Thursday, October 19, 2017

When, deep down, you know you're wrong

It seems almost nothing gets statists as stirred up these days as declining to participate in their religious rituals.

Isn't that just the silliest thing?!

It's not even as though I am wanting to forbid Holy Pole Quilt worship rituals. If that sort of thing makes you happy, go right ahead.

But, I guess that's how you can tell a person is a statist: they are never content with doing their own thing-- they demand you do it, too. If you don't, they'll threaten you with physical harm, or worse. Or demand you get out of their country, without noticing the irony of their demand.

Statism is a very childish set of beliefs and behaviors, backed with aggressive extremism. And "laws".

All of which makes me even more certain they are wrong. If you are right, you won't need to threaten and bluster; you can calmly speak and reason. And, if someone isn't convinced, you go your own way and leave them alone to go theirs. You know, like a mature person.

Since statists seem incapable of behaving this way, it shows me how vacuous their "philosophy" truly is.
It's the Way of The Loser.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Libertarianism can and does work

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 18, 2017)

From time to time someone will tell me they really like the idea of libertarianism; they only wish it could work in the real world.

This reminds me of someone confessing they like the idea of electricity, if only it could actually work. Because not only can it work, it the rest...

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

No, I'm not running away

Just a heads-up: After tonight my internet is going to be shut off for a couple of days (until I'm able to pay the bill).

Depending on the weather, I may plop the laptop in the bike trailer and ride over to borrow a cup of wifi from my parents' house.

Otherwise I'll try to have some posts set to automatically publish without my help, but if I don't respond to comments or emails for a couple of days (or not in a timely manner), that's why.

(Added: Not looking for anyone to bail me out, just letting people know.)

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

"Reasonable" non-solutions

When did it become "reasonable" to violate others?

This is something I see as very strange, and it is part of why I despise "pragmatism" so intensely. It has gotten to the point that if you can't find a way to get what you want voluntarily, while respecting the identical and equal rights of everyone else, you claim you are being "pragmatic" while advocating the opposite of what your supposed goal is, and get a pass. Your "heart is in the right place". You "care".

I understand it is inconvenient to work strictly within your rights, and respect the rights of others. It is easier to cheat; to use the political method to get what you want.

I will always see that as a cop-out. As lazy and wrong. Even if you claim it is necessary to get where you want to go.

You are upset that a bad guy used a gun to kill a lot of innocent people. OK. Fine. So am I. So find a way to deal with that problem without becoming like the bad guy. Without violating people's rights. Because, quite honestly, if you choose to cheat and make up new restrictive "laws", you are no better than a mass murderer. And you won't solve the problem anyway.

You don't like drunk driving? Neither do I. So find a way to fix the problem without violating everyone's rights. If you can't, you'd be wise to do nothing rather than to become a bad guy by using "laws" to violate the human right to travel unmolested.

You don't like that people cross the government's imaginary, property rights violating "borders" to v*te against your rights or otherwise archate against you? Well, there are dozens (or more) ways to approach the problem ethically. Building a wall, increasing "border security", and "papers, please" checkpoints aren't among them. Just because you feel powerless to strike at the root doesn't excuse your hacking at the branches and violating the rights of others. Dig up the root, because this is the only way to solve a problem without violating anyone. The problem is "free stuff" socialism. The problem is "laws" against defense and the proper tools to carry it out. The problem is v*ting and politics and "taxation". The solution is freedom of association, property rights, and self defense. I know those things are hard to advocate. I know how unpopular they are. But that is no excuse to do the wrong thing.

You're unhappy that medical care has been priced out of your reach. It's a huge problem for me, too. The right way to approach the problem is to recognize what caused it in the first place. Government has been allowed to meddle with, regulate, ration, and prohibit medical care. The solution lies with stopping that, not with stealing from some to finance the health care of others. The solution doesn't involve enslaving doctors and nurses and hospitals to force them to work for you. It's cowardly and lazy to assume it does, rather than doing the hard work of getting government out of health care (and the rest of life).

And yet, in all those instances, the extreme individual-violating ideas are the ones portrayed as "reasonable", while the ones which would actually fix things are dismissively laughed at. Solving problems without molesting, robbing, and murdering has become "Utopian".

A "solution" which violates the rights of even one person is not a solution; it is an additional problem.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, October 16, 2017

Socialistic Theocratic Statism

All statism is socialism. The only disagreement among the socialists is how to impose socialism on each other, and on the few of us who aren't socialists.

Also, all governments are theocracies. They only differ in which specific god they want controlling you. Some want Jehovah. Some want Allah. Some want the god of government-- they may call it "democracy", or "the republic", "the Constitution", or some other name. But it's still their god, and they want it to rule YOUR life.

