Sunday, February 18, 2018

To "advocate"

No one has the right to advocate the initiation of force or property violations. If you are libertarian, this is something you know. But, what exactly does it mean to "advocate" something?

It doesn't just mean to believe it, or to even accept it. It doesn't mean to discuss it with others as a hypothetical possibility. says to advocate means "to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly"

It means to try to convince others to do something you want them to do. This can be good or bad.

It's not a "free speech" issue once you start advocating that someone do something they have no right to do.

In spite of "legal" opinions to the contrary, you do have a right to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but you have no right to light the flames and then claim you didn't do anything wrong, it was the fire's fault. Advocating archation is lighting the flames of archation in weak hearts and minds. You have no right to do so.

Sure, if you are trying to talk someone into violating life, liberty, or property, and they actually do it, the bulk of the guilt is on them for being the ones who chose to archate. However, you had no right to advocate what you did, so you share the blame.

If this weren't the case Hitler would be innocent of any wrongdoing. After all, he probably never killed anyone himself, he simply advocated that others do so. Rather effectively. So did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Bill Clinton, George Bush (both of them), Obama, and every other tyrannical mass murderer throughout history. Even if any of them did personally kill some people, the numbers of those killed because they advocated it is orders of magnitude greater.

This doesn't mean I want "laws" used against you, or to see you punished if you advocate archation. It means I am warning you that people have the right to defend themselves from you when you are out there advocating their violation. You are warned.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Substituting passion for reason

I've said in the past that I don't "like" abortion, but I'm not passionate about the issue. People who are passionate about it make me uncomfortable, and anytime I write about it I know I'm inviting passionate people to descend upon me. Thus I don't mention it often.

I do not believe a zygote has rights-- you can't violate it. I believe a full-term baby does have rights, even though it isn't capable of exercising many of them yet. I believe those things as strongly as I believe gravity is a real force which I can depend on to be consistent, but I can't think of a way to prove it so I can't be 100% positive.

That means I believe somewhere along the path from zygote to blastula to embryo to fetus to baby, this living tissue- the zygote into the future, undergoing continual cell division- becomes a human. Not just human tissue or a unique human genetic thing, but A Human with human rights no one has the right to violate. And I don't know how to know where that happens so my position would be to err on the side of assuming rights earlier rather than later.

I do absolutely believe pregnant women have every human right.

It seems to me that rights could probably be said to correlate to nervous system function in some way. Yes, I know this opens the door to debating how functional a human's brain must be before I would say they have rights. And, like all the rest of this, I don't know.

This lack of knowing is why I can't be passionate about it. It's why I'm not going to go hard against others for their opinion, whichever way they believe. I'm not going to argue very hard for my opinion on the topic. Because, no matter how passionate you are on either side, it is an opinion (not based on enough facts) you are passionate about. You don't know, even if you believe you do. No one does. It depends on subjective definitions and assumptions. It leads to absurd declarations from both sides when passion gets involved.

And, usually, it leads to calls to make something "illegal". I don't believe it's ever right to get government or its "laws" involved in anything.

If you are passionate about the topic, on either side, do what you feel you must. Just don't expect much support or attention from me.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, February 16, 2018

"Rights" you can't have

You don't have the right to archate. No one does. No one can. Nothing can create such a right. Not wishes, not public opinion, not a "need", not fear, nothing.

This means you have no right to murder, to steal, to govern, to "tax", to rape, to commit prohibition, to enslave, to commit acts of "gun control", to shoot up a crowd, to set up "checkpoints", to trespass, to legislate, to do anything which in any way violates someone's property rights or initiates force against them.

If you do any of those things, people have an absolute right to defend themselves from you. Again, you can't get rid of that right just because it makes you unhappy.

This doesn't change due to your "job", popularity, position, or any one-sided government document.

I will never knowingly or intentionally advocate anything which would be archation. I am human, and I have feelings, and I sometimes might let feelings get the better of me. But I have no right to archate, nor to advocate for archation. It's just the way it is, like it or not.

And I'm OK with that.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

I want school shooters to die

I want school shooters (and library shooters) to die.

Not by lethal injection or other types of ritual revenge, but in the act. Killed by an armed bystander. And I want it to happen every single time. I want them to die.

