Thursday, September 21, 2017

The State-- societal cancer

A lot of liberty lovers aren't very fond of society. I'm not one of them.

Society can be good or bad. Just like some cultures are better than others (depending on their level of acceptance of archation), so are some societies better.

The State is a cancer on the good society. A parasite, draining the life out of the society, replacing it with rot and death. Replacing the social benefits of the economic means with the destruction of the political means. Choosing theft and aggression over voluntary interactions.

If a society develops cancer, maybe it means the society was already a bit sick; cancer isn't going to cure the sickness. Unless you consider death a "cure".

Maybe if you are suffering in a bad society, having cancer killing it off isn't all bad. But the chance of the State being worse than the society is too high-- societies can be good or bad, but there is no such thing as a "good State". Those odds are not in your favor.

Be grateful for the good things around you. Recognize the bad things-- and reject them.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Many misunderstand Declaration of Independence

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 20, 2017)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence

Those are some of the wisest words from American history. Sadly, they are almost entirely ignored today, other than occasional lip service to keep up the the rest...

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit


Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Sorry to break it to you...

...but there are freelance bad people out there.

If you believe everything is a "false flag" you're as gullible as those who believe everything the mass media reports.

If everything's a false flag, then nothing ever occurs outside of government control. And that's obviously absurd. There probably are some false flags, but there are real, terrible events perpetrated by non-governmental thugs, too.

I don't blame people who suspect the possibility of a false flag with any event. But once credible people who have first-hand knowledge of the surrounding situation have counter evidence, let it go. Move onto the next possible false flag. Don't dig in your heels and call people nasty names just because they don't buy into your hysteria.

After the shootings at the library here, a guy on Facebook told me it was obviously a false flag. I didn't even say anything negative in response, other than to post a link to a previous post I had written about the "false flag" subject. So he said "Wow" and unfriended me.

I feel bad for people like him. This belief seems defeatist. If anything like this ever happens to him, how will his brain wrap around it? Will he still believe it's a false flag to pin on a conspiratorial government operation beyond his ability to fight? If he has concrete evidence to the contrary, will he think this is the one exception? Will he then get upset at those like himself who claim it's "just" another false flag?
Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, September 18, 2017

The opposite of a polite society

An armed society is a polite society.
An unarmed "society" isn't a real society at all.

It's a feed lot.
A slaughter house.
A prison.
The people in it are too helpless to be of any use to anyone but those who control the arms.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Governments need and breed wars

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 16, 2017)

If they have to debate it, declare it, or convince the public it's necessary, war is not justified. The only ethical war is the one where you have no choice; where you see the whites of their eyes coming down your street.

Fighting them "over there", so you don't have to "fight them here" makes you the aggressor; the invader. You have become what you claim to be fighting.

If you want the thrill of war, and want to go help someone else defend themselves from invaders coming down their street, go right ahead. At your own expense, and without dragging me into it.

But are you willing to die for a lie?

The North Korean government's intercontinental nuclear missiles will turn out to be as imaginary as Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the Gulf of Tonkin "incident". But governments need war.

As Hermann Goering, Nazi military leader, said: "Naturally the common people don't want war.... But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along.... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Are you letting yourself be dragged along?

Even if the North Korean government has the claimed weapons, war isn't justified.

If one government has nuclear weapons, it is a hypocrite to forbid those same weapons to another government. No government is so special it can forbid others from doing the same thing it does. It's like an armed thug going into another thug's house and declaring he isn't allowed to own a gun to defend himself.

I have nothing against North Koreans. They should rise up and physically remove their dictator-- and keep repeating the process until there is no one left who is willing to rule.

Of course, this is something every population should do. It would be beneficial to civilization if the lust to govern were purged from the gene pool once and for all.

Unfortunately, many people want to be governed-- or want others to be governed-- and someone will always be sick enough to fill that desire. Those who govern need wars to prevent the people from noticing the government is doing most of the attacking and robbing. They need the people to believe someone else is the enemy. So government breeds war.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Answer to the "unanswerable challenge"

A prominent gun rights blogger* calls this his "challenge no one has been able to answer". There's a reason no one has been able to answer it: it is unanswerable by design.

Here's his "challenge":

"Produce credible data – something that can be independently validated – that 'amnesty' and a 'pathway to citizenship' for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and even legally, with current culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners. Show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts.
Show us how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts, and reverse gains made to date. The sudden passing of Justice Scalia, and the precarious balances of the Heller and McDonald decisions, ought to drive home for all how dangerously critical that is.
[S]how how all credible estimates putting the disparity at over 70% Democrat and anti-gun are wrong.
How about some verifiable numbers to refute my concerns?"

