence of government schools. This is only an issue because government is doing lots of interlocking things it shouldn't be doing-- things it has no right to do because government has no rights.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Allowing politics to divide us tragic

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 4, 2024)

Politics divides. That's the nature of the thing; what it's designed to do.

Worse, politics often culminates in elections. Every election feels like the majority coming together to give a mass murderer the keys to my house and holding me at gunpoint to make sure I won’t do anything about it.

This is an outcome I can't consent to. But in the name of democracy-- even if it was once a republic-- it’s the outcome which is guaranteed every time. Other political systems are not better.

It's natural that politics divides. No one wants to be ruled by people who have different values and preferences, and the power to enforce those values and preferences on them. Dog lovers don't want cat lovers put in control to outlaw dogs and persecute dog lovers. I can't blame them. Yet this is what politics is and what it does. It can't be otherwise.

Why is this hard to understand?

It's a ridiculous system. Society doesn't need to be run, which is good since it's not possible to run one. Any attempt to run society ruins society.

Politics guarantees that all elections are rigged. Even if there's no overt cheating, liberty is never on the ballot because there’s no option to abolish the political office.

I’m not saying all candidates are equal, or equally evil. I think the gross communist who promises to cut everyone down to achieve equity-- equality of outcomes rather than equality of rights-- is the worst possible choice. Others think the weird nationalist who is the focus of lawfare and who wants to imprison people over freedom of expression is more dangerous.

Both believe, without proof, that they have the right to govern you. This is an utterly absurd superstition, but it’s a popular belief they use to their advantage against you. As long as you don’t realize it’s superstitious nonsense, they have you under control.

The country, communities, friends, and families are divided over which one of these people should be running things. Neither should be. The last people you want to give power to are those who want power. It's disqualifying.

Allowing politics to divide us is a tragedy. Nothing will change as long as politics, through government and legislation, has the power to control our lives, destroy our liberty, and violate our natural human rights. This is the inevitable outcome. Don't pretend to be surprised when you get exactly what you choose.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Make Statists irrelevant

It's fun to poke statists, to mock and ridicule their insane ideas, but the best way to make them irrelevant in the long run is through education.

And one of the best sources of the good kind of education is still TOLFA.

It has been a while since I recommended it to you, and I needed to fix that. So here it is: Go to http://tolfa.us/ and learn. It's not hard and it's fun. 

You'll be glad you did, and you'll be making the world a better place.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

The Evil Loser in Georgia

The FBI knew the kid was turning into an evil loser a year ago. They chose to wait.

The school knew someone had threatened to kill people at the school, that day. They chose to wait.

And now, anti-gun bigots like Koala Harris want to enslave us because those who knew what was happening, and could have done something to prevent it, chose not to. It's as though they want the deaths to happen. But that would be crazy... right?

I have sympathy for the victims, but nothing but contempt for those who chose to do nothing, And for those who want to blame me for something I didn't do and would give my life to stop if it happened in my presence.

Your safety-- your life-- means nothing to anti-gun bigots. They'll happily sacrifice you and your children for anti-gun talking points to sway the idiots among us. They don't want you to have effective tools of defense. They don't care who this would kill as long as they get what they want.

My rights don't go away because those who could have prevented it didn't. My rights aren't what stopped the teachers in that govschool from being effectively armed and equipped to stop the evil loser as soon as he pulled out his gun-- at least before he fired a second shot. Their blame and hatred condemn them.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

You can't put Humpty together again

Once the spell is broken, you can never again see government as anything other than a mafia. Never again will you be able to see it as a legitimate institution. Everything changes. Humpty Dumpty has shattered and can't be repaired.

The problem I see with most (if not all) "former libertarians" is that they never broke through that wall. They never stopped seeing government as legitimate; they just wanted it to do only certain things or to do things a certain way. But they couldn't let go completely. So the first time they wanted something they couldn't figure out a voluntary, mutually consensual way to have, they "realized" libertarians were "spoiled, selfish children clinging to something that would never work".

I see this in a lot of statists who have "libertarian" in their profile names; some who are quite "famous" in their social media circles. It's only a matter of time until they either denounce libertarianism or try to redefine it to be statist-lite. Some of them have already done so.

They are so close. 

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?