And not only them, but anyone who tries to murder. Regardless of whether they wear a hoodie or camo or a badge or a chicken suit. I want them to die.

I want them to die whether they are using a pistol, a rifle, a knife, a brick, a fist, a 2X4, or a "law" as their weapon of choice. If they attack anyone with the intent to cause serious harm or death, I want them to die.

I don't care if they are killed while shooting at innocent people in a crowded place, or while kicking in the door of a home at 3 A.M. with guns drawn while looking for "drugs" with or without a warrant. I want them to die.

Anything that makes it less likely that they will be killed is something I can't support.
Anything that makes it more likely that their victims can kill them and stop the attack is something I can probably support. I want them to die.

Those who advocate "gun control" are on the side of the murderers who I want to die. They are protecting the bad guys.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Dawkins' religious error

And I'll go further than that, since I was severely limited by Twitter's character count. Here's the link to the tweet, in case you're interested.

Taking away someone's "Comfort Blanky" is also something you have no right to do. For the same reason you have no right to take someone's gun, house, car, money, or any other property. You have no right to violate the property rights of others. Period. It's a right that can't exist. Not seeing this is a blind spot caused by religious belief.

I'm sorry if you are offended that I said "thoughts and prayers" are useless. I know that's not quite true-- at the minimum they make people feel better when there's nothing real they can do about a bad situation. And, they can let a hurting person know (if they are informed about them) that someone cares and wishes they could help. I'm unconvinced about any usefulness beyond that, but would love to be proved wrong But I needed some common ground with Dawkins here.

I know Dawkins is famous for his atheism, but you and I know he isn't an atheist because he still believes in The State due to his superstitious belief in "authority" (new link, hope it works now). You can't be an atheist, by definition, if you believe in any gods whatsoever and believe in any religion. Statism is not only a religion, it's the most popular religion on the planet by a wide margin.

I already see people agreeing with Dawkins because they don't understand rights in the slightest, and one guy even believes someone once took away my "right" to own slaves- a right that can't exist any more than a right to steal can exist. People are dumb. I am an abolitionist. I know slavery is always wrong, no matter how you dress it up. It is a violation of life, liberty, and property. Anti-liberty bigots (and theft advocates) are the ethical equivalent to slavers. No, that's not quite right. Statists ARE slavers.

Religious beliefs can make you advocate atrocities if you refuse to think critically. Don't make Dawkins' error.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit


Someone sent me a video recently, extolling the "character" of a few individuals. On a couple of the cases, I completely agreed. They had character, and showed it.

On one, though, I'm confused as to why it was claimed he had "character" worth celebrating.

What is the definition of "character"? Well, here are those that seem relevant:

3. moral or ethical quality 
4. qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: It takes character to face up to a bully.  
5. reputation: a stain on one's character.  
6. good repute.

The person in question is going through terminal brain cancer, and has survived years beyond his "expiration date". And in apparent good spirits due to his religious beliefs. But that's where I have a problem. If he lacked those comforting beliefs, yet was still in good spirits, I would be more inclined to praise his character. As it is, it seems to be his beliefs sustaining him, not his character. Or am I wrong?

Are your beliefs the same as character?

In any case, I wish him well. I wouldn't wish his disease on anyone who wasn't violating the innocent (but I wish it on all who do violate others as a matter of course, especially when a consequence of "just doing my job").

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, February 15, 2018

It's not what they claim it is

Libertarianism is not about what many of its enemies pretend it is about. It is not about being "anti-government". What it is about is the recognition that no one has the right to initiate force or violate private property. In other words, no one has the right to archate. That's it, period.

If it isn't about not having the right to archate, it might still be compatible with libertarianism, but it isn't central to libertarianism. A statist or other archator might hold the same position.

If it tries to excuse or justify archation in any way, it is not compatible with libertarianism, no matter who is advocating it.

Many "libertarian, but" folk make this mistake.

What is unfortunate for the government extremists is the fact that this totally discredits government*. Government does everything it does by initiating force and by violating private property rights. If it didn't do those things it would cease to exist as government. It might be something else-- an organization perhaps-- but it wouldn't be what most people have come to define as "government".

Being anti-government is a result of consistent libertarianism, not a cause.