I reject imposed socialism and all theocracy. You do what you want, but keep your filthy government off my life.
Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, October 15, 2017

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?

Do they fear a free society? A society without someone else to run their life and make their decisions. Without someone imposing their ideas of right and wrong on others; making everyone less able to recognize the difference for themselves with each new law. A society where no one is able to pretend they are made safer by trying to delegate their responsibilities to others. This is to say without the specter of government hanging over life. Is fear what keeps them from finding better solutions to life's troubles?

Good news! If you feel the need to keep government around for any reason, I am not out to stop you.

I don't mind if you keep your tax-funded government schools, police, military and whatever else you feel you need-- as long as I can completely opt out without being forced to leave. I would be exempt from all taxation ("taxation" is just a fancy word for theft). I won't be paying for those things I don't want, so I agree to not use them.

I have no problem with paying users fees for things and services I do use, such as roads. At least until I don't need them anymore. You don't get to use government to stand in my way and prevent me from trying non-government alternatives, though. So if I invent a flying car with built-in collision avoidance you don't get to force me to get FAA approval or a pilot's license.

None of this would exempt me from the consequences of violating you. If I harm your person or property, I wouldn't expect you to be able to handle it yourself, so I accept I could face your government's hired guns coming after me. Since I don't plan to violate you, this won't be a deal breaker.

Keep your post office, prisons, courts, and whatever else you believe you can't live without. Just leave me out of it. Then we'll see whether I come crawling back or whether you quietly join the free society with me. I'll be waiting to welcome you.
Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Putting grit in the clockworks

Scott Adams almost gets it (again) (and again), but just misses the mark right where you'd expect. Right where "pragmatism" excuses violating people.

"...laws are not designed to stop the most motivated criminals. We’ve never seen a law in any realm that stopped all crime. At best, laws discourage the people on the margin. Gun control is no different. The objective is to add some friction and reduce the risk that someone angry enough to pick up an AR doesn’t also have a bump stock in the house." 

What is he missing?

The "friction" doesn't only work against bad guys. The fact is, if you add "friction", it prevents some percentage of good people from owning the gun they need to defend themselves, just as it might prevent some percentage of bad guys from having some specific tool.

It's convenient to ignore that part of the equation when you feel the desire to justify the unjustifiable.

This is why all anti-gun "laws" are evil. They are always going to be a net negative, because there are only two kinds of "laws"- the unnecessary and the harmful. Anti-gun "laws" are harmful, because for every hypothetical life saved, there is a hypothetical life lost. Plus added expense, time lost in trying to comply or maneuver around the "law", and risk of being caught doing nothing wrong, only "illegal".

I continue to think it is better to fail to act and maybe allow someone to be harmed, than to act to cause someone to be harmed. One is just a consequence of the Universe, the other is a consequence of you causing harm.

Anti-gun bigotry (which is the basis for every anti-gun "law", whether admitted or not) is nothing but "feelings" over rights and reality. Cowardice. My feelings don't trump your rights. And I'm OK with that. I wish other people would stop pretending otherwise.

Back to the blog linked, Adams makes other flawed claims: "Both sides pretend they are arguing on principle, but neither side is."
Really? respecting the absolute right of humans to own and to carry weapons isn't arguing from principle? You might not like the principle involved, but it is there. But there is no principle involved in violating human rights, so the anti-liberty bigots are always on the wrong side.

He also says "Both sides are arguing from their personal risk profiles, and those are simply different. Our risk profiles will never be the same across the entire population, so we will never agree on gun control."
Here's the problem with that... if you believe that owning a gun is "risky" for you, then I am in favor of you making the personal choice to not own one. However, your "risk profile" places no obligation on anyone else. Ever. My gun is not a risk to you as long as you don't try to archate in my presence. No matter how it makes you feel. Cowards, and those who want to be able to archate in relative safety, will never agree with me on anti-gun "laws"-- and I'm OK with that, too. They are only testifying against themselves. And it isn't my responsibility to coddle them, or allow myself to be violated on their behalf.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Different opinions

Yeah, I know you're not supposed to consider people with opinions which differ from yours to be evil or stupid. And, I really do try.


This means I'm not supposed to consider people who think rape is an OK way to interact with women to be evil. Their opinion simply differs from my opinion. Right?

Just like my opinion is that it is NOT OK to make up "laws" against self defensive tools, and if you do you are violating people. How can it be otherwise?

It means I'm not supposed to consider someone who believes "taxation" isn't theft stupid, regardless of the plain facts of the matter. Which do they not understand? What makes an act "theft", or how "taxation" is carried out? And, once both are explained to them and they still refuse to believe "taxation" is theft, I'm supposed to not think them stupid? They might as well believe fire is the breath of fairies, as far as I'm concerned. One belief is no less rational than the other.

