Friday, November 16, 2018

Winning isn't permitted under their rules

You have probably noticed this, but in case you haven't: you can't win.

No matter what you talk about someone will say you are using the word wrong; even that you are a fool or a tool for using the word as you do.

From freedom and liberty, to government and state, anarchist and statist, and beyond. I've found this to be the case anytime I discuss a topic which is important and controversial (along the statist/anarchist divide, especially).

Which is why I try to make sure to explain how I use a word, and why I use it the way I'm using it.

But you still can't win. Because then you'll be accused of making words mean what you want them to mean instead of what they "really" mean. Even worse is the crime of coining your own words.

But, I don't care.

You can't win... if you play by their rules.

To me, winning is living in liberty. At least as much as possible when surrounded by people who believe in, and support, aggressive institutions which insist you aren't allowed to opt out. They are the real losers, no matter what they believe about themselves.

The fact that they try to redefine "winning" so it's exclusive to them doesn't change that.


I'm taking tomorrow off for personal reasons.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Wilson, the stubborn

I had a friend-- I'll call him "Wilson"-- who was... interesting.

He was a bit of a conspiracy nut, more than a little paranoid, hated government, was good at outdoor survival skills, had questionable taste in women, and was very stubborn.

Yes, he had his flaws (as do we all) but all-in-all he was a decent guy. I always enjoyed hanging out with him.

Here's one tale about him:

One winter his woodstove was not safe and he couldn't use it. The stove pipe was messed up somewhere above the ceiling. His landlord refused to repair the stove pipe so a fire could be lit. This was the only heat in the house, and it was already winter near Gunnison, Colorado.

He told his landlord that he would fix the stove pipe himself and deduct the cost from his rent. The landlord said "no". Wilson wasn't the kind of person to just bite the bullet and fix it at his own expense. So after a bit more arguing over it, Wilson simply stopped paying rent. And the landlord never tried to kick him out.

He spent the winter in an unheated house-- which obviously meant he had no running water, either.

He was lucky-- I don't think the temperature ever got much colder than 20° below 0 (°F) that winter. He lived diagonally across the river from me, and I went to visit him a few times over the winter. His house was about the same temperature inside as the outdoors. He wore his coat all the time.

He slept in one of those "100 below" mummy-type sleeping bags, inside a pup tent, in his bedroom. He said it was warm enough. His house would warm up a little if he cooked something, but that didn't last long and I don't think he cooked much.

I offered to let him hang out at my house some, but he didn't want to. He said he didn't want to get used to heat. He would sit at my campfire out by the wikiup with me, though.

That was his last winter in the area.

After a few other incidents, Wilson suddenly vanished. Years later I ran into him far from home, while I was on a vacation. He was working in a resort town in New Mexico and I bumped into him on the street. We caught up a little; he told me of more recent incidents, and I got his (general delivery) address. I mailed him a few times, but eventually my letters came back as "undeliverable".

I might relate some other Wilson stories another time. There are a lot of them to tell: his clash with the post office, his clash with the sheriff, the time he became convinced I was working with the cops against him, his clash with the forest circus (his term), why he wouldn't use the internet (he would know this is about him, but I know he'll never see it), his pop-up camper incident, his clash with the highway patrol... I notice a pattern here. But not all fit the pattern. If any of those pique your interest, let me know and I'll write it up for another day.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Concealed carry key to safety for all

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 14, 2018)

I want you to be safe. I hope you don't do things to endanger yourself and others, and I want you prepared-- everywhere you go-- in case someone else means you harm.

In the past couple of weeks there have been at least two cases of some loser deciding to murder people who were harming no one. I will not boost the fame of these murderers by using their names; calling them losers is clear and the rest...

Thank you for helping support

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

The enemy of liberty

This local town government is anti-liberty, as has been whatever government any town I've ever lived in or near suffered under.

The Texas and New Mexico governments are anti-liberty. So was every state government I have been bothered with.

The U.S. government is anti-liberty. That's the only national government I've had any experience with, but I'd be willing to be all the others are anti-liberty to some extent.

A world government would be anti-liberty.

What's the common thread? Government.

Government is anti-liberty.

Liberty is the enemy of tyranny. Governments (or their supporters) seem to take this personally. So, of course, all governments are going to be against liberty to some extent. If they want to consider me their enemy because of this, that's fine with me.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Monday, November 12, 2018

Coercive "solutions" make problems worse

Just because there's a problem, that doesn't make it OK to violate people because of the problem.

Poverty exists. It's not good. That doesn't justify theft-financed "welfare" programs, even if they eased the pain of poverty. There are better, voluntary ways to deal with it.

Maybe Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is real. Maybe not. Maybe, if it is real, it is a net negative. But even if it is, that doesn't justify putting government in charge of fixing the problem; empowering government to crush your rights-- your life, liberty, and property-- to fix it. Even if government-- the world's worst despoiler of the environment-- even had any actual inclination to do so, or knew how.

Even if anti-gun "laws" would reduce crime (archation), it doesn't mean it's OK to violate the natural human right to own and to carry weapons.

Even though people are born ignorant, that's no excuse for forcing others to pay to indoctrinate them as they grow. And if you say it's about education, you're lying.

The right to violate rights, even with good intentions, doesn't exist. Even if it actually worked.

Problems are always going to exist. Government is just another problem, and can't solve the others. If you can't think of a way to make problems less harmful without stealing and attacking other people, you are part of the problem. It's time for you to let it go.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Sunday, November 11, 2018

Government should be a servant

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 10, 2018)

When most people use the word "government" they are talking about the collective more accurately called "the state". Not in the sense of the fifty familiar shapes making up maps of the United States of America, of which New Mexico is one, but in the sense of out-of-control institutional authoritarianism; statism.

