It's your job to defend liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 27, 2025)

Liberty isn’t a gift handed to you by benevolent rulers; it’s your birthright to either exercise or lose. It won't be preserved by hoping someone else will do it for you- it’s everyone’s job, every day, to defend it. No exceptions and no excuses.

The greatest threat to liberty isn’t necessarily a tyrant’s jackboot or a lawmaker’s pen; it’s apathy. When people say, “Let government handle it,” they’re handing their power to their enemy. Every time you beg imaginary political authority to solve a problem you could tackle yourself, you’re sacrificing your own liberty. If you won’t stand up for your rights, why would anyone else take the risk on your behalf?

What can you do? Speak out when you see anyone's rights being violated, refuse to comply with arbitrary rules, or simply question why things are done a particular way. These simple, but not necessarily easy, acts are the foundation of a free society. Liberty thrives when individuals take responsibility, not when they give power to bureaucrats who benefit from control.

Look at history. Government grows like weeds after a rain, choking out everything around it. Its supporters claim it’s for your safety, your health, or the “common good”, but every law, every mandate, every tax is a chip off your autonomy; a violation of your individual sovereignty. The more you let go, the less you have left. If you’re waiting for a hero to save you, you’re missing the point: you’re the hero.

This doesn’t mean grabbing a torch and pitchfork and storming government buildings. It means living with awareness and principles. Teach your kids to think for themselves, not to parrot what schools or social media indoctrinate them with. Support the businesses that respect your rights, not the ones which demand compliance. Point out nonsense when you see it, whether it’s a politician’s promise or a neighbor’s demand for “just one more law”. Your liberty is killed by silence.

Some people claim it’s too much work, and one person can’t make a difference. anyway. They need you to believe this lie. Every act of defiance, every question asked, every refusal to bow makes waves. You don’t need permission to be free- you already are, until you give it away.

Defending liberty isn’t a job for politicians or activists. It’s the responsibility of every person who values living free. If we don’t defend liberty, no one will. So stand up, speak out, and act like your liberty depends on it- because it does.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

The inevitable police state

Is a dystopian police state inevitable?

It doesn't look good.

In the short-term, probably.
In the long-term, I don't know. I hope not.

This has been building for years. Thousands of years, with bumps and dips along the way. It's been building as long as the sick idea of governing others has existed. 

No matter who controls government, they work tirelessly to install police state infrastructure and policy. This is how you know government is the problem, not who runs it.

It becomes more and more "illegal" to resist the police state policies and "authorities". It's already "illegal" to defend yourself from them. 

Police state policies are popular with statists of all stripes. They only differ in which police state policies they approve of and who they are aimed at. 

I suppose the question could be asked if police states are invariably dystopian. I don't believe they could be anything other than dystopian, but this is because I value liberty. To people who prefer to be kept as pets, I can see how they might feel better under a police state. At least temporarily.

Nor, I suppose, are all dystopias strictly police states, but that's another subject.

I'm on the outside- I don't approve of any police state policies whatsoever. 

I only hope liberty can come out the other side and be reborn.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Empathy, within reason

I have plenty of empathy, but not to the point that I’m willing to sacrifice my life, liberty, or property to people who want to harm me or others. 

People who may actually want me dead.

They can choose to not attack me or others. If they don’t, the consequences are on them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

"That is a LIE!"

If you are in favor of "illegal immigrants" [sic] getting arrested for having "illegal firearms", you do not support the natural HUMAN right to own and to carry weapons. You are anti-Second Amendment and pro-infinite government (as long as it's doing things you approve of).

All human rights apply to all humans. Everywhere. No legislation can change that. No constitution can change it.

The only thing such a "conservative" is conserving is illegitimate (and illegal) government power. They can shut their yaps about supporting the Constitution or being for "limited government". Their other words prove it's a lie.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

TDS*

Donald Trump makes people crazy. It seems like nearly everyone has *TDS- which can mean both "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and "Trump Devotion Syndrome".

TDS is killing people.

Being immune to either type of TDS is a superpower. I highly recommend giving it a try- at least to see whether it's a choice.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Thomas Jefferson on liberty

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. 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.”

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

Accept nothing less than liberty. Don't let them distract you with "freedom", "entitlements", or false promises of "safety". It's liberty or slavery. There's no third way.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Statists fear being left alone

 

For years, I've seen the meme "Libertarians - Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone". I think it's smart, true, and funny.

But... I've seen statists complain about it. Turns out a lot of them don't want to be "left alone". They are fearful and feel weak. Being left alone feels like abandonment to them. It feels like being ignored.

Yeah, that's pathetic cowardice, but it's how they are. It's why they are statists.

They are willing to trade almost anything to hold onto the feeling that someone is protecting them, no matter how ridiculous this feeling is. No matter how much evidence accumulates to show that government is the biggest danger they face. Being left alone is their nightmare.