OK, so maybe the people aren't evil or stupid, even if they keep refusing to change opinions that are. I understand that people get so invested in their opinions that they become immune to facts. It's human nature. Maybe opinions don't make a person stupid or evil until acted upon.

But how can a person hold opinions they don't act on? How could a person's opinions fail to guide their life? And, wouldn't this cause people with stupid or evil opinions to act evil or stupid? How consistently does a person have to behave in an evil or stupid way for me to consider them evil or stupid?

Really, if you can pretend that people with evil or stupid opinions, who act on those opinions to cause harm to others, are not evil or stupid, you can probably justify anything.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, October 13, 2017

Photos from the canyon

A bonus, for those who'd enjoy seeing a few pictures from my trip to the canyon, grouped here to keep the other blog posts from being too picture heavy to load well.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Back from the canyon

I doubt anyone noticed my absence, but I was away from "civilization" for a few days.

Upon my return Monday evening, I was disheartened to see that there's still no civilization back here in "civilization".

The archators are still arguing over ways to violate you and me. Not that I really expected anything different.

While I was off wandering, I did see a "state police" pickup cruising around when I came in for meals. The occupant losers staring intensely at everyone they passed, hoping to break their boredom by seeing some excuse to molest someone. But otherwise I was pretty much able to forget that such bad guys exist. I didn't waste my time thinking about archators, with the exception of overhearing someone make a dumb comment, that I got off my mind by making a short video.

Instead I did useful things. I mindlessly wandered wherever the whim took me. I looked at animal tracks and watched some tracks being made. I nibbled weeds. I took my daughter along to show her some of the things I found. I talked to a lizard sunning on a rock, and I petted a big centipede. Just normal things.

I also worked at teaching a young boy the art of making fire without matches- with his mother's informed consent. I told her I am not responsible if he burns down the house. His patience level is probably going to have to increase before he's too much of a danger in that regard, but you never know.

Anyway, it was a nice, badly needed break. But I'm back and ready to write.

(I'll do another post with some pictures, so as not to overload this post.)

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Fixed it

These nagging signs almost make me want to buy cigarettes for kindergarteners. 

Scary tobacco! Eeek! And an arbitrary age makes it magically OK. The government says so; it must be true.

So, I changed the sign to say what I always see when I notice them, anyway. It's better this way.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Charity, not theft or slavery

A new post over at Dispatches from Libertopia.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Try to make the world a better place

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 11, 2017)

People are always wanting to know the meaning of life. There is probably more than one, but a very good one is: Make your world a little better every day.

You don't have to think big. Start where you are, doing what you can. Begin with easy stuff, but push yourself beyond the edge of your comfort the rest...

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Bad guys win if we live in fear

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

In the aftermath of the 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 thing.

Bad things will happen to you. It's guaranteed. Your worst day will start off feeling just like every other day. You will never see that day coming.

Knowing this, isn't it reasonable to be afraid?

Maybe. I don't know. But, I'm not afraid. Unfocused fear is a waste.

What I suggest is to accept reality. Yes, bad things can happen, and will. You can still take steps to protect yourself. You can commit yourself to helping and defending others. You can listen to your gut, and when it says to avoid someone, follow its advice. Be ready to handle bad things when they arrive and can't be prevented. Nothing will guarantee your safety. It's still better than doing nothing.

Don't hurt people or take their stuff. It's kindergarten level philosophy, but it's still right for every person of every age, and often forgotten by adults.

Move beyond regrets. If there's something from the past you regret, deal with it if you can and let it go if you can't. Don't do new things you'll regret. If there's something you may regret, which you don't believe you can completely avoid doing, put it off until tomorrow. Then tomorrow you can put it off again. See, procrastination can be good for something.

Fear is a reaction to the unknown, especially unknowns that could hurt. Everything is unknown to some degree. It's a fairy tale to believe you really know what your day holds in store, no matter how carefully you have planned. Yet, your daily routine and plans probably help you keep fear at bay. So plan. Hope for the best while being prepared for the worst. In this way you have a chance to make the worst not quite as bad.

Wouldn't it be better to refuse to be afraid?

There are bad people out there who want you to be afraid. Your fear rewards them. Don't pay the fear tax they crave. If you are afraid, they win. If you restrict your life because you fear their presence, they win. I don't want the bad guys to win. Do you?

Thank you for helping support Please help out if you can.

Follow me on Steemit

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 her.

Life gets busy, children grow, routines change, and new activities replace old favorites. It has been a while since we sat on the rug in the craft room, facing the magical, colorful chair which served as Miss Krissie's throne while she read to the kids. But, still, every time we went to the library, Miss Krissie was the one my daughter wanted to see.