I, too, use the word "government" in this way when speaking to people about the pitfalls of the state. It's not quite accurate, but most people understand.

However, there is a difference.

Government can be good, bad, or neutral. Government is simply people coming together, under unanimously consensual rules, to get things done. It is never mandatory. Government, if done right, might even help protect the life, liberty, and property of the individuals who voluntarily join together.

The state, on the other hand, is always anti-social; the more powerful it becomes, the weaker society gets. A state does not operate by unanimous consent, but is imposed against the wishes of at least a large minority of its victims. The state is established to steal, to control every human action with laws, and to give favors to the politically connected. States are designed to rule and enslave.

Once a state takes hold, and the people identify with it, the destruction of the society is underway.

I can almost understand why someone would accept a government as a helper; to assist with the things the person can't (or believes they can't) do on their own. Possibly to complete big projects like bridges and space programs. Perhaps to coordinate training for defense against the weapons of an enemy state. Maybe to provide a "safety net".

I think they are wrong, but I can understand their thinking.

What I can't even begin to understand is how anyone could allow a government to mutate into a state and become their master; to control them, tell them what they are allowed or forbidden to do, and to threaten them with punishment if they don't comply. This is a perversion of government. Government is to be the obedient servant and never the overbearing master; to never become a state.

America has cancer. America is burdened with a state where armed state employees give orders to the people who are their moral, ethical, and political superiors. This is backwards. Government, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, was replaced by a state established and empowered by the coup which resulted in the U.S. Constitution. This path doesn't end well.

Thank you for helping support

Theft makes "society" happy

Is it good to take your property from you if doing so makes me feel good, and makes the person I give it to feel good?

What if almost everyone says they are made happier when I take your property?

People who believe in "public good" are OK with it. And, it seems that everyone who believes in political government thinks it's OK.

Even if you say you only support a "night watchman government" you're advocating the same thing with the same justification. But you can keep your "night watchman"; I don't need or want one. I have better things to spend my money on. If I come to believe I need a night watchman I would rather spend my money on security cameras and more weapons. If for some reason I feel particularly scared for a while I would rather hire a night watchman of my own choosing, and I wouldn't expect you to chip in to pay him... unless you want to.

I see people who support government making this kind of argument all the time. They believe if enough people are happy that my money is being taken, then it's good. I would be crazy to object-- my opinion isn't a serious opinion. I am not one of the "adults" contributing to the conversation. All because I don't support theft just because "the majority" are made happy because of it.

Funny that I don't see it that way at all. There is NOTHING I want bad enough to have someone steal from you to pay for it on my behalf.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Saturday, November 10, 2018

The UN's Universal Declaration of Human "Rights"

Some people, particularly in other parts of the world, praise the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and seem to think it's really something special. I've never paid any attention to it myself, even though I've heard it mentioned for years. I had never read it to see exactly what it actually said, but curiosity finally got to me.

So, I guess it's time to put my nose to the slime-stone and see what's in there.

Oh, look! It starts with a preamble. All important documents should have a preamble. Let's see what's in it. I notice the English used is a little awkward here and there. I'll pretend I don't notice.

Hmmm. The preamble displays some seriously flawed misconceptions, such as the delusional belief in "the rule of law", which you probably realize is a myth always and forever, everywhere. It's simply not a "thing".

It also pretends "nations" can act and develop "friendly relations" with each other, and that this is somehow tied to human rights. Well, governments fighting each other can be seriously bad for the people caught in the middle, but the solution for that is the dissolution of the offenders.

The declaration is determined to promote "social progress", yet it promotes government supremacy which is the opposite. This is dangerously regressive thinking.

It also, as is so common, mistakes freedom for liberty. It's a convenient conflation.

The pompous preamble ends by pretending territories can be under the jurisdiction of "Member States".

So, that was kind of a mess. Let's see what the rest of the thing says.

(I'm not going to copy the whole declaration, just bits and pieces. If you want to follow along as I work my way through it, here's the complete text.)

Article 1.
(What do the writers of this document consider "a spirit of brotherhood"? If it is mutual respect for each other's rights, then I'm fine with that. But so often, proglodytic documents seem to feel "brotherhood" enslaves one to another. I suppose we shall see where this leads below.)

Article 2.
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms (ahem... liberty) set forth in this Declaration...
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs...
(So, humans as property of a State) 
"...whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty
(States aren't sovereign; people are-- I sense government supremacism on display here.)

Article 3.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
(Yes. And this means they also have the right to defend these rights with the proper tools: weapons, equal to the weapons of any potential violators [particularly the relevant government] as personal property. Otherwise this right is being treated as a privilege.)

Article 4.
"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
(That's nice, but... "prohibited"? By who? Enforced how? Does this include imprisonment by governments?)

Article 5.
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
(Unless government and/or a majority of the population approve and call it "necessary".)

Article 6.
"Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
(Recognition as a person is meaningless when the law is counterfeit and when it is administered and enforced by a State.)

Article 7.
(Pretty much a repeat of Article 6)

Article 8.
(In which they promote the notion of "competent" government "tribunals", and assert that rights are "granted" by constitutions or laws. No thanks. If it's "national" I want no part in it. Give me competent independent arbitration which is not connected in any way to any State. And my rights don't hinge on the opinions or documents of bullies.)

Article 9.
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." 
(Dare they define "arbitrary" in some way which doesn't excuse enforcement of counterfeit "laws"? Nah.)

Article 10.
(Again with the tribunal. Why always a tribunal? If one arbitrator is independent and impartial, one is enough. If the tribunal members are statist government supremacists, then the tribunal is a bad joke and you're doomed.)