Government isn't the only excuse bullies use to archate. Not by a long shot. But it is the main excuse accepted as justification by most of your family, friends, and neighbors. And that's why it tends to be a focus.

You don't have to spend your time pointing out that rape is wrong, and that there can't be a "right to commit rape", because just about everyone is aware of the fact-- they'll agree with you.

But, since almost everyone around you believes governing is OK, when in truth it is an act identical in its evil to rape, this is where you'll end up disagreeing with the statists, and this disagreement is what they'll remember longest. They'll come away believing you are only "anti-government", not against all archation. It won't even matter how many times you point out the truth.

It's sad, but I am not really sure how to avoid it as long as most people suffer from the mental illness of embracing government.

*Yes, yes, I know. Government is imaginary. People commit evil, not the imaginary club known as "government". Yet, that is how those who are out there committing evil think of themselves, and it is this thought pattern which makes them see their evil acts as somehow "OK". I think it's useful to approach their delusion from all directions.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

States need victims

Another way government makes people weak and pathetic.

Victim cultures share in common with honor cultures the sensitivity to slights or insults, but whereas those in an honor culture might try to retaliate (physically or otherwise), people in a victim culture will instead appeal to a powerful, omnipresent state/legal authority. Classic examples are Mao’s China and Stalin’s Russia. In contrast to honor cultures that expect victims to be strong and stern enough to defend themselves, and dignity cultures that expect victims to be calm and charitable when in a dispute or disagreement, victim cultures emphasize how complainants are emotionally or physically fragile, vulnerable, and weak. In order to have high status in a victim culture, one must perfect and dramatize a personal “narrative of suffering. (emphasis mine) Source.

Notice that it's the overbearing presence of "authority" which gives weak and pathetic people the ability to form such a "culture", and this then feeds the "authority", creating a crippling feedback loop.

Statism is, and has always been, the preferred "culture" of the weak and pathetic, and of those evil enough to use the cowardice and childishness of the weak and pathetic to their advantage.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Space thrilling despite government

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

Space exploration thrills me. I’ve followed Apollo moon landings, Skylab, various Martian landers and rovers, Space Shuttle launches, and every other manned or robotic mission I could watch.

So I got even more excited when private individuals became serious about going to space. The latest feat — last week’s launch of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket, carrying Elon Musk’s Tesla Roadster and “Starman” to the asteroid belt — was amazing.

Many people dislike Musk for making deals with government, and I completely understand their disgust. I share it — tempered with a dose of harsh the rest...

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Collecting the bones of an empire

Maybe I'm funny, but I look forward to a time after the US Empire has fallen in on itself, and pathetic "patriotic" losers of the future collect memorabilia from the police state past they miss; wearing the uniforms and insignia while clinging to their nostalgic delusions of a glorious past.

That's something some in the area formerly bullied by the USSR do now, so I fully expect a parallel in North America.

Now, I understand some simply collect historical items-- this isn't what I'm referring to. Read the first paragraph again if you are confused.

The USSR collapsed, but Russia remains.
America will probably still be around after the USA falls, too.
If not, that's OK with me.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, February 12, 2018

Slow to speak up

It might surprise you to hear this, but it usually takes a long time before I'll speak up in a new situation.

If I join a group, get a new job, or hear about something new that I haven't yet considered, I don't immediately start giving my opinion. I prefer to sit quietly and absorb what's going on, and only then to speak up. If I feel the need. Speaking up only happens once I understand something pretty deeply and see a problem I know has a solution (or an angle) that other people aren't seeing.

First of all, I know that speaking up when you don't understand what's going on doesn't help anyone, and only makes you look foolish. I look foolish often enough even when I know what's going on; I don't need to add to it.

So, usually, if I share an opinion or an idea, you can be sure I have thought about it a lot. I have probably considered every side I can imagine, and tried to find sides I can't yet imagine at all. Then I've probably followed every argument down every rabbit hole I find in it; twists and turns and dead-ends right up to the monsters in hidden lairs. To the logical conclusion and the absurd conclusion. I may still be wrong, or may have reached a different conclusion than you, and maybe there are points to consider which I missed, but I've thought about it thoroughly, and suggesting I haven't isn't going to get you far. And, I respect others when I can tell they've done the same.