We didn't know Wanda as well, but it seemed she was always there. Always interested in anything my daughter had to say when we went to the counter. She asked questions and acted like whatever my daughter told her was the most important thing she'd heard all day. That kind of interest makes an impact on kids who may suspect most adults are only humoring them.

I grieve the two caring women who lost their lives, and I hope the four others who were injured recover as quickly as possible.

Acts such as this one, which robbed the children of Clovis of a wonderful friend, are often characterized as "senseless". But they are worse than that. Hurricanes and earthquakes and accidents are senseless. Murders are malevolent. There is simply no excuse which justifies it.

I might disagree with how libraries are commonly funded, but I have always valued them. And the people who work in them. This crime hurt.

I try to not be angry. Anger doesn't solve anything. Sadness probably doesn't help much, either, but I won't feel guilty for it. I'm just going to be sad with my daughter and help her through it the best I can. I believe it's what Miss Krissie would want.

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

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Statism is extremism

It's strange to me how libertarians (we who are "aVal") are called "extreme" when the opposite is clearly the case.

For example:

One type of statist wants walls around everything. They don't stop with their houses, and private property, but want walls even around other people's property, in the form of "national borders" with actual physical walls, if possible.

The other type of statist doesn't stop at objecting to walls along "national borders", but doesn't even believe in private property, and therefore doesn't want you to exclude anyone from anywhere; it wouldn't be "fair".

Sure, there are degrees of extremism even among those poles of statism, but they are all comparatively extreme.

Only those who walk the line of reasonableness between the extremes manage to balance their principles where they need to be: walls around the property YOU own and control, and nowhere else.

The same goes for every other "issue" where liberty lovers are called "extreme".

Just look at any issue-- guns, drugs, trade, whatever-- and notice how extreme the statists are, and how reasonable, with regard to reality and human nature, libertarians are. This is because liberty is self-regulating. As it should be. And, that leaves the statists no room in which to rule the world, and they don't like it. Too bad; so sad. Reality doesn't care about anyone's feelings.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, October 09, 2017

Dragged around by your feelings

If you have thought things through, and done it right, your opinions won't change due to events.

Yes, new information that shows you were wrong on some point can (and should) change your opinion, but new events that don't have any actual new information shouldn't change your view of reality.

It doesn't matter if it was a "historic" mass shooting, a friend being killed in a local mass shooting, or your daughter dying in a car wreck caused by a guy on drugs.

If those things do suddenly make you change your opinion, my thought is that you weren't thinking before, but only feeling.

I know, that's probably harsh.

But, I'm tired of people suddenly becoming (or coming out as) anti-gun bigots because an event makes them sad or scared. The reality of the facts didn't change, only your perception did. And this means you aren't perceiving things accurately.

Anti-gun "laws" are still a net negative; they do more harm than good.
Anti-gun "laws" don't save innocent lives, and sometimes destroy innocent lives. More people are still saved by gun ownership and possession ("keep and bear arms") than are harmed.
Bad people who are not stopped by laws against murder aren't going to be stopped by any other "laws", either.
The kind of weapon doesn't matter when you are being murdered-- it isn't somehow "better" to be stabbed to death, strangled, or intentionally hit by a car than to be shot.
Guns are easy to make, and if you are going to the trouble of making one anyway, you might as well make a full-auto firearm (it's easier than a semi-auto, anyway), if the penalties are all about the same and that's what you want to make.
If ammo is banned, people will invent guns that don't need it, or ammo that is easy to make with stuff found around the house. Liberty ALWAYS finds a way.

But that's not even the issue.

No one has the right to forbid anyone else from owning or carrying a gun. Your feelings about the matter are irrelevant (sorry) and don't magically create that right. A "job" or position can't create that right out of thin air. A huge tragedy or act of malevolence can't create that right. A public outcry doesn't create that right. A right that doesn't exist can't be created just because you want it.

It would be nice to see people grow some principles, but that's probably expecting too much for members of a species that choose to be ruled by their feelings.

Thank you for helping support
Donations enthusiastically welcomed.

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, October 08, 2017

Reaping what you sow

Just a little observation...

I've noticed a pattern: The people who are angry, bitter, resentful, suspicious, and "entitled" seem to get a lot of real-time payback.

They find the hair (or Band-aid) in their food. They get the cold, soggy french fries. They always encounter the angry customers and cashiers. They get stuck in traffic more often. People actually do turn against them, and enjoy their misery-- or at least do nothing to prevent it.

Then they get even angrier, more bitter and resentful, and just more negative in general.

And they'll believe it's justified, never seeing the connection.