I knew the answer almost immediately, but kept quiet for a long time for the sake of politeness. But it just keeps being brought up over and over, and it's a little embarrassing. It's almost as bad as a supposedly knowledgeable gun owner lecturing a newbie about the "shoulder thing that goes up" and why it should be "illegal".

So here is my answer, and I know it won't win me any friends.

Let's look at an equivalent "challenge" first and see why it is unanswerable...

"Produce credible data – something that can be independently validated – that a government big and powerful enough to "secure the borders", keep track of all immigrants, deport illegal immigrants, and control immigration to the extent you demand WILL NOT abuse that power and become a Soviet- or Nazi-style tyranny. Show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in the further degradation of property rights, the right of association, the right to be secure in your home from government invasion, and the right to travel without being stopped to show "your papers, please".
Show us how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts, and reverse gains made to date.
How about some verifiable numbers to refute my concerns?

I'm waiting. Show me. Not speculation. Not guesswork. Not anecdotes. Hard verifiable proof of how the future WILL turn out; not how it might.

You can't, can you. Because I am demanding the impossible, just as his "challenge" does.

The "challenge" is an illogical, emotional demand without a rational, logical answer. This is worse than asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It's a trick of sophistry, not an argument.

The fact is, the only way to enforce any "immigration policy" is by violating life, liberty, and property (and the Constitution, if that matters to anyone). It requires a massive growth in government power and intrusiveness. Today. Now. Not in some speculative future.

My solution remains the same: Stop driving those you fear into the arms of your enemy.

Of course, this anti-"immigration"/pro-gun hysteria is predicated on the political delusion that some Republican politicians are "pro-gun", and that is simply not even slightly true. I repeat: There is no such thing as a "pro-gun Republican". The average Republican politician (or bureaucrat) may be slightly less anti-gun than the average Democrat politician, but they aren't "pro-gun" at all. I have yet to see a single Republican politician who knows that weaponry of any kind is none of the government's business whatsoever-- not subject to any "laws" of any kind. Republicans are statists first. Anything else comes a distant second. You can't be a statist and really respect rights. Statists can pretend to respect rights, and they can say things that seem to indicate they do, but they lie. The proof is in what they do, not what they say.

And, the assumptions in the "challenge" may not even be realistic, anyway, although the writer of that piece may have an ulterior motive to make you believe him so you'll let down your guard and stop putting my solution into practice.

This blog post is not going to change anyone's mind, of course. In fact, I expect borderists to dig in their heels even more if they happen to read this. I realize I'm a nobody. My opinion isn't worth a hill of beans. But bad arguments for bigger, more powerful and intrusive government really bother me, especially when constructed poorly or deceptively. Doubly so when advocated by those who should be on the side of liberty.


*This isn't to say I don't like his blog. It has some very good information, but he's just got this gigantic mote in his eye that is causing him to stumble and side with the real enemy of gun rights on this issue. And it seems to be growing larger and more obsessive by the day.

I even understand his concerns. It bothers be too. I hate the fact that people are foolish enough to allow a "system" to exist which enables people to v*te to violate the rights of others-- which brings this "challenge" back to its own foundation: The State is YOUR enemy, even if it is doing things you approve of. Supporting it in any way is suicidal in the long run.

This is why my solution is so critical, and why advocating anything else would be shooting myself in the foot.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, September 15, 2017

Zero Archation Principle

With regard to the Theory of Relativity, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity came first. It worked OK, but there was something missing that kept it from working "generally". So, in time, Einstein came up with the General Theory of Relativity which applied much more generally, since it included acceleration, which is a common variable in the real world.

In the same way, there is the Zero Aggression Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." It works great, where aggression is involved.

But aggression isn't the only thing you don't have a right to commit. I have always said the ZAP is essential, but not sufficient.

Some people tried to get around this inconvenient observation by defining other acts as "aggression", but it was always an awkward fit.

Part of the problem was that there simply wasn't a word which covered all those acts which no one has a right to commit.

So I created one: archation.

Now, rather than only having a Special Theory Principle of Relativity Libertarianism, we can have a General Principle of ... whatever you want to call it.

The Zero Archation Principle.

"No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to archate, nor to advocate or delegate archation."

This new, general ZAP is shorter and more comprehensive than the "special" ZAP that laid the groundwork. Sure, you'll have to define "archation", but admit it-- you've always had to define "aggression" anyway.