Article 11.
"(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(Will the legitimacy of the "law" also be judged? If not, no thanks.)

(Again, just because something is a "penal offense" doesn't mean it's wrong.)

Article 12.
("Arbitrary" again. The "law", and those who wield it, is the main culprit. Who will hold it accountable when it is the one interfering and attacking?)

Article 13.
"(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." (Why only within the borders? And where do private property rights come in?)

"(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
(How about the right to have no country?)

Article 14.
(I don't see any big problems with this one, other than the UN's haughty self-promotion. Maybe you can find something.)

Article 15.
"(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(But is everyone obligated to have a nationality?)

"(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
(I'm now Liberlandian, except on those days I'm devoid of nationality.)

Article 16.
"(1)...the right to marry and to found a family..." 
(Yeah. And...? Government has no right or "authority" to meddle.)

"(2)...the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
(Common sense.)

(A bit of editorializing by the authors. State "protection" is often a death sentence. How about keeping the State out of it.)

Article 17.
(Agreed. Now if only governments would recognize that they and their decisions are all arbitrary.)

Article 18.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..." 
(No one has the right to use government or its "laws" to impose his religious beliefs on others, whether it's called Sharia or "Blue Laws" or prohibition or...?)

Article 19.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
(Google doesn't think so. That's why they help the US government spy on everyone in the world, and why they are helping the Chinese government censor search results to keep people ignorant and complacent. But the right of freedom of expression doesn't mean anyone is obligated to let you stand on their soapbox or to listen to you ramble on.)

Article 20.
"(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."
(Why only "peaceful"? You have the right to assemble and associate violently to meet an aggressive threat.)

"(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
(Including a "country"? Can I be compelled to pay "dues"?)

Article 21.
"(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(No one has the right to use politics to govern others.)

"(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country."
("public service"? Are they talking about access to "public services" like being thoroughly policed, etc., or about the equal "right" to have access to run for political office and "serve"? Either way, it sounds like a scam. I'll pass.)

"(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
("Authority" is the most dangerous superstition. According to this document, mob rule is beautiful.)

Article 22.
(This article is just trying to justify entitlements and a socialist "safety net". States have no resources. Anything they possess to redistribute is stolen.)

Article 23.
"(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(So, no "freedom of association" then? In that case I want to be employed in some job where I do what I already do, but I make several thousand dollars a week (or even per month). Hey, it's my right to choose this employment and these just and favorable conditions!)

"(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work."
(Sure, if that's the agreement you make with the person you work for. Just because I spend X hours per day researching and writing doesn't mean I'm entitled to be paid the same amount that J.K. Rowling is paid for the same amount of work.)

"(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(Stolen from other people against their will.)

"(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."
(And every employer has a right to employ members of that trade union, or not, as he sees fit.)

Article 24.
(A denial of "freedom of association" again. Who limits the working hours? Who pays for the holidays?)

Article 25.
("Entitlements", Paid for by theft.)

(Extra "entitlements" just for being a mother or child.)

Article 26.
"(1) Everyone has the right to education..." 
"Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages..." 
("Free"? Wait, are you speaking of education or schooling?). 
"Elementary education shall be compulsory." 
(Slavery. So not education, but schooling after all. Sad.) 
"Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." 
(Merit is good... And if you can't pay? People shall be enslaved for your benefit?)

"(2) Education ... shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(So, indoctrination, not education.)

"(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." 
(Wait... but you said it would be compulsory. Pick one. And no one can be "given" an education. They can be given the opportunity to educate themselves.)

Article 27.
"(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(So if I want to go to the movie, a concert, or Billy Bob's Backyard Beer Bash and Karaoke Party, I can just walk right in and quote the above because I have the right to "participate in the cultural life of the community" and "enjoy the arts"? If I want the newest iPhone or to get an MRI just for the fun of it, it's my right, because I have the right to "share in scientific advancement and its benefits"?)

"(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
(I guess that settles it-- Intellectual Property (IP) is real!)

Article 28.
"Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
(What if I recognize that some of the "rights" you've detailed aren't rights and I am ethically opposed to them? What if I know of rights you've ignored or violated with this document? Am I entitled to a social and international order based instead upon actual rights and liberty, under the Covenant of Unanimous Consent?)

Article 29.
"(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible." 
(Your only duty to the community is to respect the rights of every individual in it.)

"(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." 
(This is a particularly horrible one. "Law" is either harmful or useless. Morality is more accurately known as situational ethics, and can be downright evil, depending on the prevailing culture. "Public order" means "Stop making a scene and let the nice policeman murder you in the streets or in your home at 3 a.m.", and general welfare-- as promoted by statists-- is a lie used to justify anything government wants to do. If it's not to the individual's welfare, it isn't to the "general" welfare. And democracy is mob rule; NOT something to promote.)

"(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
(There goes the myth of the Rule of Law right out the window. It sounded nice until it got in the way of the "authority" of this governmental body.)

Article 30.
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
(What about the rights you conveniently ignored? Or the imaginary "rights" you made up?)

And that's the end of the thing.

So, it's a mixed bag. Not as bad as I had supposed, but falling far short of actually recognizing, much less helping individuals protect, their natural human rights in accordance with living in liberty.

It's much too excited about "democracy", and can't seem to shake the superstitious belief that government is somehow legitimate and has "rights" over what to do with the individual people laboring under the weight of supporting this elitist millstone. It recognizes some natural human rights while promoting some unnatural human "rights".

There are much better rights-promoting documents, but no document can protect rights. That's up to you and me, as individuals. And States, as promoted by this document, are the natural enemy of rights and liberty.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Friday, November 09, 2018

The "right to vote"

Is there any such thing as "the right to v*te"? Can there be any such thing? Or is it just a figment of the imagination?