It's a vicious cycle. A trap. One I take care not to fall into even when things happen that might make it seem reasonable. Because I've watched people like this and I see what happens to them, and I don't want to follow in their footsteps.

It's better to learn from the pain of others, than to insist on trying every experiment on yourself.

And, sure. It might be confirmation bias on my part. But if it is, it's a useful one that helps keep me from being a jerk to those around me.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, October 07, 2017

Echo chambers aren't an option

 I'm not going to stop writing to go to a video format, but just offer these as a bonus of sorts. I make more videos than I post here. If you haven't yet subscribed to my amateurish videos, take this opportunity to do so.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, October 06, 2017

"Conservatives" are just statists

My contempt for "conservatives" grows. Almost daily. Which is strange, since my own personal preferences would probably lean mostly toward what outside observers would call "conservative".

Most of the behaviors that would label someone a "liberal"/"progressive" hold no interest whatsoever for me.

I really want to have sympathy for "conservatives", but their hypocrisy makes this very hard.

And it really comes down to the way they want to impose their preferences at the barrel of a government employee's gun.

I understand that you don't want to smoke crack. I'm right there with you. But to then decide it's OK for government employees to kidnap, rob, and cage people who choose differently is vile. And the same goes for everything else "conservatives" feel entitled to molest people over. They want their values forced on everyone.

Look, if someone is archating, do what you have to. But if they are simply doing things you don't want them to do, without archating, you need to leave them alone (beyond trying to talk them out of it, perhaps). If you can't do this you have become the bad guy. The archator. Just don't.

Trying to convince me of your rightness, while using government to impose your preferences, is always going to fall flat. Your arguments are hollow. I see you as a bigger threat than just about anyone else out there. You could be so much better. Just let go of the superstition that holds you down and makes you wrong. Come to the good side-- we have liberty.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, October 05, 2017

Who causes most of life's troubles?

It sure would be nice if life could go the way I believe would be better. At least for a while. That's not usually how it goes.

It's not that there's usually anything particularly awful going on, just more of the same. A break seems like it would be nice.

Life brings trouble, so knowing the alternative...

It would be comforting to blame others for my troubles. It would be easy. And dishonest.

Whose fault are my troubles? Mine. Without a doubt.

Even when I can point to specific people who cause trouble for me, it is almost always my fault they are in a position to cause problems to me. Due to my previous bad decisions or other things.

And I also know my troubles are not the fault of statists, not even mass-murdering ones. I could manage to screw things up in my own life in a free society.

That's not to say statists don't make things worse with their "laws", theft, and aggression. Of course they do.

But most of the responsibility lies with myself. And I know this from experience-- when I lived in a freer place, I still managed to be my own worst enemy. That's why I don't still live in the freer place.

So, even though I write about external things the most, I focus more of my own time and effort on working on myself. I have no idea whether that's what I "should" do or not, but I do know I can't change other people; only myself. I'm a work in progress, and always will be.

I appreciate those who stick by me and encourage me.

Thank you.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, October 04, 2017

Make no mistake...

Everyone who wants any anti-gun "law" is promoting mass murder.

Any politician who proposes any anti-gun "law" is befriending mass murderers.

Any cop who enforces any anti-gun "law" is collaborating with mass murderers.

That is the simple fact of the matter, no matter how you feel about it.

Stating this fact during or immediately after a mass murder occurs, knowing what the anti-gun bigots will already be promoting, may not seem "in good taste" to those anti-gun bigots who want to preach without contradiction (or to the wishy-washy folks who enable them).
Well, neither is mass murder or encouraging it. SHAME on you!

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

The "feeling people" say it's time to talk about gun laws

Yes, it is time to consider gun laws... and think of the innocent lives lost to them.

They ALL need to either be abolished or ignored. Permanently. And I really don't care which. Either one would have the same positive effect.

Again, the recent massacre occurred, and was more deadly, in large part because of the existence of "gun free zones" and because of anti-gun policies that made it less likely that good people in the hotel could respond quickly to an evil loser.

As it happened, 72 minutes was considered "quick response" for people with guns to show up to stop the evil loser.

Every anti-gun "law" only affects the good people who don't want to hurt innocent people; never the evil losers. It's like giving them a hall pass to kill.

It's time to end this evil loser-enabling "culture" once and for all. It's time to make a truly polite society rise from the ashes.
Thank you for helping support
Donations and subscriptions make me happy!

Follow me on Steemit

Liberty an unappreciated necessity

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 4, 2017)

It's a human tragedy that most of us lack real appreciation for life's necessities.

We don't appreciate things until it's too late.