I'm not ditching the Zero Aggression Principle. It still works for so many cases, and is at least somewhat familiar to those fellow travelers who read. But in my own head, I have already switched over to the new ZAP- the Zero Archation Principle. Feel free to join me if you want.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Social entropy

I am a seeker. I just want to see the truth. Whatever it is. Wherever it leads.

And the truth I have discovered includes this:

Any society based on anything other than zero archation will degrade over time. 
It will continue to get worse and worse. 
Each cheat-- every act of archation-- will chip away a bit of trust. 
It will make the next social interaction a little more difficult. 
It will make it easier to justify the next cheat.
The evidence is all around you. 
Just observe and you'll see it.
Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Bully factories

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Thanks, Equifax... you bungling liars!

There's a bright side (to me) to the Equifax bungling and lying caper.

Maybe if enough "socialist insecurity" numbers get stolen and used all over the place in fraudulent (more fraudulent) ways, it will discredit the use of those numbers. (I mean, to the "mainstream" slaves.)

I'm ambivalent about the truthfulness of "credit scores", but I have no such ambivalence about that nasty numbering, tracking, and human inventory scheme that is the SSN. I want it to die. Anything that damages its "legitimacy" in the eyes of it's marginal supporters seems like a good thing to me.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Ready to welcome you to free society

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 13, 2017)

Are you ready for liberty? How ready?

Few people are sufficiently ready for liberty to be willing to let go of government. At least not totally. Even while complaining about the corruption, expense, and incompetence that infects government at every level, they look for excuses to keep it around. They believe it can be fixed. I shake my head in wonder. What could they be thinking? the rest...

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Nationalism, globalism, slavery, death

Isn't it strange that nationalists consider the desire to see everyone free of political bullies to be "globalism"?

I guess it shows where their alliances lie: Against liberty and humanity.

I'm against archators, whether they are freelance or "authorized", local or foreign, "nice" or cruel. Your favorite archators are just as bad as those you hate. I'll never embrace the archators you want to impose on me, no matter where they are based-- if they have a base.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, September 11, 2017

September 11. Don't give the losers what they want.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Arbitrary rules are harmful

The world is choked with rules. Some rules are a good idea; most are utter nonsense.

Some are so arbitrary that it is hard to imagine how they were ever dreamed up in the first place. Sick minds need to stay busy, I suppose.

I despise arbitrary rules.

Arbitrary rules are always harmful, on some level.

Even the ones you agree with.

If nothing else, they cheapen all the rules-- including those which aren't arbitrary at all.

Once you run into enough arbitrary rules, and other harmful rules, you get to the point where a rule like "Do not push button" loses impact. You may push the button just to see what happens.

And then those who pollute the world with arbitrary rules will be shocked that you didn't listen to this sensible rule hidden among the jungle of harmful arbitrary rules.

Stay in the habit of evaluating each and every rule you encounter. Follow or reject them based on reality, not on whether someone decided to make them up and impose them on others.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Accidents don't deserve punishment

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 9, 2017)

When an innocent person falls victim to a tragic accident, I hurt along with everyone else. Yet I part ways with most others when they start calling for the blood of the person who caused the accident. Or the modern version of calling for blood-- punishment imposed by the government's laws and justice system.

This isn't justice.

Accidents are never crimes. It doesn't matter how much harm was done. It doesn't matter how they make you feel. Accidents lack a key component of a real crime. A crime requires an intent to violate an individual. Concepts such as "negligence" confuse the issue and try to legitimize the hunger to punish, but the reality remains. Without intent to harm there is no crime, no matter what man's made up laws say.

Even if some sort of arbitration is necessary, which may be the case, government shouldn't be involved. Government is not a party to the matter, and is most certainly not the injured individual. Nor is society. Involving government doesn't solve the problem nor wipe the slate clean. Neither does punishing the person responsible.

Does this mean there are no consequences? That someone will "get away with it"? Not at all. There is still loss of reputation and trust.

Plus, if you cause harm, intentional or not, you owe restitution to the person you harmed-- or to their survivors. Some harm you can never pay off. The injured person can forgive your debt, but they aren't obligated to.

I understand the desire to make someone suffer when they have caused you pain. Believe me, I've been there. I also understand the wish to call suffering inflicted in retribution "justice", but it isn't.

Causing pain in order to punish an accident is wrong. It's wrong for you to poke out an eye for an eye blinded in an accident, and hiring someone-- such as a prosecutor-- to do it on your behalf can't magically make it right.