In the past week or so I sure saw a lot of people talking about this supposed "right".

There is no such thing as a right to govern other people. Any act of governing others is archation-- it violates their natural human rights in several ways. No one can have the right to archate.

To v*te is to endorse using political violence, through government and its "laws", against others. Do you really have a right to do that?

Sure, it is possible you might only be endorsing using political violence against those who are endorsing the use of political violence against you-- in self-defense. And some people might think it's preferable to use defensive political violence instead of using defensive violence of other kinds, such as shooting those who are threatening you in a credible way.

But is it really better? I'm not sure. I'm not even so sure it ever works, in the long-run.

I sympathize with the claim of defensive v*ting, even if I don't completely buy it.

I won't condemn anyone who feels the need to v*te. Even though it sure seems like an endorsement of the "system" and a pledge to go along with whatever results from the election. After all, democracy, like all politics, is "winner take all"; "win/lose". It's "American Roulette". Why play a rigged game you can't win, even if you believe you have the right to do so?

Reminder: I could still really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Thursday, November 08, 2018

"Liberty" doesn't mean "with permission"

I've once again encountered one of those people who likes to believe that the word "liberty" means something along the lines of "with the permission of an authority". This is mostly based upon the military's long-standing intentional misuse of the word.

It's similar to authoritarians' intentional misuse of the word "anarchy" to mean socialistic nihilism.
And the way the word "literally" is so often used to mean "figuratively", which is literally the word's antonym; its polar opposite.

Make people confused over what words mean and you can control how they think... or if they think.

Freedom is doing whatever you want. Nothing more; nothing less. You can say, as some do, that freedom carries responsibility, but then it wouldn't really be freedom, since so many don't want the responsibilities, and they wouldn't be "free" to reject them.

Liberty is doing what you have the right to do. And you have the right to do anything and everything which doesn't violate someone else's equal and identical rights. In this way liberty is self-limiting; there can never be "too much" liberty because you never have the liberty to violate others. But you do have the freedom to violate others if no one is holding you at gunpoint to prevent it and it's what you want to do.

Because too much freedom can be a problem, and if they can get you to confuse freedom for liberty, and liberty for "with permission", they can get you lost in the swamp. If you can see the downside of too much freedom you can be manipulated into believing there can be "too much" liberty. And if you're lost in the swamp that badly you aren't a threat to them and you won't be much use to yourself.

One of the worst things the military has done-- besides the mass murder, oppression, and destruction-- was to take a good word and fool people into believing it means the opposite of what it means (and even get it into the dictionary), and then convince them to fight to preserve the perverted, wrong meaning in order to keep people on the wrong track. I guess that's an example of "military intelligence"; intelligence to serve evil.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Wednesday, November 07, 2018

Immigration isn't a real problem

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 7, 2018)

Emotions are running hot on the topic of immigration these days, both for and against, with most of the current drama surrounding birthright citizenship and migrant caravans.

Immigration is a government-caused problem which can't be solved with more the rest...

Thank you for helping support

Tuesday, November 06, 2018

The trap of niceness

Many libertarians try to err on the side of niceness. I think that's praiseworthy. It's nice to be nice.

But, what worries me is that misplaced niceness makes the bad guys believe that they really aren't doing anything all that bad.

If no one is willing to call you out on what you're doing, then it must not really matter. Either you'll believe it isn't really bad, or no one cares very much so it must not be important.

It's a hard line to walk, and I know I don't always get it right.

I want to be nice to everyone, but I also don't see it as nice to let people get away with violating anyone. Yet calling them out on it isn't nice, and there's really no way to make it seem nice while making sure they understand the seriousness of what they are doing.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Monday, November 05, 2018

Racist "libertarian" nationalists

A Facebook group I was recently added to, with "libertarian" in the name, seems to mostly be a hangout for "white supremacists/nationalists" who want to pretend their stance is somehow "libertarian".

One recent post in the group claimed that since "94% of libertarians" are "white", a libertarian best serves his/her own interests by making sure to only do business with "white-owned" businesses.

I confessed in a comment that I have never once chosen to do business with a place based upon the "race" of the business' owner. I usually don't even know it, anyway, and I'm not going to waste time and effort finding out.

I'm much more concerned about whether or not the business owner supports individual liberty. If they have a "no guns" sign, or proclaim that they "support law enforcement" then I know they are anti-liberty and spending money with them only hurts my interests. The "color" of the owners never even crosses my mind, and it never would have had I not seen the post in that group.

But, the guy who made the post LOLed at me and said "Sure you haven't" and "^not a business owner" in reply to my response. Seriously.

I foolishly fed the troll and said that no, I really had never chosen a business based on the "race" of the owner-- I was only concerned with whether I could get what I wanted at a price I was willing to pay, and mentioned that I had owned a few businesses in the past and that I technically had a couple going on right now. (And I still don't care about the "race" of those I trade with.) I'm sure he believes I'm a liar, seeing his world-view is what it is.

I said I thought his was the most pointless, self-defeating criteria for choosing whom to trade with I had ever heard anyone admit to. He would be embarrassed if he had any sense. But he doesn't so he isn't.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Sunday, November 04, 2018

End government; improve health

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 3, 2018)

Have you seen there are people who are blaming their health problems on the results of the most recent presidential election? Not just their mental health and happiness, as with the widespread "Trump Derangement Syndrome", but their physical health, too. They believe politics, of a particular sort, is making them sick. If so, it's because they have chosen to get sick over politics.

In which case they take politics much too seriously.

Had their preferred candidate won they wouldn't be suffering this way, or wouldn't admit it if they were.

I'm not thrilled to be forced to put up with any president or other politician. It's as if I'm forced to buy tires and insurance for a car I've never owned and have no use for. I don't make myself sick over it, though.