Water is overlooked until you have to scrounge for every drop. I've been thirsty enough to sip water from a rotten stump's hollow, filtering it through a bandanna against my mouth to avoid swallowing mosquito larvae and globs of algae. I've been thirsty enough to drink water, peppered with rabbit pellets, from holes in rocks.

Yet, even I can take for granted that when I turn on the faucet, good water will come out. Occasionally I remember the times water was scarce, and feel the rest...

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

Was the Las Vegas murderer an anti-gun bigot?

Thank you for helping support
A special "Thank you" to M.L. whose thank you note kept bouncing.
Any and all donations and subscriptions are greatly appreciated!

Follow me on Steemit

"Ban all the things!"

Parenting. Fun fun.

A few days ago, my daughter was playing some online games, and came across one she has decided to hate. When she saw it she said "I wish they would ban that game!"

I asked if it wouldn't be better to just not play it if she doesn't like it. Leave it there for the people who do like to play it. I asked "How is it hurting you?"

This is how statism gets a grip. It's too easy to call for something you don't like to be banned. Even if something is wrong or harmful, banning it isn't the proper way to deal with it.

She moved on, and later even played the game she had wanted banned, with a friend.

I really try to not lecture-- although she considers anything I say to be a lecture. I hope she is learning to figure these things out for herself.

(She's still more mature than the anti-gun bigots proudly displaying their ignorance, stupidity, and evil in the aftermath of the Las Vegas mass murder.)

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, October 02, 2017

Las Vegas concert "security"

Just look at the picture above and notice how safe those disarmed-by-law people seem to be. It must warm Nancy Pelosi's heart-like blood pump.

It has been reported that "security" was checking attendees for weapons as they entered the Las Vegas concert area.

Yeah, that worked. "Security". Theater. Magical thinking.

But the Mass Murderer Cheerleader Club is dancing in the blood of the dead and wounded, calling for more of what failed to save lives. As they always do. Anything these idiots propose would enable more evil losers to kill more people. It's the inevitable result of everything they cry out for.

Do I believe they have "good intentions"? Maybe. Some of them do. But others know enough to know exactly what they are advocating. They know where their path leads, and they don't care. They want it anyway.

Anti-gun "laws", rules, and policies NEVER make any innocent person safer, and sometimes make them less safe. Sometimes they lead directly to death.

In this case, the policies didn't make anyone safer, but didn't really contribute to the death and destruction, either. If you have a policy that doesn't help, but can hurt, you are stupid or evil-- maybe both-- to keep implementing it. You are definitely evil to advocate doing more of it, harder.

Yes, that's right: stricter "security" won't stop things like this, but will only make them easier to commit. "Security" could have made everyone strip and attend the concert naked after being probed, chemo-sniffed, and rape-scanned by TSA machines. It wouldn't have saved one life-- unless you count those who would refuse to be treated this way to attend a concert and went elsewhere.

Sometimes there's just nothing you can really do when some evil loser decides to kill people. But that's no excuse to keep doing the wrong things; things that never help and sometimes hurt.

Anti-gun bigotry is wrong. It is evil. It kills innocent people. Don't enable the bad guys by trying to restrict guns; fight back by refusing to be unarmed.

I know, pointing this out isn't nice. Sorry, but I'd rather be good than nice.

Thank you for helping support
Any subscriptions or donations are greatly appreciated!

Follow me on Steemit

Las Vegas mass murders- random evil

Thank you for helping support
A few donations and subscriptions would sure be helpful!

Follow me on Steemit

Your responsibility to not archate

"Conservatives" are lukewarm about rights. They love the ones they love, and mock the ones they don't.

They get very excited about (your) responsibilities, but manage to gloss over or ignore one of the biggest responsibilities there is: the responsibility to not archate.

That is, the responsibility to not violate the rights-- the life, liberty, and property-- of others, even those rights you don't like.

Yes, that is a human responsibility that can't be eliminated, no matter how unhappy it makes you.

This trips them up every time. It's a good way to distinguish between libertarians and the "conservatives" who like to make liberty noises as long as things are going their way.

There are other responsibilities, of course. Some of which I don't particularly enjoy. But really, if you gloss over the responsibility to respect the rights of other people, you're not going to be a good person even if you live up to every other responsibility you have.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, October 01, 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 yours. In most cases they couldn't solve the problem if they tried. All they can do is spend money which isn't theirs to spend, hold meetings so they'll appear to be doing something, and issue orders you're expected to obey.

Sometimes those orders are smart; other times, not so much. Occasionally, following their orders brings disaster.

With hurricanes, for example, be smart enough to evacuate if that's what you need to do. Be prepared in case you can't get out. Realize every decision has consequences.

Governments can't distinguish between clueless people too stupid to know when they should evacuate, and people who know what to expect and who have prepared by doing what they needed to do to be able to ride out the storm.