A lot of times, in discussions with statists, they refuse to make a case for their position. They'll just make an assertion and refuse to explain their reasoning when asked. I suspect they can't explain, because they haven't thought it through, but are simply parroting something that sounded "right" to them. It feels right. That's not going to impress me and it's certainly not going to convince me of anything.

I know it is said that unless you can explain something in language simple enough for the "average person" to understand, you probably don't really understand it, yourself. Maybe. There are things I believe I understand pretty well, but that I have no way to explain to other people. Sometimes the adequate words don't exist for concepts I see inside my mind. But that may just mean I don't understand it as well as I think I do. That's probably a safe bet.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Even best president* no role model

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 10, 2018.
*Their words, not mine! I don't write the headlines.)

When Ronald Reagan began his first successful run for president, I wasn't quite old enough to vote. I liked what he said and I put a Reagan campaign sticker on my car.

During his first term, I felt Reagan did a good job as president, and I voted for him in the next election. Then he did something unforgivable: he colluded with Congress to further regulate guns.

This was one of the main reasons I had never supported the other side. Gun laws were a non-negotiable betrayal in my book. Being young and naive, I hadn't educated myself about Reagan's anti-gun history in California. I just took people's word that he was on the side of less government power and meddling. He said the right things, but failed to live up to them.

It was a rude shock; one I have never forgotten.

I reluctantly supported Republicans for several more years, but kept noticing they acted just like the guys I was counting on them to stop as soon as they got into office. Continually infringing on gun ownership and other matters of individual rights.

I began to notice other troubling things. I value liberty-- the ability to exercise the rights all humans possess. Even the politicians who claimed to be on my side were scared of liberty. They wanted it in a box, carefully monitored. They understood it was the natural enemy of government. They kept stabbing me in the back as soon as it was convenient. The politicians I didn't support never even pretended to be on my side.

What was a man to do?

I grew up. I stopped looking to politicians as role models or moral examples. I came to realize they were concerned with getting elected, and frequently with imposing an agenda they and their supporters wanted, whether it was good for people or not. Anti-liberty laws are never good for people, even when people foolishly believe they are.

Beyond that I came to realize the politician doesn't matter because the system is rigged to destroy individual liberty. Government is part of the problem, not the solution. You can't fix it by electing a different person to a position which shouldn't exist, to do things no one has a right to do. The problem is too deep. The solution is individual responsibility, not politics.

The realization was very liberating. It was also just the beginning of freeing myself. I should be grateful to Ronald Reagan for the betrayal which first opened my eyes.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Hans-Herman is lying

"Real libertarians – in contrast to left-libertarian fakes – must study and take account of real people and real human history in order to design a libertarian strategy of social change, and even the most cursory study in this regard – indeed, little more than common sense – yields results completely opposite from those proposed by libertarian fakes." ~ Hans-Herman Hoppe
Sorry Hans, but if you are advocating something which violates the ZAP, you are not a "real libertarian" by definition no matter what sort of name calling you engage in. No matter what you believe your "study" has shown you. If your advocated violation hinges on allowing (employees of) the State to violate the ZAP then you are lying and advocating statism. 

Your dishonest use of the term "left" is very telling in this regard-- because by this you seem to be hinting you are a "right libertarian", while libertarians are neither.

It has nothing to do with a "strategy" or "social change"-- those things are a distant third to ethics and principles if you are libertarian. 

If you don't strenuously follow the ZAP, and if you support the State, then just be honest about it and stop soiling the name "libertarian" by association. It doesn't matter to me how famous you may be, or how many followers hang on your every word which they believe gives credence to their anti-liberty bigotry-- if you are claiming your position is "libertarian" you are lying. You, Mr. Hoppe, are the fake "libertarian".

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, February 10, 2018

How to irritate people

I know, they are supposed to be enlightened ways to communicate, but... the Socratic Method, E-Prime, and Nonviolent Communication (NVC), are all good ways to piss off the people you use them on. I mean, look what happened to Socrates!

That's not the stated purpose of any of those communication tactics, of course, but that's where they almost always lead if the people pick up on what you are doing. I've seen it time after time, and I have also felt the same anger when they were used against me. It feels like I'm being manipulated. I'd rather someone just call me nasty names.

Now, each of those tactics might have their place, when used sparingly and when abandoned as soon as they start angering the other person in the conversation. Unless your point is to make people mad, that is. That probably has its place, too.

Those aren't the only communication styles which irritate people. Using logic can also trigger people and cause emotional explosions. So, you probably need to tailor your approach to your audience. One size doesn't fit all. And some people are going to dig their heels in and defend their faith no matter what you say or how you say it.

I'm not saying I communicate in any way better. I know I am not everyone's cup of tea. Whatever the method is that I use (if I have a method) isn't going to be appreciated by those who prefer one of the methods listed above. But maybe, for those who feel manipulated by the above communication tactics, I and others might have something to contribute. And, I'm always trying to communicate more effectively, even if I don't buy into some of the styles others find helpful.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, February 09, 2018

Which came first?

Almost everyone I know personally follows the statist religion.
The vast majority of people I know personally also claim to be Christians.
I often wonder which religion came first to each individual.

Did their statism come first, to have Christianity added on top in an attempt to justify their inexcusable statism?

Or, were they first Christians who then misunderstood Christianity as a call to also follow the religion of statism?

Or, are the religions completely unrelated, with any overlap purely accidental?

It seems quite the task to hammer the round peg of either religion into the square hole of the other, but it also looks like most people are content with the messy results of the attempt.

I do know that when combined, the ChristoStatism which results is a deadly ideology. And very smug and self-important as well. You'll never face a nastier statist than one who believes God wants him to force you under his State.

I can get along with anarchist Christians much more easily than I can get along with "atheist" statists (no such thing, really, since they are still worshipping a god-- the god of the State).

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, February 08, 2018

Your... duty?

Do you have a duty-- a responsibility-- to government?

Yes, you do. You have the duty to keep it from violating you or anyone else. The same as your duty toward any other thug.

Anyone who imagines other duties is hallucinating or doesn't understand duties, responsibilities, government, or rights.

This is very common among those who fear rights and don't want to see rights put ahead of whatever brand of collectivism they love. They whine about how people "only talk about rights", preferring to emphasize responsibilities instead, while ignoring that living within your liberty, and not violating the liberty of others, is your main responsibility. It is where all your other responsibilities come from. You can not separate responsibilities from rights and liberty. It simply isn't possible, unless you turn your back on the responsibilities that don't feel good to you.

And make no mistake: government extremists HATE rights and liberty, no matter what they say. They want to pretend you have a duty to prop up the State with your life, liberty, and property. They lie.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Where we're going, we don't need... roads.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Laws frequently only cause harm

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

Laws can't solve anything, and often destroy things which worked. Sometimes this is due to the unintended consequences of trying to stop something which might actually be harmful, but more often it is due to the person who made the rule simply not understanding how things work in the real world.

Being harmed by laws is probably more common than being helped or protected by them. It's a consequence of meddling; one I have personally the rest...

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, February 06, 2018

Convince me

Convince me that humans have the right to initiate force and damage the usefulness of each other's property.

Then convince me that government-- the State-- is the proper way to put this into action.

Convince me I'm wrong, or convince me that I've stated the problem incorrectly.

Really. Convince me. If I'm wrong, I want to know. I want to know why I'm wrong and how I'm wrong.

And here's why: I don't feel like a success. I've always been financially broke, even long before I embarked on making money (or trying to) through writing. If I weren't wrong, I believe I might be (or feel) more of a success. I see those around me who embrace statism profiting greatly. I realize the sample is skewed since those are the only people around me.

No, I'm not jealous or envious, but I can't help but see their success as a finger of accusation pointing right at me. Pointing out my shortcomings. And, I'm perfectly willing to accept that my problems might stem from some other personal flaw, having nothing to do with my post-statism. Still, if I'm wrong, I need to know.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, February 05, 2018

If archation is OK

Maybe archation isn't a problem. Maybe you do have the right to initiate force and take, damage, or otherwise violate the property of others.

Where does that lead, if that's the case?

Theft, murder, rape, kidnapping, vandalism, trespassing... it's all fine. If you have the right to do it, then no one has the right to stop you.