It's too bad they can't compromise and have a government that coddles them and leaves me alone. But, no, all the "compromise" goes in one direction only: me giving up what I want and them giving up nothing.

I would rephrase the meme to say "Libertarians- diligently plotting to take over the World and respect your rights."

The only issue is that statists try so hard to not understand what rights are. They either want things that aren't rights to be rights, or they want rights to be reduced to mere privileges.

Still, the offer is there, and it's real. I want their rights to be respected, and if they want to be slaves, who am I to stop them? I draw the line at my right to not be enslaved for their convenience and feelings.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Liberty's not dangerous – it fuels progress

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 20, 2025)

Liberty forms the foundation of an ethical life and the basis for a worthwhile society. It isn't just a slogan for politicians on the campaign trail; it's the freedom to act, think, and live as you see fit, as long as you’re not harming others.

Some people claim liberty is dangerous, that it leads to chaos or selfishness. They’re mistaken.

When liberty is understood and respected, it's good for everyone, no matter who they are or where they're from.

Liberty isn't a pie, where the more you get, the less there is for me. Your freedom of speech doesn't interfere with my right to express myself. My liberty won’t get in the way of yours. Liberty makes room for all of us to do what matters most without stepping on each other’s toes. It’s the opposite of authoritarianism, which relies on forcing one’s opinions on others. Govern yourself, not others.

When we exercise our liberty, we cooperate naturally through trade, friendship, or mutual respect. It's in our self-interest; we don't need to be forced into it.

Consider the alternative: a world where government or mobs dictate what you can say, do, or even think. That’s not safety; it’s captivity. History shows that centralized control- whether through legislation or social pressure- causes resentment and destroys innovation. Look at recent technology: it wasn’t government edicts which gave us smartphones or made the internet useful. It was individuals, free to experiment and create, who built those valuable tools. Liberty fuels progress which helps everyone.

Some argue liberty favors the strong and leaves the weak behind. It doesn't. True liberty means no one can safely violate your rights- not a bully, a corporation, or a politician. It’s the equalizer. When we respect each other’s life, liberty, and property, we build a society where everyone has a shot, not just the politically powerful and connected. The only people who lose out are those who want power over others. Good riddance to them and their twisted desires.

Liberty isn’t perfect. People make mistakes, and some want the freedom to do things they have no right to do. But the solution isn’t less liberty- it’s more. Let those who harm others face tough consequences for their choices rather than enslaving those who simply choose to live differently. A free society thrives because it trusts individuals to make their own choices, not because it chains them to someone else’s vision.

Embrace liberty so we all win. 

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Keep them talking

If I were conservative, I would not want that Leftist basket case called "Destiny" cancelled. He’s exactly who I would want speaking for the other side.

He’s rude, angry, twitchy, and appears to have something unfortunate happening between his ears.

The more he speaks for the Left, the worse the Left looks.

If I were conservative, I'd want more of that, not less.

Being libertarian, I want the worst statists imaginable talking all the time.

Don't stop your enemies from talking themselves into trouble. Encourage them to speak more. If they're digging themselves into an inescapable pit, toss them a bigger shovel.

That's why censorship is stupid, as well as unethical.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

The rise of the conspiracies

It's been interesting to see all the conspiracy theories and alternative explanations start building since the murder of Charlie Kirk.

I've seen people make entire videos debunking things that are the opposite of what the "official narrative" says, in a strange attempt to debunk the "official narrative". Talk about a waste of effort! I'm guessing these people misunderstood something they had heard and ran with it before double-checking. Or, someone is behind this who wants to make the "official story" look more plausible by comparison.

I get it. I don't trust government or "official sources", and certainly not the Feral Baby Incinerators. They lie as easily as they breathe. But that's no reason to go completely off the rails.

There are always questions. People act in odd ways when they don't think about the cameras recording them. The world is stranger than we can imagine. Bullets do strange things.

But...  
Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the whole story.
The "last word" on the Roswell UFO crash has changed several times over the years, to the point where the "official story" now involves things that couldn't have happened until years after 1947.
Operation Mockingbird.
Gulf of Tonkin.
The origins of NASA.
Grusome and cruel "medical" experiments conducted on trusting Americans- without informed consent- by the US government.

Most old "conspiracy theories" have ended up being at least partly true- or worse than was suspected.

Do you expect anything better from the government goons this time?

Here's the unpleasant truth:
You and I will never know the whole story. At best, we'll be fed a mix of truth and lies told to protect certain people or groups. Not only concerning the details of this murder, but concerning anything that can be used to manipulate and increase their power by the political criminals with power and the media they control. You knowing the truth isn't good for them, even if they didn't pull the trigger.

As has been pointed out, "conspiracy theorists" are sometimes just people who are a little ahead of the curve in figuring out how evil government employees can be. The rest of the world will eventually catch up.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

There's a noticeable difference

I don't hide my anarchism from my family.

When those who are on the "Right" push some statist nonsense, and they do, I can push back. It doesn't cause friction even though we disagree.

Those in my family who are on the "Left" are not so easy to talk to. When they express some statist nonsense, I've learned to just let it go. They can bring it up, but don't push back against it. You've got to walk on eggshells around every topic. (And they find a way to blame Trump for every problem, real or imagined.) It feels like they can't handle disagreement. It hasn't gone well in the past, and if nothing else, I learn from experience.

Family harmony is more important to me than correcting people when they are wrong- especially if it's going to be a big problem.

This is probably why I generally have a better opinion of the "Right" than of the "Left", and believe the "Right" is more open-minded, even though they are both whackadoodles on many topics.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Incite liberty

An awful lot of people seem to have been inciting violence- or more accurately, aggression. Both directly and in ways they believe give them plausible deniability.

Don't do that.

Instead, incite liberty.

Yes, that can still create danger, too, but only for those doing things they have no right to do. Recognizing the natural human right is only dangerous to those who are violating it. 

For everyone else, it's the exact opposite of dangerous, even though it can appear dangerous (and feel scary!) to people who have been trained to be fluffy pets. It's time for those people to grow.

You are never obligated to enslave yourself because of people like that.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

If I'm not at my best...

I've been having a rough, emotionally draining, and tiring week. It doesn't look like it will get better anytime soon.
I don't want to go into it, but keep me in your thoughts.

(The picture has nothing to do with anything; it just felt like it fit my inner mood.)

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Civil war- inevitable and impossible

Recent events have made me contemplate civil war. Only this time, it would be a real civil war, not a secession resulting in war between two separate countries, like the misnamed "Civil War" of the 1860s. This time, it really would be two factions in one country, fighting for control of one government.

I can't be on a side, since I know it's unethical to govern anyone. But if someone on either side were violating my life, liberty, or property, I have the right to fight back. I also have the right to defend others, and to join with them in mutual defense.

I've seen people saying that civil war is now inevitable. The divide is too deep and wide, and it's simply not possible to live in peace with people who want you dead.

I've also seen people saying a civil war is impossible because there's no clear geographical line to split things along; the sides are too intermingled. Of course, I think that assumption is encouraged by the misunderstanding that the 1860s war was a "civil war" when it wasn't. I don't think a clear geographical division is necessary.

I don't know who's right.

I don't think anyone smart or ethical ever wants a war. I certainly don't. It would unleash horrors I don't want to experience, and that I absolutely don't want my kids to experience. I am 100% opposed to the things a civil war would spawn. Besides murder, there would be martial law and other crimes.

But I also don't see how this could be worked out peacefully. You've got two statist factions, which each seem determined to control the other- and control all the population as well, according to their side's fetishes.

Maybe things will cool off soon, and we'll settle back into the American cold war we were living in before recent events heated things up. Not that this is much better. And, not that I believe it is limited to America.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Knees jerking

Two points:

One-- Any legislation named for a person ends up being a bad idea, used to grow government and destroy liberty. It will be misused, if the intention is to solve a problem.

Two--"Hate speech", if it's even a real thing, is free speech. It tells the rest of us who the evil losers are. I don’t want them censored; I want them free to loudly proclaim their evil to the world so that the rest of us know who to watch- who we might need to defend ourselves from. “Hate speech laws” [sic] short-circuit this vital source of information just to make statists feel better.

You were warned about anti-liberty bigot, Pam Bondi. Anti-gun bigots aren't going to respect your other rights, either. Not unless it's really convenient.

Here was a recent exchange I found myself in:

   S: "It is literally illegal to make death threats or call for the death of people."

“Illegal”, but the “law” is unconstitutional (if you care).

  S:  "Show me where it says it is legal to threaten peoples lives in the Constitution. The House and Senate pass Laws, it literally isn't Unconstitutional"

You’re doing it backward. It’s not what government allows, it’s what government is allowed to do.

Again, it doesn’t matter what “laws” they pass if those “laws” aren’t permitted by the Constitution. And “hate speech laws” [sic] are not.

By this person's illogic, all anti-gun "laws" would "literally" not be unconstitutional, because "The House and Senate pass Laws". Nice mental gymnastics, if you can manage it.

Now, if you call for someone to be murdered, self-defensive action is then ethical, and you might not like that outcome.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Government should become extinct

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 13, 2025)

Government is an unnecessary evil. Every government, not just the ones you dislike. The governments you are encouraged to hate are no worse than the one you look to for advice on which ones to hate. In fact, they are less harmful to you since they aren't able to rule or tax you.

People who try to justify government often admit it's evil. Thomas Paine, in his pamphlet Common Sense from 1776, wrote, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

This doesn't hold water. If something is evil, it's not necessary, and if it's necessary, it can't be evil. It's like arguing for a square circle. It's one or the other, and government is always intolerable.

"Evil" is any act which intentionally violates life, liberty, or property, or which relies on the superstitious belief in political "authority" to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf.

Government- the intent to govern someone other than yourself- is evil to the core. Therefore, it can't be necessary. If you can't get what you need without resorting to governing others, you're either not trying hard enough or what you believe you need isn't truly necessary.

The act of eating is necessary, so it's not evil. Theft of food so you can eat is evil, as is all theft, including taxation. It isn't necessary. There's an ethical way to get anything which is necessary. It may not be easy, but it's always possible to avoid committing evil.

Government is unethical. A person's morals- their situational ethics- might allow for government, but if that's the case, their morals aren't ethical. Any law which violates individual rights might be considered moral in a particular time or place; such was the case with slavery and is still the case with government, but it can never be ethical.

If any government can't survive without committing acts of evil, such as spying on the people it aims to govern, it needs to go the way of the dodo. Forever. This is true if it can't exist without stealing property using the euphemism of taxation. Or, if it tries to criminalize self-defense. Or anything else government does as a matter of routine. If anything deserves to go extinct, government does.

No one should attempt to de-extinct it like the Dire Wolf, either. Let it go, and good riddance.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I should be more disappointed in people

If I had more blind faith in the decency of people, I would be quite disappointed in what I've seen from them in the past few days.

I had one guy telling me, from what he seemed to believe was a "libertarian" perspective, why I shouldn't be criticizing those celebrating a public murder. When I was able to knock down every one of his points, he retreated to pure statist drivel. He got a participation trophy; I walked away and left him to his pit of hatred. 

I've done that a lot, recently.

I've been called a "Groyper", "Far-Right", been told I'm lying, and various other things in an attempt to insult me. I've been told to provide evidence for things that are self-evident. I've not responded to the vast majority of the trolls. I don't need to. Like the guy above, I let them stew. If they're that bad at thinking, what could I say to them anyway?

It's amusing how often I'm criticized for defending someone with whom I have major disagreements. It happens constantly, but it's the price of principles.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

The "right" to govern others?

There's no such thing as a "right" to govern any territory or region. Other than your personal real estate.

Every individual human has the right and the obligation to govern him-/herself. This right can't be assigned to anyone else.

No one has a “right” to govern even one other person. Such an imaginary “right” can’t exist and can’t be created with “laws” or documents. Nor does any such "authority" exist. Political "authority" is The Most Dangerous Superstition.

Democracy doesn't change this any more than does the "divine right of kings". It doesn't matter if you believe it is "necessary" or if you're scared of what might happen otherwise. You have a right to be scared and to take measures to defend yourself and your property- but not to govern others.

Trying to govern another individual anyway, in spite of not having the right to do so, is a violation of their natural human rights, which means it is a crime. No matter who you are or what excuse you grasp for to justify what you're doing.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Your starting point matters

In the past few days, I've been exposed to many more of Charlie Kirk's opinions than ever before. Some I agree with, some I don't. But he knew how to debate his views. I wonder if his murderer realized his evil act would have the effect of amplifying Kirk's reach beyond anything possible before. But, back on topic...

I even can see how logical, consistent, and rational Kirk's take on "illegal [sic] immigration" was... if you start with a bad assumption.

You have to start with the communistic notion of "collective ownership" of everyone's (no longer) private property to make it make sense. You also have to start with the idea that rules which are counter to the Constitution are real laws, even though they aren't (you can debate whether that matters, but "them's the rules"). 

And, starting there, it does make perfect sense.

However, that's the wrong starting place. To be ethical (not just moral), you've got to start with individual rights. Always, with every topic or issue, including "immigration". You can't start with non-existent collective "rights" or imaginary political "authority".

Starting in the wrong place, with the wrong assumptions, leads you to make errors in your conclusion- to end up with the wrong position.

-

-

By the way, I recommend that entire video linked above. Thanks to the friend and reader who sent it to me.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Are you 'gatekeeping' liberty?

While writing my newspaper column, I run it through an analyzer to check the reading/comprehension/"grade" level. A few years ago, I mentioned this to someone and got immediately scolded. The gist was that if people aren't smart enough to understand it, they don't deserve it.

This feels like "gatekeeping" liberty. 

I understand the argument for challenging people to think better. To grow smarter. Most people won't be challenged; they'll just move on to something simpler. I don't have to like this to accept it.

I don't want to be seen as smart; I want everyone to understand and desire liberty. Sure, I know not everyone will, no matter how it is offered to them. Still, I want to give them the chance. If this makes me appear dumber to elite readers and writers, I can live with it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?