Granted, there are more of the former than of the latter. But sometimes the prepared are driven from their homes-- at gun point-- along with the foolish, and put in situations more dangerous than those they are forced to leave behind. All because someone believes they know what's best, and is willing to force their beliefs on others. One size fits all in the eyes of the State.

This is wrong, even if it's "for your own good".

I'm not suggesting people stay put, then call 911 as soon as they realize they've bitten off more than they can chew, expecting to be rescued. No one has the right to put others at risk simply because they're stubborn, or because they made a choice which didn't turn out like they expected. "Never before" doesn't mean it never will.

Life isn't simple. You have to do the work. Even if someone volunteers to do it for you, no one values your life as much as you. It's your job to live it and defend it. No one can be paid enough to care as much as you do. No one knows your situation better than you do. It's up to you, and if you are hoping someone else will save you from the dangers of the world, or from your own poor decisions, you may have an unpleasant shock in store. Plan ahead. Don't be caught off guard.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Some things are constant

It's good to be open-minded and remember that you might be wrong.

However, it's not really necessary to constantly re-evaluate whether you have the right to archate.

I mean, if it makes you happy to keep ruminating on it, go ahead.

But, just like you don't need to wake up each morning and test to see whether a dropped egg will still fall, you don't need to wonder if it's still not within your rights to walk around shooting random people or walking into their houses and taking what you want.

Some mental exercises are probably a waste of time. (Yes, I know that's a shocking statement, coming from me.)

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, September 30, 2017

Live and let live... but...

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Buy Barbuda?

Nationalists, flags, and "leftist commies"

I see that the Sportsballer/Holy Pole Quilt flap is quickly separating the liberty respecting individualists from the collectivist State apologists. And it's not pretty.

Yes, your boss can probably force you to worship an idol while you are on the clock, but no decent boss would ever do that. And no self-respecting person should feel obligated to accept such a "job" offer. (Of course, thinking this way is why I am perpetually broke, so feel free to disregard my opinion.)

Declining to participate in a government extremist ritual isn't much of a "protest" if you ask me. Especially since kneeling instead of standing and repeating the chant is still participating. It doesn't even approach what I would consider a protest. But nationalists are easily triggered.

I also realize that the sportsballers have no clue. They don't understand what they think they are protesting, in most cases. Maybe a few do, but for most it's still just a form of going with the crowd.

But, if you are going to start ranting about how the "protesters" are "commies" or something to that effect, then you are aligning with the State, in the worst way possible.
Against liberty.
Against everything the country you believe you are standing with supposedly stood for.
You are choosing collectivism over liberty.
You are siding with Rulers.
You are the one acting like a commie, regardless of your projection and angry words to the contrary.

If you choose statist rituals over liberty, you are not on the right side, even if some of those you rant against are also wrong.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, September 29, 2017

"Police corruption" is meaningless

Are police corrupt?
Is the mafia corrupt?
Would the old Chicago mob have been OK if Al Capone* had just cracked down on the corruption in his gang? Or, was the problem more systemic than that? Was the mob functioning exactly as it was intended to?

If your purpose, or at least the real-world manifestation of your "purpose", is evil, how can the word "corrupt" even have any meaning to your situation?

What would a non-corrupt street gang look like? If you eliminate the evil deeds, nothing is left. It is no longer a gang, but is just a non-archating social club.

For police to not be "corrupt" they would have to be funded voluntarily (no "tax" funding at all).
They would have to stop enforcing almost all "laws" and only spend their "on-the-job" time protecting life, liberty, and property.
They would stop enforcing any "law" that forbids you from doing something they are allowed to do (carrying a gun into a post office or school, for example). Yes, this is related to the previous point, but important enough to separate out.
They would have to come down hard on any cop who violated life, liberty, or property, and not form a "blue wall of silence" around him.
They would be accountable for any violations, and would accept the restitution they owe-- personally and individually, not paid to the victims by the "taxpayers".
They wouldn't "patrol", but would only come when invited.

In other words, they wouldn't be cops.

*Yeah, I realize his mob was less corrupt than today's police, but ignore that for now.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Government needs you (to lie)

Government is empowered by lies. Its own, of course, but those aren't the most vital lies.

It needs your lies in order to survive. Truth kills government, but telling the truth has a heavy cost.

Expressing support for cops is either lying, or is actively supporting evil.
Denying that "taxation" is theft is lying.
Insisting government can be good is a lie.

Lies lies lies.

Those who want you to lie will look for ways to hurt you if you tell the truth about their gang. And they have a lot of power at their disposal. In the long run, lying in support of government is still more destructive and harmful. This isn't an exercise you'll survive-- but neither will they. No one gets out alive.