Maybe people grasp these straws because they can think of no other way to feel better when a tragic accident occurs. Does it really help?

I know my words mean nothing to those who are hurting, but I would ask them to consider the harm it does to their soul when they lust for legal revenge against someone who made a horrible mistake. Remember, the shoe could as easily be on the other foot, because even if you lie to yourself saying otherwise, anyone can make mistakes.


(Yes, I've said the same before, but that time it didn't get published in the paper.)
Thank you for helping support

You can't have it both ways, Constitutionalists

Who is the enemy of Rightful Liberty?

It is the one who violates it, or advocates violating it. It is the one who asks others to violate it on his behalf.


No one else can be the enemy of Rightful Liberty.

So, who is violating Rightful Liberty?
Who advocates violating Rightful Liberty?
Who asks others to violate Rightful Liberty on his behalf?

Archators-- specifically including anyone who advocates governing others-- do. That's who.

It doesn't matter if they try to govern others with socialism, communism, republicanism, democracy, theocracy, or some other version of statism. Governing others is always a violation of Rightful Liberty.

This means those who use the US Constitution as some sort of touchstone are mortal enemies of Rightful Liberty. The Constitution established a government. A State. As such it continues to violate Rightful Liberty with everything it permits or fails to prevent, even to this day. And Constitutionalists encourage it to do so. Even harder, if it suits them.

They'll deny it venomously. They'll try to place the blame elsewhere. On you. Somehow they'll blame you for not "enforcing Constitutional limits" on the State a hundred years or more before you were born. They'll blame you for not demanding employees of the State stay inside those limits (or at least the limits they like) now-- and will tell you v*ting is the way to accomplish it. They'll claim it's the way to scare them into behaving. Never mind that it has never worked. Yes, it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad and dangerous.

They'll promise to defend Rightful Liberty to the death-- your death-- while utterly destroying Rightful Liberty with everything they advocate, delegate, and do.

They'll even advocate things, using the Constitution as a justification, that the Constitution didn't ever allow. Such as "immigration" control. Ask about that and they'll point to the part about "naturalization"; ignoring that it set out how to make someone a "citizen", not how to allow them to be here. This shows they support something they don't even understand, and make it up when it suits their feelings.

And they'll feel pleased with themselves, and feel superior.

They are not necessarily the greatest threat to Rightful Liberty right now. Their numbers are too small. Others may be worse and are more numerous. But if you mistakenly believe they understand and support liberty, and see you as an ally, you are making a fatal error.

Just heed the warning.

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 perhaps better. They are dead wrong. No matter the excuses they use.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, September 09, 2017

Detours to the "Left"

A while back I wrote about the fellow travelers who have forsaken Rightful Liberty to move to the political "Right" (although they'll deny that's what they've done).

But, there are also those who have moved to the "Left" and abandoned liberty.

I suspect those made their move away from liberty as a reaction to the "Right"-- I can't imagine they just decided to reject liberty out of thin air.

Maybe the toxicity of the "Right" rhetoric repelled them so thoroughly that they bounced directly into a belief system exactly as repugnant. They took on the "social justice" causes, no matter how anti-liberty they are, just because they weren't the causes of the "Right".

Sometimes the Left is right on an issue, just as the Right is sometimes right. Both are wrong on most things, and agree with each other far more than they disagree-- this is why statism is the world's most popular religion. If the Right or the Left were usually correct, there wouldn't be much for me to disagree with them over. That's not the world which exists.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, September 08, 2017

Disagreeable me

I am not disagreeable. Really.

I don't go out of my way to find things to disagree with. I even try to avoid situations where people will be parroting things I'll disagree with. I want to get along with people, even if I'm not good at "going along to get along".

But, if-- in spite of my efforts-- I hear or see someone advocating rape or mass murder, should I spare their delicate little feelings by remaining silent?

What if they don't believe they are advocating such horrors? Should I avoid pointing out that is exactly what they are advocating by supporting government or cops?

I don't like disagreeing with people, but it's better than agreeing with them when they are being horrible. In that case, I wouldn't respect myself. So, if I seem disagreeable, it might be a good time to look in the mirror and notice what you are advocating. It might be that you are supporting disagreeable things which good people must disagree with.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, September 07, 2017

Who's angry?

I'm not generally an angry person (although sometimes I get angry at certain events or people), but I think it's completely reasonable for anarchists to be angry.

Why would an anarchist be angry?

Might it be due to injustice? Theft? Might it be that these vile things are accepted as normal, or even desirable, by the vast majority of people?