It would be healthier for those who are making themselves sick to find something productive to do.

Go do something a less-responsible person might want government to do. You don't need a law to give you permission to get things done.

Join a pet rescue group on social media. See a person in need and help them out. Plant a garden. Check your emergency preparations and water supply. Or inhale helium and recite squeaky poetry. Anything's better than getting sick over politics.

Although I'm not a fan of video games, it amuses me that people who waste their lives on politics act as though they are doing something more productive than the people who sit in front of a screen for days at a time, controlling imaginary characters in made-up situations. Politics is just as unproductive, but more harmful. Real deaths, property damage, and-- apparently-- health problems result from playing politics. I thank the gamers, who stay away from seeking to control the lives of others through politics, for their service. Their sacrifice doesn't go unnoticed.

You may believe I'm joking, but there's not a person in the world who is fit to govern others. Not one. Least of all those who want to hold political power and call it "service". Instead of trying to remove people from the office they hold, or to block them from getting on the Supreme Court so you can put someone else into the job, just abolish the position. I promise you wouldn't miss it. Judging from those suffering due to the political winds not blowing their way, your health would probably improve, too.

Thank you for helping support

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-- poster-child for crazy

If you ever a need a poster-child for "sanpaku", now you have the perfect example.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

I knew there was something about her that creeps me out-- beyond her being a self-admitted socialist. (It's not bad to call a self-admitted socialist a socialist-- it's honest.)

Then the other day it hit me. It's her sanpaku crazy eyes. Really creepy.

Of the two types of sanpaku, she displays the most dangerous type: "...when the upper sclera is visible it is said to be an indication of mental imbalance in people such as psychotics, murderers, and anyone rageful." That's her to a "T". But that's kind of the textbook description of any socialist.

I would be very concerned if she got any real power, and wouldn't want to be alone in an elevator with her. She's one to never turn your back on.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Saturday, November 03, 2018

There's no place like home

This is the wrap-up from the questions brought up here, here, here, and here (among other places).
The popular conviction that I am wrong about the issue brings one question to my mind:
Do you have any rights-- any at all-- once you set foot off your own real-estate? Yes or no.

Do you only have rights when on your own real estate? What if you don't own any real estate? Do you then have no rights? That seems to be the implication.

If you do have portable rights which travel with you, what are they?

And, if so, how do you keep these rights while you "lose" others? What makes the ones you keep "special" and permanent while the others are disposable?

Is there really any such thing as an "inalienable right", or do rights only exist when you are on your own property? If that's really the case, then it is what it is, but we should stop pretending rights actually exist-- which raises other related questions.

Remember-- the difference between a right and a privilege is that you need permission to exercise a privilege; rights are yours to exercise without anyone's permission.

So, again, do you have any rights beyond your property lines-- beyond the physical boundaries of the real estate you own?

Might you only have the right to not be murdered while traveling, but no other rights? Or do you even have that right? Do you only exist at the whim of others when not on your own property?

Because, frankly, what is being promoted by all those who think I'm wrong here feels exactly like the Mad Max world anti-libertarians always claim will result from libertarian ideas-- where you are at the mercy of warlords who claim the territory and you have no "rights" unless they allow you to. Could they have been correct all along, after all?

How would this not justify every statist anti-liberty policy, rule, or "law" on the planet as long as the majority believes governments own the entire country? And since you never actually "own" real-estate, but are forced to pay a yearly ransom ("property tax") to keep government from taking it from you, how could you even have rights at home? You obviously don't actually own it. You already know government doesn't believe you have rights on your own property-- thus door-bashing 3 A.M. enforcement of anti-gun "laws" and anti-drug "laws" which they believe apply to you in your own home.

The only reason this comes up seems to be that people, even libertarians, are uncomfortable treating the right to own and to carry weapons as a right, They want to leave wiggle-room to turn it into a privilege so as not to scare or offend people, and in order to do so, they have to go into the mental landscape outlined above. Even though they don't seem to realize where they are going.

Change my mind by addressing the points above.

And we've finally come to the end (as far as I'm concerned) of this particular path. On to other things I hope we can agree on.

P.S.-- I really do appreciate the discussion we've been having around this. Even if almost everyone disagrees with me.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Friday, November 02, 2018

A rickety pedestal

How did some property rights-- specifically, real estate rights-- end up on a pedestal; elevated above all other rights, including other property rights? They are being treated by some as superior to the right of self-ownership. Greater than the right to life. More fundamental than the right to control your own body, from which all other property rights-- including property rights over real estate-- arise.

Property rights with regard to real estate are a piece of the puzzle; not the whole picture. They are essential but not sufficient. You don't get to violate every other right in every other person by yelling "property rights!" Yes, I believe in property (real estate) rights, but not to the detriment of all other human rights. I don't believe they are superior to all other rights, or even that they trump other property rights.

I can't square the claim that it's not OK to shoot a kid who's just cutting through my yard with the claim that it is fine to violate people in other ways just because they are on my land, even if I coerced them into agreeing to "suspend" their rights as a condition of entry. It's only a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. If one is OK, then so would the other be-- if we are being consistent.

If I invite you onto my property, I don't demand you surrender or suspend any of your rights, including your property rights, and that would never be a condition of my invitation. It's unthinkable! I assume liberty. I don't pretend I have the right to attack or rob you just because you are visiting. Neither do you have the right to attack or rob me while on my land, but that should be obvious. As long as you don't do those things there will be no issue.

I expect the same consideration from others.

OK, one more day of this topic and it's done.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Thursday, November 01, 2018

You don't have the right to violate others

You have the right to own and carry a weapon, which only means no one has the right to forbid you from doing so. If they did have this right, then your right wouldn't be a right, but a privilege.

