Enjoy your Thanksgiving!
Are you thankful for what I do?
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
WHAT?!
Have you ever felt neglected by government? That would be a dream come true for some of us. Me included. I can't think of anything better than being neglected-- ignored-- by the world's largest and most dangerous criminal gang.
Instead, I feel molested, annoyed, robbed, and watched by government. Government gets in the way of me living my life. Government helps freelance criminals violate the decent people in society. And this guy feels that being neglected by these clowns would be bad?
I suppose those who feel neglected by government are living in a delusion where government is there to help them. That's not reality, but it must be what they believe to be real. Otherwise, they would be sensible and hope to avoid government notice or "help".
People like that are part of the problem.
I have no idea what he was selling. I skipped the ad as soon as possible because I knew there was nothing there for me. Slavery holds no appeal to me.
Well, that's not completely true, but it's close enough. As L. Neil Smith wrote:
The issue of guns is "an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician-- or political philosophy-- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing a scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you."
That is The Truth.
Trump hasn't yet taken office and is already failing the test. He's nominating anti-gun bigots to his administration. I'm neither shocked nor disappointed. Business as usual.
A patriotic blogger thought Trump's anti-gun Attorney General nominee, Pam Bondi, was a great choice. I commented that everyone who seemed to know about her called her a disaster on the Second Amendment. He replied, in part:
...It is fair to say that she has defended State laws that do impose some restrictions on gun ownership. However, I think most of us agree that some restrictions are applicable...Then "most" of you are wrong, just like when "most" people believed slavery was natural and necessary. No restrictions on purchasing, owning, or carrying firearms are "applicable". None of them are legal, ethical, or right.
No one denies anyone's existence. If anyone did deny someone's existence, they would crash into and run over the person they deny exists, since that which doesn't exist would be invisible. You can't see what doesn't exist, and if you do see something that doesn't exist, that's called "hallucinating".
This is a weird new lie told to manipulate.
It's usually said by people who believe they are the opposite sex (which they have the right to do) and who want everyone to play along (which they have no right to force others to do), but I can use a different example to illustrate the absurdity.
I don't deny that government employees exist. I recognize they are not what they claim to be: they are the bad guys, not the good guys. My recognition of reality doesn't mean they don't exist. They obviously do. I'm not denying their existence. I don't fall for their dishonest narrative. They can believe whatever they want to believe; their belief doesn't change reality. Not even if they use threats and aggression to get others to play along.
Of course, it may have dropped precipitously since I wrote the above paragraph, so this may be moot. You never know.
Those of you who have/use Bitcoin, what do you do?
When I first started dabbling in Bitcoin, I generally spent about half of what I had when it had gone up a lot. I thought that if it became worthless tomorrow, I was still ahead. I don't regret doing that, since I couldn't have known the future. Although I occasionally think of what might have been... Now, I'm much more sparing when spending it.
I would be a little sad if it went to zero now and I hadn't taken advantage of it before that happened. I would still be far ahead, though.
One type prohibits something.
Another encourages something harmful; something few would be inclined to do without the “law” encouraging them to do it.
The third type of legislation mandates something that would be helpful if pursued on its own but ruins it with the threat of death.
I’m opposed to all legislation, no matter which type you’re talking about.
Even if you can think of another type I missed, I oppose it, too. My opposition is automatic.
It was a mistake that still could have worked out sort of OK, had the people been able to force the government-- against its wishes and self-interest-- to obey the Constitution to the letter.
They weren't able or willing to do that back in the early 1800s when that had a possibility of working. It's far too late for that now.
At this point, it would be unthinkably radical to make the feral government get back within the limits of what it is allowed to do on even just a few of its worst offenses. The only thing that might happen is to scale back the massive abuses a tiny, useless amount.
Don't count on even that.
And yet, those who believe they can get government back under control tell those of us who point out that political government must be abolished entirely, that our preference is impossible. They are in denial about their own preference's likelihood, but it's so much easier to point fingers and ignore reality.
I guarantee you there's a better chance of the US feral government disbanding than of anyone getting it back under control and within the limits of the Constitution. I'd love to be proven wrong, but that's simply the reality.
They are flouncing off to other countries. OK. Have fun.
They are flouncing off of X. (And making a point to call it Twitter to hurt Musk's feelings. I'd be surprised if it bothers him any.)
They are having meltdowns over Trump's cabinet picks. The picks are all horrible statists (who else would be in a position to get appointed to a government post?), but I love watching the meltdowns. And the mischaracterizations ("RFK jr. is an anti-vaxxer!").
They can't accept that it doesn't make someone "far-right" to notice how crazy the "left" has become. They've moved so far to the left (if the Earth were flat, they would have fallen off the western edge years ago) that the middle is now "far-right" to them. And being shoved away to make enemies of them. They have zero self-awareness; they are oblivious. They are bewildered, and they are angry (at what they've done to themselves). But they continue to blame everyone else. It's kinda what statists do.
They are shaving their heads and trying to be ugly so "conservative" men won't be interested in them. Were they interested in them before?
They are also "threatening" to not have sex with any men for 4 years. Again, I ask whether this will affect anyone they intend to hurt.
They are bragging about the number of abortions they have had, and promising to have lots more. Just to punish men.
Then, most pathetically of all, when I point out any of their craziness they think they can get my goat by telling me things about Trump I already know and don't support. Swing, and a miss. Not a Trump supporter, but Harris? Seriously? LOL!
I find it comedic, but I probably have a warped sense of humor.
I also know it will have no actual power to do anything beyond making recommendations.
But, if it somehow decides "efficiency" means "less money spent on government", if the recommendations are embraced, if this means government agencies are gutted or eliminated, and if the savings result in less taxation and more liberty, then it will have been a benefit.
That's a lot of "if". I'm skeptical but I would love to be wrong. There's no way it can disappoint me since I have no expectations.
At least Musk and Ramaswamy are not being paid. That's a start. No one should be paid for working for government.
If invited, I would take an unpaid position as head of the ATF or IRS (working remotely, because I'm not going to the District of Criminals) to make them more "efficient". It would take me an afternoon at most. If not me, then Brandon Herrera would be a good pick to head the ATF. I think he'd do that mostly right.
I don't need government to define "rights", either. Government invariably gets definitions wrong.
The only thing I need for government to do is to keep its filthy paws off my life. And that's the one thing it is utterly incapable of and unwilling to do.
So...
I don't want government to be more efficient. I want it to fail and implode because of its own poor design.
I don't want "better" people in government. I want people to be fundamentally better enough that they know working for government in any capacity is always the wrong thing to do.
The arguments about how rough the transition would be don't move me anymore. Statists have had plenty of chances and warning. They keep choosing this-- many don't realize it's a choice and they never will. It's going to hurt less if it happens today than if the collapse holds off another ten years. The sooner, the better.
Are there things I think should be addressed? Of course. Archation of any sort shouldn't be allowed to stand. But how far are you willing to go in any case that isn't immediate self-defense? And do you think I should be forced to go just as far, or stop where you would stop?
If you aren't willing, personally, to kill someone for doing something you don't like them doing (and ALL "laws" are enforced with death), then why would you be willing to send others to kill someone, on your behalf, for the same offense?
If you are willing to hire a death squad, why should I be robbed to pay someone to kill people for you when I'm not willing? And are you willing to kill me for refusing to help you pay for your death squad?
Here's a personal example: I oppose abortions of convenience. I wouldn't be willing to kill a woman for seeking or going through with an abortion, nor a doctor to stop him from performing an abortion. So I oppose "laws" banning abortion.
I would be willing to shun someone for doing something I consider wrong, whether it's collecting "taxes", kidnapping drug users, or killing someone's pet squirrel. Statists are willing to kill the victims of all those crimes.
Don't be like the statists.
In reality, what exists is Government of the evil, by the idiots, for the cowards.
And that's the best form of government, according to many. Sounds like a superstition to me.
What I am in favor of is no one getting in the way of people using force-- defensive violence-- to stop violators from violating them or others.
That means getting rid of "laws", not adding to them. Abolish any rules that make defense a "crime". Getting rid of legislation is always the way to do the right thing. Adding legislation is always wrong; it's never helpful.
If you are violating someone's life, liberty, or property they have the natural human right to stop you. Whatever it takes. No matter if you think you have the "right" (or "authority") to do what you are doing. If they have to end your life to stop you, that's on you.
Don't like it, don't violate people. Simple enough?
They say they'll protect their population from anyone trying to "take their freedom" while they've been doing nothing other than violating the freedom-- and the liberty-- of those in the state since the day they took office.
"Hypocrite" isn't a strong enough word to describe these political criminals.
It seems some of them are scared that they'll finally be forced to obey the Second Amendment. They see the end of their anti-gun schemes.
There's really no risk that will happen. Trump isn't going to force anyone to obey the Second Amendment- he may try to stop them from breaking the law in specific ways, but no powerful politician (or Supreme Courtjester) has ever figured out what the Bill of Rights was for or what it does. Trump has never been a friend of gun owners- he just isn't as bad as Harris probably would have been. That's a very low bar, though.
"Protecting" your population from liberty is what slave owners do. It's not good, kind, or "progressive". It's evil.