Might it be because he is a good person who sees immense evil being called "good" or "necessary"?

Why would anger under these conditions be unexpected?

Anger doesn't justify taking it out on innocent people, though. And that recognition is what makes us better people than the rabble who do.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Bad guys win if we live in fear

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 6, 2017)

In the aftermath of the Clovis library shootings, the community seemed plagued by fear for days. Fortunately, it seems to have mostly passed. Yes, a very bad thing happened, but do you want fear to limit your life? It's your choice.

Every bad thing that happens, happens to good people. If it happened only to bad people, it wouldn't be a bad the rest...
Thank you for helping support Please help out if you can.

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, September 05, 2017

Here's that &#@% hump again

That's how much I need to get over the financial hump that has been building. If you would like to help, I would appreciate it.

If you'd like to subscribe in any of the various ways which are available over to the right, which would help eliminate the cause of that building financial hump, I would be thrilled.

Also, a separate issue is that I'm still trying to help get together enough money to get someone else's broken and recurringly infected tooth fixed. Still need around $200* for that- if you contribute to my Go Fund Me campaign, that money will only go toward the dentist, and not toward the $173, because as much as I need the other, the tooth is more pressing.

If you aren't able to help, or don't want to, that's OK. But I have to ask. Sorry.

*Insurance covers all but $400, I have collected $183 (after the Go Fund Me fees) toward the dental charges. The dentist won't even consider fixing the tooth first and working out a payment plan for the balance- that has been asked repeatedly. The alternative is going to another dentist... who doesn't take the insurance- which only means more money will be needed.)

Do the hard thing

Standing up against wrong is hard.
Doing right can be hard.
It is scary.
It can be dangerous.
It will have consequences.
It could kill you.
It is still right.
It is your responsibility.
Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, September 04, 2017

Change happens one person at a time

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 2, 2017- I forgot to post it in full yesterday. Sorry!)

The world has plenty of problems and something needs to change. Just about everyone agrees on this point, even if the details they'd like to change differ. Everyone probably believes they have some of the solutions, too.

Assuming the change you want is actually good, and your solution would work, how do you put it in motion? How do you make sure you don't make things worse if the change you want, or your path to get there, turns out to be disastrous?

How about not trying to beat other people into going along with you? Instead, change yourself according to what you'd like to see the world become. Some say "Be the change you wish to see in the world". It sounds simplistic and "touchy-feely", but how else can you really change the world other than by taking the risk yourself? All change happens one person at a time.

If you have a better way to live, live it. Don't force it on others; lead by example. Then, let people watch what happens to you. They'll join you voluntarily if your way seems to work. If it fails, admit it and try something different.

It comes down to "you go first". If your idea is a good one-- or if you truly believe it is-- you shouldn't fear putting it into action in your life. If you won't give it an honest shot, how can you expect anyone else to?

For instance, I believe no one has the right to use violence against people who are neither using violence nor violating someone's property rights. So I don't do it. I believe the best way to live among other people is to respect their right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm the person or property of anyone else. This is how I try to live.

This doesn't mean I ignore any terrible acts I see committed, or that I reject self defense. It means I won't act in ways I believe are wrong in pursuit of the world I want.

If you reject this way, preferring a way you believe is better, live it and see how it works.

The conventional routine of forcing everyone to go along with your bright scheme is ancient, but even when it seems to work, it doesn't result in anything good. It ends up leading to more of the same. The world can't afford to stay on this path.
Thank you for helping support

A lack of imagination

I got a bit of hatred for my newspaper column "Accidents don't deserve punishment". And a little for the follow-up video I made, too.

People LOVE punishment. And they lust for it. And they simply can't imagine finding themselves in the position of being on the other end.

Unfortunately, I can imagine it.

I'm aware of times I did something really stupid in moments of distraction. Moments which could have ended in disaster for someone (usually including me). But I lucked out.

Sometimes people aren't so lucky.

This is why I have some sympathy for people who cause accidents. I know it could easily be me. Or anyone. No one is so special they are immune.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, September 03, 2017

Mourning the women who touched our lives

(A "special edition" Eastern New Mexico News Sunday column for September 3, 2017)

How do you tell your daughter, on her tenth birthday, that her friend has been murdered? There isn't a good way, but I was forced to give it my best shot last week. I know I wasn't the only one; a lot of grieving parents around here shared the same experience with their children.

My daughter grew up with Miss Krissie at the library. The love she showed all the kids who came to share her world of books and crafts made her a favorite. I sat through many a Preschool Storyhour, even after my daughter got too old to really be interested in the juvenile books which were read each week. She loved Miss Krissie and wanted to be there anyway, just to see her. Just to hug her and talk with the rest...

Thank you for being my daughter's friend, Miss Krissie.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, September 02, 2017

New videos

If you are interested in my videos, please subscribe to my YouTube channel, my channel, or my videos on DTube.

My videos are not professional quality, because I'm not professional. But they are what they are. Maybe you'd get some value from them.

I may or may not post the links to videos on the blog, so subscribing to one of the various channels is your best bet for seeing them in a timely manner.
Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

What kind of right is it?

It doesn't matter to me if a right is a "First Amendment Right" or a "Second Amendment Right" or any other right supposedly "protected" by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was a scam, and it's been irrelevant for all intents and purposes for a very long time.

What matters to me is whether something is a human right.

And you have the right, as a human, to do absolutely anything which doesn't violate someone else's equal and identical rights. Anything. Which is why entitlements can't be rights.

Whether or not it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights is irrelevant.
Whether governments respect your right is irrelevant as to whether or not it exists-- although it matters a great deal as to whether you are free to exercise your right without dying by cop.

So, worrying about which amendment "protects" a particular right is pointless. Let the statists chase their tails with that one.

If you do what you want, would it violate anyone's life, liberty, or property?
If not, go ahead- it's your right.
If it does, you'd be smart (and ethical) to not do it no matter how badly you want to, and no matter how you justify it.

Remember, though, it's not always smart, or even nice, to do everything you have a right to do, at any particular time or place. Be ethical, but also be smart and nice.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, September 01, 2017

I know, let's all be equal!

Socialism doesn't lift every one up equally; what it does is it attempts to shove everyone down equally.

But it even fails at that.

There are always some elites doing the pushing who will lift themselves up at the expense of everyone they are pushing down. Socialism still results in a "1%" who own the vast majority of everything, while the majority of the people have almost nothing.

Much worse, in practice, than the economic "systems" socialists love to hate.

The only equality in the world is that everyone-- and I mean every single individual everywhere on the planet (in the future, off-world, too)-- has the exact same rights as every other individual. No difference at all.

That's it. That's the equality you get. Beyond that, nothing is "fair".

You may work really hard, and live right, and get totally screwed over. It happens. It's nice when other people try to make you believe the world is "fair" by helping you overcome problems, but that's what people can do for each other; it's not what the Universe does.

And it's not what socialism brings.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Jealous of cops?

Some of my detractors are right: I'm jealous of cops. Yes, I am. I admit it.

I'm jealous of the wide-spread, unearned respect they get.
I'm jealous they get to ignore all anti-gun "laws", without being murdered (by cops) for doing so.
I'm jealous they make as much money as they do, and wish I could, too. Although I'd rather get money honestly.
I'm jealous because I can lose friends over words I have written, while cops don't seem to lose friends when they actually murder and rape. In fact, they seem to gain even more supporters in the face of accusations.

However, if you believe my dislike of cops is because of this jealousy, you would be wrong.

There are people I am jealous of, but whom I still like.
There are also people I don't like, but whom I am not jealous of in any way.
So, being jealous of someone and liking or not liking them are completely unrelated.

I have no desire to use violence against people who aren't archating, but there is still something thrilling about the thought that you could murder just about anyone and get away with it just because of your "job".

I wish that didn't seem exciting, but I do have personality flaws.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Government can't protect you from disaster

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 30, 2017)

Each time there's some potential calamity on the horizon, I hope people will have learned this truth from history: government can't protect you. I am usually disappointed.

Whether it's a hurricane, blizzard, disease epidemic, economic collapse, or the aquifer running dry, your safety is not government's responsibility; it's the rest...

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Complaints and poor choices

I drew this on the school playground's basketball court several years ago

People who make the choice to be involved in government stuff, and then sit around complaining about it, seem to me like someone who sticks their foot in an ant bed and keeps complaining about being stung.

One example is those who choose to send their kids to kinderprison and then constantly complain about bad teachers, homework, bullying, and all the other things that would cease being a problem if you'd rescue your kids from that gulag. You know what that place is all about, so what else do you expect?

But that's not the only example. There are also those who complain about government corruption as if government could be honest. You may as well complain that snow is cold and expect it to change to suit your wishes.

If you're going to legitimize theft, aggression, and "authority" with your choices, you look silly complaining about the inevitable results.

Now, if you are an unwilling victim, then complain as much as you want. Or, better yet, defend yourself.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, August 28, 2017

Clovis, NM library murders- I understand the appeal of REVENGE

I don't believe revenge is right.

At this moment, I would do something I believe is wrong if I could get my hands on a particular murderous little loser. I don't care if he decided to murder random people because he has been bullied. Right now, I want blood. It's a good thing I know I'll calm down.

Today was my daughter Emily's 10th birthday. We had a pretty good day.

This afternoon we went to the mall so she could spend some of her birthday money. While there I got the report of an active shooter at the library. My daughter overheard, and was immediately concerned. Her first thought was for the safety of "Miss Krissie", the children's librarian.

She told me if Miss Krissie got shot, it would be the worst birthday ever.

This evening, although there hasn't been any confirmation, it looks like Miss Krissie, Kristina Carter, was one of the fatalities.

My daughter is devastated.

We started going to Toddler Story Time at the library when Emily was tiny. Emily kept going after she was too old to go, and not really interested in the toddler stories anymore, just because she loved Miss Krissie. She was so proud when she showed Miss Krissie that she had learned to write her name and could fill out her own name tag-- and Miss Krissie gushed over the accomplishment. 

Even after we stopped going to story time, we would always stop by to see Miss Krissie. Emily posed for several pics with her over the years, and we gave her copies. She always acted like those pictures were the most precious things she had ever received. When we'd run into her around town, she always remembered Emily's name and made her feel important.

I love libraries, and wish they were freed from government control. And, in a voluntaryist library, they couldn't do any better than hiring someone as caring as Miss Krissie. R.I.P.

(The other woman who was murdered was also very sweet to Emily. She was more of a grandmotherly type. Always behind the counter. Always cheerful, and getting my daughter to tell her about the book she was getting, or other small talk. Always acting like Emily was a VIP. The senselessness has left me hurt and angry. Very angry.)


(This was also the subject of an extra, Sunday edition, of my newspaper column.)

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

What's wrong with ideology?

What is "ideology", why is it always assumed to be negative, and do I have one?

Well, let's go to the dictionary:

1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

I don't see anything particularly negative in that, other than the gratuitous mention of "fascism" in #2.

Picking apart #1-- You had better have some beliefs to guide you, if you don't want to end up where you don't want to be. It is better to have true beliefs than ones based on lies, but if you start going in bad directions, that should be a sign that your beliefs are wrong and need to be replaced.

And, in regard to #2, if you have beliefs which are guiding you, and you want to actually accomplish something, I think it would be best to have a plan and a way to follow that plan. (Unless your beliefs are fascist/socialist/statist, then I'd prefer you have no plan and just wing it 'til you fail,)

Another definition says:

a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Again, no problem. Unless you violate others due to your "ideas and ideals". And, of course, politics in the real world is always a violation of others.

So, really, I see no problem in and of itself with having an ideology.
And yes, I have at least one ideology.

So why does "ideology" get such a bad reputation?

Because so many people start forming ideologies without the foundation of Zero Archation. If you start wrong, it's going to get worse. If you are guided by a doctrine, myth, belief, or whatever that doesn't inform you that you have no right to archate, then anything is permissible as you strive toward your goal. You'll end up eating babies and thinking nothing of it. Don't be like that.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, August 27, 2017

Is sacrifice of freedom worth it?

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 26, 2017)

The belief that good things can come through government is based in the superstitious belief that the wrong thing can be done in just the right way.

It's a Utopian dream.

Make no mistake, everything governments do is built upon a rotted foundation.

I'm not Utopian. I know people aren't angels, but I also know they aren't as bad as believers in government make them out to be. People usually do what they believe is in their best interest.

Belief in government makes stealing and attacking appear to be in a person's best interest, and of little risk, as long as they are done in the name of "the law".

If you steal just the right amount-- calling it "taxation"-- the stolen money may help people. Ignore the people harmed by having their money taken. Ignore those who can no longer afford things they need; pretend the common good outweighs the harm and put the victims on welfare.

Most harm caused by taxation is invisible. You can't know how much money will never be available to help those in need, or to start a business to meet needs and grow the economy-- all because you took money from its rightful owner.

Theft is only the tip of the iceberg.

Some people living among us are here without government permission, so believers in government support rounding them up, caging them like animals, and shipping them off. So what if it makes things cost more, or causes a business or two to fail, destroying jobs for "legal Americans"? Ignore the devastating domino effect on the local economy; laws are more important and must be enforced at any cost. It's a cost government supporters are willing for you to bear.

Government believers also crave safety. Their belief is that because tragedies happen, someone needs to make more rules to prevent tragedies. Ignore the fact that new rules always have unintended consequences guaranteeing other tragedies. Again, this cost is hidden because you can't map the path never taken.

Perhaps if you violate people just enough, they'll be better people; not hurting others as much. Free people sometimes make bad choices; government can destroy freedom to reduce the risks. Destroying freedom is the only thing government does well. Unfortunately, to truly help others in meaningful ways also requires freedom. Government's arbitrary rules only get in the way. Is it worth it?

In this incremental way civilization's future is sacrificed, one individual at a time, on the altar of government.

Thank you for helping support

Nice monsters

People really get confused over "nice" and "good".

"Nice" is just social adeptness. A way to act around people so they don't hate you automatically as you go about your daily routine. It includes politeness and generosity.

Most serial killers are probably very nice. It's how they gain the trust of their intended victims; getting them to let their guard down. If they weren't nice, they would find it hard to get close enough to kill their victims up close and personal.

But if you are being nice in order to facilitate violating people, you aren't good. No matter how many people like you for your niceness.

This explains why, no matter how nice some of the cops you know may be, none of them are good. They are like the sociopathic serial killer-- nice, with an agenda of violation.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, August 26, 2017

"Consent of the governed"?

Using statists' own reasoning, I doubt there can be any such thing as "consent of the governed".

What is the "age of consent" for being governed? Why wouldn't the statists insist on such with something as important as giving someone else total control over your body/life, liberty, and property? Governing someone has much more potential for grievous harm than mere sexual activity. Yet, they impose their own idea of an "age of consent" for that, and neglect making one up for being governed. They even insist on governing infants! What perverts they are!

Age and the ability to legitimately consent may have a loose correlation, but age doesn't magically mean someone is or is not able to give consent. For anything.

Rather than the number of years a person has lived, consent rests on the ability to understand what you are considering consenting to, and the emotional maturity to handle its consequences.

If there were going to be such a thing as "age of consent" where being governed is concerned, it would need to be about 150 years old. Governing anyone under that age would be Statutory Tyranny.

In fact, I would argue that consenting to be governed it is a sign you lack the understanding or emotional maturity to actually consent. It is self-disproving.

Of course, some people go out of their way begging to be governed. This shows they are mentally or emotionally too frail to consent to be governed. They are mental or emotional invalids, to be pitied and not trusted with important things.

I don't consent to be governed.

Statists might imagine that since I don't kill everyone who tries to govern me, this implies consent.

That's silly, and just how silly it is can be shown by imagining another non-consensual situation.

Unless you kill the rapist who is raping you, you obviously consent. Right? Or, you could choose an alternate rapist if you don't want to be raped by the one who is currently violating you. That you don't do either one implies consent. At least, when applied to governing.

Thank you for helping support

Friday, August 25, 2017

Gang members attract groupies

One day recently, at an event at the park, I was watching people gathering around a cop. Several seemed to be jostling for his attention. I couldn't help but wonder what the attraction is.

Then I remembered someone I know who idolizes the Mafia, and it clicked: Gang members attract groupies. Suddenly I started thinking of other examples of the same phenomenon.

Many people are attracted to those they see as "dangerous". Some of these groupies are "harmless" people (perhaps cowards) who hunger for an association with someone who has more of an edge. Someone who can help them feel less harmless by association.

Others are in denial that they idolize bad guys, and they want plausible deniability, so they gather around those who are dangerous, but are seen as somehow "legitimate", too. Someone who can kill with impunity, but only "those who deserve it". Anyone cops murder is generally considered, by the cop groupies at least, to have deserved it somehow. Cops are their natural aphrodisiac.

Thank you for helping support

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Feel "protected"?

Living near an air farce base, I see a lot of military aircraft flying overhead. Usually big old prop-driven dinosaurs, but recently a couple of fighter jets zipped over the house.

It made me wonder if there's anyone still gullible enough to feel "protected" by this sight.

Probably the same people who breathe a sigh of relief when a cop pulls onto the highway behind them-- knowing they can now relax, since the cop will be selflessly watching out for their safety.

Thank you for helping support

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Why not just ignore monuments?

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 23, 2017- running a bit late.)

If I were to give advice to the Leftist protesters across the country, it would include this: ignore the monuments of your enemies.

I have no love for those who built and strengthened the government. Any government. I consider it ridiculous to memorialize such people in bronze. But their statues can serve as reminders of past mistakes. Plus, they are useful pigeon the rest...
Thank you for helping support