You don't have the right to threaten or shoot innocent people with your weapon while claiming "gun rights". Completely separate issues.

You have the right to own and control property-- real estate-- which means no one has a right to forbid it. If they had the right to forbid it, this would mean you only have the privilege to own and control property rather than the right.

You have no right to violate people's rights just because they are on your real estate by claiming "property rights". Completely separate issues.

Your rights never include violating the equal and identical rights of others. I don't have the right to violate your rights on my property, so you don't have that right, either. That right can't exist, by the nature of rights. You have the responsibility to not violate other people's rights while exercising your rights.

So, you don't have the right to shoot innocent people due to your right to own and carry weapons just because you wanted to shoot, and you don't have the right to make up rules which would violate other people's natural human rights as a condition of them being on your property.

Some speak of rights "conflicting", but they don't. My property rights end where yours begin, and yours begin-- at the minimum-- at "you". My rights don't overlap yours. There is no conflict.

It's the difference between "You're on my property" and "You are my property".


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

What is this official-ish envelope? UPDATED

Guess who got a jury summons (on October 9th).


Yeah, I know that even if they don't extort a plea deal, and the case actually goes to trial, I have zero chance of being seated on a jury. Probably not anywhere, but definitely not around here. I've been told some of these government people read my newspaper columns. They will not risk having me on a jury-- any jury. Not if they want the near-guarantee of a conviction that they seek. I would do the right thing, not the political thing.

I'd love the chance to participate, but that bridge has been burned. Honestly, I'm surprised they even left my name in the rotation. The list must be "untouched by human hands" and unseen by human eyes.

The last time I got one of these I was picked in the initial selection, but kicked out of the pool in the first round of jury stacking. That was over 20 years ago and in another state.

If you haven't been as visible as I have, you may still have a chance to monkeywrench the plans of the US police state through jury nullification when appropriate. Please exercise it when you get the opportunity.

UPDATE: Trial canceled-- settled before it went to court.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Racino shouldn't be up to majority

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 31, 2018)

Come election day, those who play politics are asking people to vote for or against the "racino". Some say it will help the economy. Others say it will bankrupt people, both morally and financially. I say such things should never be up to government the rest...

Thank you for helping support

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

skule vs Education

For a sizeable percentage of people, school doesn't "work". Not if you expect it to result in education, anyway.

I've mentioned before that many of my relatives work at government schools. One has recently retired, but has shifted into being a "substitute teacher". His recent experiences are enlightening.

This past week he was substituting in a class of 8th graders-- I don't know how many kids are in the class, but average class size around here seems to be around 25 inmates. For the past 2 weeks they have been studying some particular math concept. Friday they were being tested on the concepts they had been exposed to. The test consisted of 5 different tables, each with 3 or 4 math problems. The kids were to go from table to table doing the problems.

Out of the entire class, only 3 even bothered to participate. The rest ignored the assignment (and the "teacher") and sat and talked. The 3 who took the test all made 0%.

Now, maybe this isn't typical. But even if it isn't it seems obvious that to confuse schooling for education puts you on the wrong track.

Probably, the more important (to the criminals who control the schools, anyway) task of training people to think in terms of "authority"-- even when the "authority" is defied-- is taking root. I see that as harmful, and as yet another strike against kinderprison. "Authority" junkies would disagree.

And, I guess it's also welfare daycare. To keep the little angels caged, and out of trouble to some extent.

But "education"?

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Monday, October 29, 2018

"Give me liberty or give me death!" Wait, what?

"Give me liberty or give me death!" is a stirring sentiment, but it's wrong.

No one can "give" liberty to another. They can respect it or violate it, but it's up to you to live it for yourself.

And if someone doesn't respect your liberty, but chooses to violate it, why give them the option of killing you as an easy out? How is that good for you?

My cry would be: Respect my liberty or face the consequences.


Reminder: I know everyone is tired of hearing it, but I'm still in trouble and could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Sunday, October 28, 2018

Hard to believe in 'accusation market'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 26, 2018)

I don't want to be cynical, but the emergence of a market in politically convenient accusations of sexual misconduct, made at just the right moment, is making me cynical.

It's as though people collect and save these accusations in hopes that someday the person they are prepared to accuse will seek a political position, when the accusation can be whipped out, shined up, and presented as a tactic to derail the ambition. If the accuser and accused support different wings of the political vulture, anyway.

I assume anyone inclined to seek political power is probably more likely than the average person to have bad behavior skeletons in their closet, but it all seems too predictable, too convenient, and too politically one-sided as well.

This "accusation market" makes me hesitant to believe any such accusations, regardless of who makes them against whom. And that's a shame. I know there are predatory creeps out there. I believe they should be exposed. But the timing of the accusations-- often decades old-- makes me suspicious.

It also makes me suspect many of these accusations are likely fictitious, created and released to prevent the other political side from getting more power. The passage of so many years makes false memories a near certainty, even if honesty is the goal. And when the game is politics, honesty is never the goal.

Before you accuse me of picking a side, let me remind you where I stand: I don't want any political side to have any power. I would be fine with it if everyone who seeks a political position or office were found unfit for the job. I don't believe anyone is suited to wield political power over others; least of all those who want this power.

It doesn't matter if I don't like most of the people who are targets of these politically convenient accusations. I also don't care much for accusers who stayed quiet and, if their accusations are true, allowed the predators they knew of to continue to victimize others for years or even decades.

Once upon a time, I thought "where there's smoke, there's fire"; when someone was accused of something of this nature. I assumed it was probably at least partly true. I'm less sure today. Today it just looks like the newest way to play politics and force your way on others. Is this where they really want to go from here? How is any of this a good thing for actual victims?

Thank you for helping support

"Guilty" of possession?

Mere possession of anything can't be a krime. There must be possession plus... something. What "something"? To be a krime there has to be possession plus archation--possession plus an act which violates someone, and mere possession doesn't. It can't.

Possession is passive. Believing this violates someone is basically the same as believing offending someone violates them-- it's like believing in "microaggressions". No one has a right to not be offended, and no one has the right to prohibit mere possession of something.

This was the realization which long ago ended my support of the War on Drugs; which made me realize it was really the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.

But then I thought and considered this from every angle for a decade or two and finally came to realize it didn't end there. Mere possession of anything doesn't violate anyone, ever. I keep trying to think of a way to passively archate-- violate someone in some real way without acting-- and I haven't yet.

For possession of anything anywhere to be archation you have to have possession plus. Plus a credible threat to archate. Plus aggression. Plus theft. Plus radiation or some other active dispersal of something physically harmful onto another person or their private property. Plus something. Because mere possession isn't a violation of anyone's rights.

Just one example, concerning a hypothetical freedom of religion scenario:
You can possess any religious beliefs you want. You can possess those beliefs wherever you go, even when on the private property of someone with different religious beliefs. This is passive. No one can possibly be violated by your religion-- no matter what it is-- until you put your beliefs into action by actually doing something; by no longer passively possessing those beliefs, but by acting them out. By whipping them out and waving them around, as it were. You can be banned from performing rituals on someone else's property, but they can't reasonably (or ethically) ban you from passively possessing religious beliefs they oppose while on their property. It's just none of their business.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Saturday, October 27, 2018

Lies of omission

There is a disturbing trend in government schools and other youth indoctrination institutions to teach kids how to survive an unwelcome encounter with a cop. (And notice that comments are disabled on the video example-- truth offends these monsters. And the number of downvotes is also hidden from view.)

This "information" is, unfortunately, helpful. But it stops short.

You don't teach kids how to survive encounters with fast food counterpersons. Or even with other government employees like theft-funded librarians. Only cops.

Teaching kids how to survive encounters with cops is incomplete without the information that the cops are bad guys committing acts of enforcement-- krimes.

I know that since government indoctrination camps, kinderprisons, are on the same team as the badged vermin that's not going to happen. But by excluding that bit of reality, kids are being lied to. They are being trained that if they don't survive a roadside molestation it's their own fault for making the bad guy feel unsafe. The problem is giving the power of life and death to unaccountable paid cowards, not how compliant and nonthreatening you make yourself appear to those parasites. Never a hint that the bad guy is a bad guy.

Lies of omission are still lies.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Friday, October 26, 2018

A smackdown would amuse me

This is the one and only reason I hope the left-statists lose hard on election day:

The arrogance, smugness, and entitlement they demonstrate are illustrated so well by this Wall Street Journal photo from October 20, 2016. I didn't see it until a few months after publication-- it was in a stack of fireplace fodder a neighbor gave me. But I actually laughed out loud when I saw it the first time. And political stuff never has that effect on me.

Now, I don't like right-statists at all. They are enemies of liberty. All statists are: right, left, independent, or whatever. But I don't think the left-statists have quite learned their lesson yet. So, under those conditions, I would still rather the left-statists not "win".

Sure, I would love it if no one showed up to v*te for any of these clowns. Or, if only anti-state candidates ran.

I probably still wouldn't v*te, but it would be an interesting and encouraging development.

But that's not going to happen this year. After election day there will either be a glut of left-statists or right-statists, contributing to the overall glut of statists seeking the opportunity to molest you and me.

I don't care about politicians. I don't want any of them to win and rule. But I still want the left-statists knocked down at least one more time. Just because they are so elitist, arrogant, and think they are so smart.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Thursday, October 25, 2018

Just leave your leg in the car

  • Your artificial hip.
  • A thought in your head.
  • A letter in your pocket.
  • A phone on your belt.
  • A pacemaker in your chest.
  • Your hearing aid.
  • Your tattoos.
  • A gun in your pants.
  • Your cane or walker.
  • Glasses on your face or contact lenses on your cornea.
  • Dye on your hair.
  • Fillings in your teeth.

None of those things are any of my business, and if I invite you onto my property I won't make the ridiculous demand that you leave any of them behind.

Even if I imagine I have the "right" to do so, doing so would still make me a self-centered, property rights violating jerk.

I know there are environmental conditions, such as artificially strong magnetic fields and radio signals, which could make it necessary to either leave certain things behind, or which make it dangerous for people with those things to be in certain places. Like how neckties aren't safe to wear around certain spinning equipment. That's not what we're talking about here.

My rights end where yours begin, and yours begin-- at the very minimum-- at the surface of your clothing/possessions or skin. My rights can't penetrate beyond that level; inside your personal space. That's the absolutely essential kernel from which all property rights grow.

If I'm not willing to respect all your rights I am not obligated to allow you on my property, but if I do allow or invite you onto my property, I am obligated to respect your rights. All of them. If I demand you strip naked and submit yourself to being raped as a condition of coming onto my property, that would make me a rights-violating jerk. Some might imagine I would be within my rights to set that condition, but I don't. To me, that's utterly ridiculous.

You may have a different opinion. If so, fine. I don't demand you surgically excise your differing opinion and leave it behind as a condition of coming onto my property. Because I don't imagine that anything you aren't using to actually initiate force or to damage my property or take it from me is violating my property rights in any way.


Reminder: I could really use some financial help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Best to be smart about social media

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 24, 2018)

Social media gets a lot of well-deserved criticism. It's presented as a service, but with the vast majority of social media platforms, you and your information are the products being sold.

Even worse than selling your information to advertisers, it opens its back door to government spies so they can come in, snoop around, steal your data, and watch everything you do. Definitely not the behavior of someone who's on your side. When they say "your privacy matters" they are lying. They may as well be saying "your life matters" while dumping plutonium into your drinking the rest...

Thank you for helping support

Tuesday, October 23, 2018


I see the left-statists whining that the "NPC" thing is "alt-right", but it works equally well both ways. Don't you think so?

It's hard to "dehumanize" someone who has dehumanized themselves. And nothing is more dehumanizing than collectivism. Of any variety.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Monday, October 22, 2018

Well, maybe a slight exaggeration

I need to be a better person; more ethical. The more ethical I am, the more libertarian I will be. The more libertarian I am, the more anarchist I become. It's a process.

My newspaper editor says, with obvious hyperbole, "...Kent McManigal... is the standard by which all libertarians are measured. McManigal has zero use for government. He thinks we can resolve all issues one on one, that individual freedom trumps majority rules every time."

It's in the newspaper; it must be true! 😉

In spite of his confidence in me, I know I'm not there yet (and never will be). But I'll keep working at it. That's a promise I make daily to myself.

Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Sunday, October 21, 2018

Actions matter more than identity

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 19, 2018)

Instead of worrying about who someone is, it seems smarter to focus on what they do. Anything other than their actions is none of your business and can't harm you, and not many of their actions are your business, either.

The color of someone's skin isn't my concern, nor is the language they speak. Who you love is between you and those you love, and your religious beliefs don't involve me.

I'm not worried about where someone was born or what government permission slips they may lack.

What people do is all that can matter.

I would hope people don't harbor beliefs which they use to justify violence, including the violence of laws, against those who aren't harming anyone else. Yet, unless they take action, not even those twisted beliefs can hurt anyone.

If you aren't creating a victim through your actions-- and being offended isn't being victimized-- those who oppose you are wrong.

What you wear, what you carry, what you ingest, what you do in your own home-- none of those things could possibly be any of my business unless it harms others or makes a credible threat to do so.

If you aren't complying with zoning laws, property codes, licensing schemes, or other illegitimate laws, I'm on your side.

Why would I care if you break laws as long as there is no individual victim; not an imaginary victim like "society" or the state? And, although I don't want you to harm yourself and would do what I can to help, no one has the right to violently intervene to stop you.

Those who worry about who someone is rather than what they do often complain about government until they can use it against someone they don't like, especially if they notice their target ignoring an illegitimate law. Suddenly, they are in favor of government violence. If they weren't against the person, they wouldn't care about the law. Hypocrisy is ugly.

But what if you fervently believe you need to meddle in someone else's life? Do I care why you do the wrong thing? No. I only care that you act to violate someone's life, liberty, or property. Your excuses don't matter.

Whoever you are is fine with me. Anything you do is OK with me as long as you aren't harming someone, even if I don't understand it. It's a waste of time to fret over shallow things which can't possibly matter. You be you; that's good enough.

Thank you for helping support

Assume government?

When someone asks what government ("The State") "thinks" on some issue-- what the "law" says or what the general statist thinking [sic] is-- my first thought is always along the lines of "Who gives a ...?"

And I'm not only talking about whether or not something is "illegal".

So many people assume government. I assume liberty.

They can't imagine liberty, so they obsess over this or that justification for governing others. They feel the need to know what George Washington said about some subject before they can form an opinion about it. They worry over what the Constitution says. They can't consider anything outside the box of what some long-dead statist molester believed.

They act as though they believe government is to be considered first. Anything else comes later, if there's still room. They pretend discussing government is the adult thing to do. They are misguided.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Fauxcahontas, Grey Owl, and Dull 'Hawk

So, professional archator Elizabeth Warren may have a trace of Native DNA-- assuming the expert who interpreted the results of her DNA test isn't politically motivated to confirm (however trivially) her claims. A trace doesn't make her Native.

If it was an honest mistake on her part, that's easy to understand.

If it was an intentional lie, it was worse than that of Grey Owl. Much worse.

She used the claim, whether an honest mistake or a lie, as some sort of entitlement to govern people other than herself. That's wrong on every level.

My mountainman name, Dull 'Hawk, has been mistaken for an "indian name", but I've never claimed it is. It's just the mountainman style. I have a respect for many Native things, while not idealizing them in any way.

I had been told my whole life that I had Native ancestry. From both sides. My dad's adoption paperwork even said so. But a couple of years ago, both my parents had DNA analysis done, and there's not a trace from either of them. (So much for government record inerrancy.)

I was surprised, but it really made no difference.

I am curious whether, had our DNA samples been somehow mixed up, the expert who examined and interpreted Ms. Warren's DNA would have found evidence of Native ancestry in a sample of my DNA which he thought was hers.

When I believed I had Native ancestry I didn't use that belief as an excuse to bully, boss, or otherwise govern anyone. I didn't use that belief for gain. I had Native friends who opened their arms to me, asking unprompted if I had Native blood, and I said I thought I had a little, but that wasn't the basis of our friendship. Two of them have said I have a "Native Spirit". Not that I believe in such things, but I accept the compliment in the spirit in which it was offered.

Yes, I like wearing buckskin and bone (or dentalium) chokers, but I've never claimed it was for any reason but that I liked them and it was a mountainman style. Same with my long hair. And, if asked now whether I have any Native blood, I would say "no". But I'm still me, and since I never tried to use it to my advantage or as an excuse to get anything from anyone, my conscience is clear. I was mistaken; now I know better. No harm done.

I wonder how Ms. Warren's conscience feels, assuming a professional archator has one which functions.

Reminder: I could very much use some help.

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."