Lying for government brings temporary comfort, at a price.

Supporting government is an exercise in denial. It is denying the truth in favor of lies. It is support for the worst humans can do to each other. Why not just bite the bullet and be honest, instead?

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Politics rigged game I won't play

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 27, 2017)

People often describe the things I write as “political.” They may not even intend it as an insult.

I prefer to think of my views as post-political; beyond the obsolete sphere of politics. I wish people would recognize politics as the enemy; the opposite of how they should view the world and interact with the rest...
Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

How to waste your time

Arguing for the "legitimacy" of the State (or government) with an anarchist-- using legal definitions and statist concepts-- is as pointless as threatening atheists with Hell for not believing.

It's just not going to work.

You are speaking gibberish while trying to defend the indefensible to someone who doesn't believe in the things you put your faith in.

And even bothering to respond, as an anarchist, to the statist making the "argument" is probably a waste of time.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, September 25, 2017

Child sacrifice- "everyone does it"

"Public school"- or, more honestly: kinderprison.

Does it magically stop being child abuse just because "everyone does it"?

How does that work, exactly?

Would it not be child abuse to sacrifice your children to Moloch if that was the expected thing to do in your society?

Kinderprison is child sacrifice to the god of The State. Even if their bodies survive, their minds are less likely to. Almost no one escapes without at least some mind damage after going through "public school".

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, September 24, 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 roosts.

When you remove statues and monuments, you haven't erased bad events of the past. You've hidden their reminders. You've swept those events under a rug. It's like covering evidence of historic crimes. Leave them on display to remind yourself "Never again!"

There are also those who practically worship those symbols; they might as well be idols. Some people get part of their identity from them; some of their self-worth. Tearing down those statues is only going to cause more trouble. It's going to fragment society even further. This is not the time for that.

I'm not in favor of paying a solitary cent to ever again create another statue to honor a politician or member of the government's military. But, of those which are already there and were funded with tax money, the money is long gone; it will never be returned to its rightful owner. Those paid for with voluntary donations, while they shouldn't be on "public land", are otherwise none of my business.

So why not simply ignore the symbols you find repulsive?

I see courthouses, police stations, public schools, and city halls as symbols of oppression and tyranny. They aren't just reminders of a terrible past, but are monuments to contemporary slavery-- a concrete burden on individuals, and thus on civilization, today. Yet I don't generally advocate for them to be demolished.

As long as the underlying beliefs which prop up those structures remain, you and I would be forced to pay for their replacements. It's those archaic ideas and beliefs which need to be abolished; the physical structures are only a symptom.

Could you find tolerance for the symbols you despise so you'll have the moral high ground when someone starts calling for the demolition of the historic symbols you value?

If you make it socially permissible to destroy monuments to things you hate, you make it acceptable for your enemies to tear down monuments to things you love, too. Do you really want to go down this path and see where it leads? This is what comes of politics-- consider yourself warned.

Thank you for helping support

Discriminate in the lessons you learn

Everyone can be your teacher. But be careful of what you learn.

You can learn something from anyone. If you ever run across someone you can't learn from, you have learned that there are people you can't learn from, and that would mean you learned something from them after all.

But... be very careful listening to people who believe in governing others, or who believe it's OK to archate.

When someone starts from a position that far off-base, you will need to be extra cautious in analyzing everything else they say.

So, even if Abraham Lincoln said some things you can learn from, he started from a position of superstition and ignorance. If you pay attention to things he said, without discriminating the good from the nonsense, you'll pay for it. Remember that at all times.

The same goes for anyone who believes governing others can be a positive thing. Whether they are military, a politician, a journalist, a bureaucrat, or whatever. If they are wrong about something so fundamental, you know the chances are high that they are wrong about other things-- even if things they say sound good.

So, weigh their words. Keep the gold, toss out the junk, and keep learning.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Government is a violation of the social contract

Of course government violates the "social contract". Any legitimate social contract isn't going to be what statists claim it is. It's going to be completely voluntary and opting out will always be an option. And you won't have to move away if you refuse to sign, either.

So, why is it that the superstitious beliefs called "the social contract" by statists are always the opposite?

They are coercive, imposed systems you can't opt out of. Yet, somehow they believe government-- the one they claim you are obligated to obey and support-- is a manifestation of a glorious "social contract", and this adds to the reasons (in their minds) you should obey and support this government.

It's crazytalk.

A true voluntary social contract, which you consented to with your eyes open and without signing away your right to back out if it becomes harmful to your life, liberty, or property, is only damaged by government. It is the opposite of what a real social contract would be.

Government is anti-social, and isn't even close to being a valid contract. Sign up with it if that's what you want. It's not for me.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit