Fish don't need bicycles, or government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 1, 2026)

I don’t like things which are bothersome, unnecessary, and intrusive. It's even worse when those same things are harmful and are forced into our lives.

Like government is.

It’s said a man needs a government like a fish needs a bicycle. I think it’s worse than that. The situation is more akin to telling the fish he can't survive without the bicycle, forcing him to buy one, tacking him to its seat to force him to ride it, and then demanding he thank you for the bike you've provided.

It’s crazy.

If that’s what you want, that’s your business, but don’t force it on the rest of us. It's bothersome, unnecessary, intrusive, and harmful to life, liberty, and property.

America's founders, who fought for the liberty of Americans, would be fighting again today. There's no way they'd tolerate what the US government, with its subordinate governments all across America, has become. The levels of taxation piled on top of taxation, and the meddling in every aspect of our lives. The constant control, intrusion, and surveillance. They'd find it intolerable; much worse than a mere 3% tax on tea.

The British government of King George was far less tyrannical and annoying than the US government has become today. An ordinary American during those days could have gone months- or longer- without noticing there was a government ruling his life. Now you can't go a day without having to comply with some arbitrary governmental annoyance.

Yet, I'm supposed to pretend that the people who see nothing fundamentally wrong with this, who only think they need to elect "better" people and enforce different rules, are the patriots? Nonsense!

Those who support this all-encompassing government and want it to have even more control are as functionally anti-American as any Iranian Ayatollah or old Soviet Premier. Or worse, because they don't realize it and would never admit it.

It's frightening that so many confuse the US government with America, and have chosen to support government instead of the principles America was founded upon. Principles their government is scrambling to make illegal.

Liberty is essential to America, and it's time to ditch the bothersome things which get in liberty's way.

For those who still crave a police state, there are plenty of options for you around the world. Liberty is harder to find, and it's time to stand up for it in America before it's lost forever.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Socialistic hate and envy is stupid

Socialists are dumb and/or dishonest. 

They are having seizures over Elon Musk saying he wants to reach a net-worth of $10,000,000,000,000. They pretend this means he wants a Scrooge McDuck vault full of gold.

That's not what "net worth" is.

That's how much the companies he owns are worth to us. The value he provides. His private property and bank accounts are a small part of the picture, and those don't even seem to concern him very much.

I like spaceships, Cybertrucks, and Starlink. If these socialists have their way, we'd have none of that. They are envious turds.

I have my issues with Musk, and I have detailed them many times, here and on "social" media. But I'm not so ignorant or dishonest that I make the socialists' mistake.

Their bigger mistake is that they want government to steal his money for itself. That would be an absolute waste. Every cent government gets and spends is wasted. I wouldn't want my worst enemy taxed, because government is worse than any individual. Any individual!

How much money does Elon Musk owe me? None.
How much does he owe the State? None.
I'm better off if he keeps his money out of the State's grubby claws. Even if I get zero direct benefit from his money. At least, in that case, it isn't funding The Ancestral Enemy.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Worse than useless

The latest wanna-be assassin demonstrated a truth I've been preaching all along. 

Metal detectors don't stop evil losers; they encourage them to run through and start shooting immediately. They don't care if the alarm is ringing and the lights are flashing as they start their rampage.

Metal detectors don't stop evil losers from having and using their weapons to harm the innocent; they stop the good people from being armed where their guns are essential.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Make a new argument, or be dismissed

Am I close-minded if I stop entertaining the arguments in favor of slavery? Even though there are no new ones being presented? (And haven't been for hundreds of years.)

I do believe I should keep an open mind about everything. But I’ve already heard all the arguments people make in favor of slavery. I’m not going to waste my time reconsidering the same old arguments as though I haven’t heard and dismissed them all before.

I’ve heard all the arguments in favor of government. Hundreds of times or more. Present a new one, and I’ll honestly consider it. Otherwise, no. It has been weighed, measured, and found deficient. Try again, with something new, or be dismissed.

You don’t need to keep evaluating the same old arguments as though they are new. I don't think that makes you close-minded; it's a better use of your finite time.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

"But that would be inconvenient!"

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

I can't tell you how many times the objections people have made to my advocacy of liberty boil down to "But that would inconvenience me!"

The other version is, "But I don't want to be bothered to do that!" when I point out that something is their responsibility, not government's. That's just another form of "inconvenience" mixed with a little cowardice.

Modern humans are scared of liberty and willing to sacrifice it so they won’t be inconvenienced. Slavery is comforting to them. It's easier. No responsibility. No effort. It’s sick and pathetic.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Liberty and "safety" both have costs

Whenever anyone calls for "common sense gun regulation" to "keep people safe", then whips out the zinger that if you don't agree with them, you "don't care if children die", a thought starts forming in my head. This is my attempt to flesh it out.

When my daughter Cheyenne was killed by a drug-impaired driver, I was devastated. But I didn't start being in favor of prohibition, checkpoints, or vehicle kill-switches to make sure no one is allowed to drive impaired. Those measures also kill people, destroy individual liberty, and violate individual rights. The trade-off isn't worth it. (Plus, none of the liberty-killing measures that are already imposed saved her anyway.)

Weak, unethical people advocate violating the rights of others because tragedy has touched them personally. They disgust me more than I can express. It's personal.

I am sad that my daughter was killed, but life in a police state isn't worth living. Liberty is dangerous. The dangers of liberty are obvious. The dangers of "safety" are often hidden from you until it's too late.

There are those who respect your liberty and your rights, and there are those who want you controlled. They may say it's for your own good, for the good of society, for the safety of children, or for the good of the nation. It's not.

There is no "good" in those excuses, and any "safety" is counterbalanced by the dangers and deaths they'll pretend don't happen. Or, that the victim "deserved" for not surrendering their autonomy to the State.

Yes, if you respect people's rights, some innocent people will die. Imposing "safety" on society just shifts the deaths somewhat; it doesn't prevent them. Some different people will die as a result. But you won't be guilty of violating everyone's rights in a misguided attempt to "save" some while sacrificing others.

It's easier to find (and lie about) the actual deaths which have occurred; it's harder to come up with realistic numbers of how many will die in the future from your "safety" rules. 

It's also easy for them to ignore those who have died in the past through the enforcement of that type of rule.

Liberty is worth the costs; slavery... not so much.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Self-destruction by ambition

I suspect that every new "law" and every new form of surveillance crammed in our faces and under our beds ratchets us one step closer to the collapse of the current government. They are dooming their own scam and don't realize it.

Their own ambition is killing them.

They think they are gaining more control. They think they are making us more controllable. And, in the short term, they probably are. I don't think it can last as long as they imagine.

"Forever" stamps are unrealistically optimistic.

I would like to think enough people have matured beyond the infantile need to be governed and to want others governed on their behalf that the species can stop making this same old stupid mistake, but chances are, we'll have to go a few more rounds, sacrificing a few more generations to this false god, before enough people catch up and catch on.

Whatever comes, I still see every new surveillance tool and every added "law" as another nail in the coffin of the State.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Left, Right equal enemies of liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 29, 2026)

It’s wild how people pretend “Left” and “Right” are mortal enemies. They’re not. They’re two bowls of the same authoritarian slop: theft and enslavement sold as “the greater good”...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Government should expect no privacy

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 25, 2026)

Privacy is important. Not because you have anything to hide, but because it's no one's business. Otherwise, let's get rid of restroom doors, curtains, or anything else which might shield our activities from everyone else's eyes.

Companies that help government spy on the people are doing wrong. Digital ID. Flock cameras. Age verification. TSA scanners. Government's co-conspirators are not the good guys.

Not all surveillance is a bad thing, though.

You should know everything about anyone who holds a government office. At the same time, they shouldn’t be able to learn anything about you. As long as those offices are allowed to exist- and they shouldn't be- the standard should be that while you hold any government job, your life is an open book. Everything you do is subject to scrutiny and disclosure. No secrets at all, not even those you feel government is entitled to keep from the people. Because those don't exist. Privacy for government and none for the people is exactly backwards.

National security is no excuse. Public safety is no excuse. “For the children” is the most dishonest justification ever.

Author L. Neil Smith once wrote that keeping government secrets from the people is the only crime for which he would support capital punishment. I tend to agree, but we know government will never hold itself accountable.

If I’m forced to fund you, you don’t get to keep secrets from me. But the people have the right to keep everything from government.

Some people say the days of any expectation of privacy are over because government and its corporate partners already have the tools to watch everything you do. They are right. Don't expect to have any privacy. Someone, besides your intended recipient, is reading every text or email you send, evaluating everything you read, and watching everything you save on a phone or to your computer. They have technology which can see where you are inside your home- and possibly more. They have capabilities they won't tell the public about.

This is no reason to be paranoid. It's a reason why you, I, and everyone else should live so freely that we overwhelm the bad guys. Drown them in worthless data and rub your liberty in their nasty, nosy faces. Remember, too, this cuts both ways. They can't collect all the data about us without the same data being collected on them. If they collect it, we can find it and use it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

"Laws I don't like"

When I pointed out that cops cause crime, a statist complained and pretended he didn’t understand.

So I told him that cops enforce taxation and benefit from it.

I pointed out that cops enforce anti-gun rules, which empowers other criminals.

Crime is the act of violating rights, which cops do by their existence.

The statist objected, saying he prefers the state's definition of "crime"; acts which are "illegal".

The statist then said he interprets my definition of "crime" to mean "laws I don’t like”.

No. If that’s what I meant, that’s what I would have said. It would have been an entirely different conversation. 

Some counterfeit “laws” even cover things I would agree with being "against the law" if I were lacking in principles. It isn’t about what I like or dislike (that's how statists think); it's about what people have a right to do. and what they have no right to do 

Only a statist could be so wrong.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

They're obviously so proud of it

I get amused by the statists (and Statanists) who refuse to read anything that might threaten their narrative... and then brag about it.

I have read a great many horrifying things that excuse and justify government, theft, coercion, etc. I couldn't always finish it, since some were really long and convoluted ways to keep making the same bad point over and over again, but I made an honest effort. 

I understood the argument when I was done, even though I obviously disagreed with the conclusion.

I could tell you the reasons why I disagree. If there was some truth to be found in there, I believe I would have accepted it. I have probably done so. I do agree that theft and murder can be quite pragmatic, even though they are evil. 

It's good to see how the enemy thinks and what he believes.

Statists either won't do that at all, or I don't encounter any who will.

They are content in their ignorance. It makes them proud. They want you to know just how comforting their ignorance is. And they'll comment and immediately block you so you'll know they "won" the debate.

Exposure to terrible people and their thoughts is painful, but until you know how they think, you're up against an unknown.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

"No true Scotsman" doesn't always apply

Sometimes, the "No true Scotsman" thing doesn't apply to a circumstance. Trying to make it fit doesn't work and is dishonest.

If someone calls themselves a libertarian, but they "Back the Blue", want more taxes to pay for more things, want government to mandate or prohibit more things, and reject the idea that they have no right to archate, they aren't libertarian, by definition. 

They are something else, so why wouldn't they embrace it?

Trying to use the "No true Scotsman" fallacy only works when it actually fits the situation. It can't be stretched beyond its limits to apply to something it doesn't apply to. Many of the fallacy guidelines work this way.

I know someone who is addicted to TikTok and watches this "Preacher Man" (I don't think that's the name he uses) who claims to be a Christian preacher, but "preaches" while drunk, cusses like a sailor, gets angry and threatening (which gets him temporarily banned several times per week), and doesn't seem to know or follow the Bible or fit the definition of "Christian" in any way.

I have no problem with people preaching their own religion, whatever form it takes, but if the religion you preach doesn't seem to align at all with the one you're claiming to be preaching, you aren't what you say you are. "No true Scotsman" doesn't apply.

Sure, it's silly to say "No true Scotsman would wear parachute pants", because that doesn't follow at all. But to say "No true Scotsman would be an indigenous African who has no connection to Scotland (cultural or genetic), has never been there, doesn't speak the language, and doesn't even know Scotland exists" is pretty likely to be true, at least in the present. It's not a fallacy, but an observation.

Some people seem desperate to apply the "fallacy" label in this way, and it simply doesn't work.

No true rabbit is also a cat. No true airplane lacks wings or the potential to fly. And no true libertarian is for bigger, more intrusive government. Like it or not.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

The mean "uncle" was her only hope

Years ago, I had a young niece (by a short-lived marriage) who was never told “no”. She was about 3 to 4 years old at the time. 

One day, she saw me using my pocketknife, and she demanded it. I said she couldn’t have it. She started throwing a tantrum- as was her habit. 

I was immediately attacked by my wife and in-laws. I was scolded that I can’t let her see something and then not let her have it. 

I let it be known that’s not how I operate. 

I asked what was going to happen when she was older and saw a car she wanted. Was she going to think she was entitled to it and just take it? I said, "She’ll end up in prison or dead if you keep raising her this way".

My perfectly reasonable observation was not appreciated.

She was also much larger and stronger than other kids her own age, and because of how she was being raised, she would steal other kids' toys and snacks and bully them. She'd hit kids who didn't do what she wanted. She'd scream and scream at anyone who made her mad- and she was always mad! 

Then she'd cry because no one wanted to play with her. 

Adding to my reputation as the mean one, I would tell her that if she wanted kids to play with her, she would have to be nicer to them. Don't hit them, don't scream at them, and don't take their stuff. You might be shocked, but I got berated for that, too.

I sometimes wonder what happened to her. I fear I might have been her only hope at that point in her life, and I wasn't around very long.

I think of her when I see videos of entitled people committing crimes, and sometimes getting treated to a dose of self-defense. Raising a kid that way is not being kind to them. It's setting them up for failure- to be hurt or killed by an intended victim. Her family was working to doom her to that fate. I tried to plant some healthy seeds.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

It's all staged

Years ago, a friend of mine owned a video rental business. Remember those? It was a small operation in a tiny strip mall in the middle of nowhere, and was manned by one person: the owner. 

My friend, known by all as "Video Bob", eventually hired a mutual acquaintance to work there part-time. A couple of months later, the place got robbed, and the acquaintance, who was the one working at the time, was tied up, and the robbers got away with all the money in the register.

Only, things didn't quite add up. No one bought his story, which seemed more like the acquaintance was trying out versions of events to see which one people believed.

Our suspicion was that the robbery was staged, with the acquaintance in on it. As these things tend to do, the "official" investigation dragged on, and I moved away, so I don't know how things turned out.

But this made me think of how the state works. It's all staged.  The state causes a situation, plays the victim, lies about it, pursues its own bad "solution", and we are all robbed of our money, our privacy, and our future. 

Worse, the state investigates the situation and finds it did nothing wrong, then doubles down on the wrongdoing it was already engaged in.

It doesn't seem like anyone would still buy it, but most of them do. I think considering the implications is just too uncomfortable for most people.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Are statists getting dumber?

Recently, the quality of statist debate seems to have plummeted noticeably, while the quantity has increased a lot.

I'm not sure if statists are getting dumber, if the entire species is getting dumber, or if "the AlGorithm" is funneling the most pathetic examples in my direction. It does seem like something is going on, though.

I'm seeing it everywhere, on every topic: guns, war, taxes, politicians, "laws", cops, prohibition, and even mailboxes.

In the mailbox example, someone was trying to argue that something called "Just War Theory"* means you can't fortify your (frequently destroyed) mailbox because it might hurt the next vandal. That protecting your property is less important than respecting the well-being of the vandal.

No.

If someone chooses to vandalize private property, I really don't care if their actions cause them harm. Fortunately, that defender of vandalism was taken down by hordes of people taking the same position I take. This time.

It reminded me of an argument from years ago made by a (probably former) "libertarian" (probably a socialist now) who was arguing in favor of shoplifting because "who owns the box of mac and cheese?" The only relevant answer is "Not you, until you pay for it".

Advocating for theft, vandalism, disarming the people, and other acts of archation is what makes statism the most unethical ideology out there. It's a popular position, but they are getting worse at making their case. It seems like this should be good for liberty, but I don't see it paying off yet, which makes me think it may be our entire species in cognitive decline.

Time will tell. If statism is still as, or more, popular in a century or so, we'll have the definitive answer.

-

*"Just War Theory": "a moral and legal framework that balances the need to prevent unjust aggression with the ethical, restricted use of violence." So, rather than being about defense, it's mostly legalistic statist drivel to justify collective violence. Trying to apply it to the mailbox problem, where the only aggression (in the form of property damage) was coming from the vandal, was quite a stretch.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

If you're forced to pay, it's theft

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 22, 2026)

Taxation is theft. People are free to disagree because everyone is free to be wrong. You might debate what kind of theft it is; whether extortion, a ransom, or an armed robbery, but it's theft.

We used to know it...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Politics tend to produce stupid opinions

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 18, 2026)

Everyone has opinions, usually on almost everything. Not all opinions are equally valid, though, and there are good reasons why this is true.

It doesn't bother me when people have opinions which differ from mine, as long as those opinions are based in reality and on facts. What bothers me is when people have different opinions based on superstition, lies, hallucinations, or some combination of all those.

People can look at the same facts and think some of those facts carry more weight than others, and this will cause them to form different opinions. I may disagree because I think other facts are the more important ones. Even when this is the case, I can at least understand why they've reached a different opinion. Opinions based on facts are valid, even when they differ.

People can also use different sets of facts, focusing on some and ignoring others. This doesn't mean they are automatically wrong, but some facts are less relevant than others. You can't debate the relative pros and cons of electric vehicles and petroleum-powered vehicles by pointing out how many of each are blue. Even if it's a fact, it's not relevant to the issue being discussed.

Once a debate becomes emotionally charged, this is the kind of fact people often try to use to prove their point and validate their opinions. I see it all the time when the rights of gun owners are being treated like second-class rights or privileges.

Often, people can't even agree on what the facts are. It seems like this would be easy to settle, but it isn't.

The worst opinions arise when people form their opinions based on things which simply aren't true and can be shown to be untrue. These don't even look like real opinions to me, but look like a display of confusion instead. The people with this sort of opinion are usually the ones most committed to their stance because facts won't sway them.

This is common in what passes for political opinions, especially on the internet. These are the people who are most likely to realize the argument isn't going their way, so they post an insult and block you before you can respond. They are more concerned with feeling right than being correct; with sticking to their opinion rather than with finding out what's true. This is why I am of the opinion that politics makes people stupid.

-

PS-
Coincidentally, this was posted the day after I submitted the above column:

link

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

"I can't refute what you say, so I'll complain about the words you use!"

The other day, someone objected to my phrasing when I said cops (one in particular) are "dishonest yellow-bellied tail-tuckers". 

He couldn't refute the facts; he just didn't like the creative way I called them "lying cowards" (and he kept harping on the particular words I used) in a response to the post about the cop who shot a teenager in the back and killed him, then lied that the victim was "holding a gun" (it was a phone).

So, he compared me to Yosemite Sam.

In a follow-up comment, he tried taking a potshot at my "yellow flag" and said I was the real coward because I never "served my country" [sic].

Sometimes, I am heartened by the low quality of those who hate the things I say, but who, instead of trying to use reason, resort to assumptions and ad hominem. It's kind of awesome, actually.

People who will fight on behalf of a government are the same sort of people who can be brainwashed into flying airliners into buildings. Yeah, it's bravery, but a twisted, worthless sort of harmful bravery.

There are things that some people get very excited about that I find completely reprehensible. That gulf will never be bridged. But you can make a counterargument, or you can flail around looking silly. He chose the looking-silly path.

And, if a cop thinks the reasonable response to seeing an armed individual (or someone he is scared might be armed) is to murder him, the cop has no business being out in public. Exercising your natural human rights isn't a capital offense. Unless you encounter a cop who is a lying coward, apparently.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

More evil losers making news

An evil loser in Louisiana decided to murder his kids. Eight of them. 

The usual idiots are blaming "guns!"

Smarter people blame the evil loser who chose to murder 8 kids.

People who've been made stupid by politics are calling this a "mass shooting" so they can pad their anti-gun narrative with whatever they can find and twist to fit. Just like gang-on-gang killings.

A few decades ago, there was a guy in Arkansas who decided the Christmas holiday was the ideal time to kill his entire family. I don't remember ever hearing his horrible crime called a "mass shooting", even though this evil loser also used a gun in many of the murders. I guess people are getting dumber or more dishonest- or more political.

This is mere days after an outspoken anti-gun bigot shot and murdered his wife and then removed himself from the roster of the living. I'm no longer surprised when an anti-gun bigot does something like this. It's completely on-brand.

Yet, I'm seeing the usual idiots screaming to ban guns because of the acts of these recent evil losers. It's predictable, pathetic, and counterproductive. Not to mention, banning (and regulating) guns is a criminal act.

It's not the guns. It has never been the guns. It's the evil losers who decide to murder others. They use whatever tools are available. If the anti-gun bigots managed to get guns banned, and all the guns magically disappeared so evil losers had no access to them, the murders would continue. They might even increase since guns do more to protect the innocent than to empower bad guys who often have a lifetime's training in hurting people.

No one calling to ban or restrict guns is doing this for your benefit. They are your mortal enemy, functionally the same as an evil loser who is coming to shoot you and your children.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Government protects thieves- trash protects trash

Killing a thief caught in the act is not a "murder", regardless of whether you think it was justified or not. Maybe, depending on the situation, it was too much in your opinion, but not "murder". I'm not speaking "legally", but ethically. So be careful, because unethical governments (but I repeat myself) take the side of the bad guys and punish the good guys.

If you're a prosecutor who charges such a victim with murder or attempted murder for daring to try to protect his property, you're the bad guy. Maybe even worse than the thieves.

All you're doing is rewarding thieves and making it safer to be thieves. You're encouraging thieves and potential thieves to steal more. This is the opposite of what you ought to be doing. Your worthless "job" is to protect the life, liberty, and property of those who are where they have a right to be, doing what they have a right to do. Not the thieves.

If there are to be "laws" covering such things (there shouldn't be, but there are), they should be similar to the "law" that charges a bank robber with murder if one of his thieving associates dies during the robbery. If a thief is killed while committing theft, the fault is his and his associates'. No one is forcing any of them to be thieves. It's a choice, and choices have consequences. Too bad, so sad.

If I'm on the jury (Ha ha!) for a defender being charged with murder in such a case, he's either walking free, or there will be a hung jury. I will never v*te to convict someone for shooting a thief. Not even if I personally dislike the defender or believe he could have chosen to not defend his property as effectively as he did.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip? 

If not, that’s OK.