Or, maybe some would argue that only a government-- a group of people claiming "authority"-- has the right to do those things, and only as necessary to do the "job".

Where would that lead?

To the exact same place, but with people pretending it's all fine. Individuals shouldn't do those things, but if an individual who belongs to group that claims "authority" does them, well that's just peachy.

That's part of why statism just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

But, if I'm wrong... well, I'll leave that for tomorrow. See you then.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, February 04, 2018

It's a shame politics not harmless

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 3, 2017)

After almost a year of President Trump, half the country is in an absolute uproar over the ruination of America being caused by the man.

Exactly like the other half of the country gnashed its teeth for eight straight years over the way President Obama was destroying the country.

I wish both halves weren't so close to being right.

I also wish politics could be kept in a virtual world, like fantasy football or Pokemon Go. It could exist in apps for your phone or computer, and nowhere else. Finance it with licensed product sales, ads, and subscription fees. Let the people who play be the only ones affected by it, and leave the real world alone.

If politics were harmless, even while its enthusiasts were fanatical about it, I might sit back and enjoy the show with some popcorn. Would this year's version be called "Sharknado 6: Sharks in the White House"? Or "The Governing Inferno"? If the show got too boring or ridiculous, I could shut it off and go back to meaningful pursuits, leaving the two sides to squabble and squawk at each other.

The trouble is, politics has real-world consequences, and those squabbling sides keep grinding the rest of us between them. That's not very nice.

Every official presidential act has victims. That's the nature of politics-- winners only win by making someone lose. When neither side understands liberty, it's the first thing sacrificed to the squeaky wheels on the altar of political expediency. Almost no one understands what liberty is, and won't miss it because they've never had it, so it's easy to give it away. Presidents know they can buy votes by trading liberty for false national security, for false economic growth, for false ... well, you get the idea. And voters are happy to accept the illusions.

People are more concerned over presidential "tweets" than they are over stolen liberty. Many people get the most upset when the president doesn't help Congress steal enough liberty from the other side. They scream "Close the loopholes!" Loopholes are what they call the last places liberty can hide from its enemies. The situation is crazy, and likely to only get worse.

The good news is, no president can extinguish liberty, as much as he might try. When liberty is outlawed, only outlaws will have liberty. That tiny bit will be enough to reignite the flame when the world is ready for liberty once again.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Statist apologetics

When I was a kid and I noticed examples of how horrible the US government was (and commented), I got the standard apologetics mantra: "Democracy is the worst form of government- except for all the others."

This knee-jerk bit of propaganda shows such a lack of understanding, I don't even know where to start.

First off, yes, democracy actually is a horrible thing. It is nothing more than mob rule. That's why the otherwise misguided founders of America didn't "do" democracy, but chose to set up a republic instead. Regardless of what most Americans seem to believe, America was never supposed to devolve into a democracy.

Never mind that those "founders" ignored the fact that republics always degrade into democracies, and that no form of government is within anyone's rights to impose on others.

And, yes, maybe the US government is less evil than many of the other governments throughout history-- or even most current ones-- although that's debatable. It's a low bar. As many have pointed out, it's like getting the low achiever award at a mass murderer convention. Or, perhaps more realistically, like a mass murderer who smiles and pretends to be polite.

You can't justify your evil actions by finding others who did worse. You've got to straighten up and stop doing wrong even if no one else joins you. Don't do evil.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, February 03, 2018

Reality isn't your enemy

Reality. It has good points and bad points.

I don't believe accepting reality-- good and bad-- makes a person unhappy. In fact, it seems to affect me the opposite.

Now, stating reality to those who don't want to hear it can make them very unhappy, and they often project their misery on you for pointing out reality to them. But that's their problem.

What is, is. Yes, you can work to change it if you don't like it. I hope you do. But pretending reality is something other than it is probably isn't healthy, and probably won't even make you happy in the long run.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, February 02, 2018

Reduce the misery

I believe in reducing unnecessary misery. That's why I don't want you violated even if I was violated in the same way in the past.

This is a HUGE stumbling block for so many people.

They were forced to get up painfully early to go to school under the pretense of "education", so everyone else must suffer the same indignity.
They were robbed using the excuse of "Social Security", so now it's everyone else's turn to be robbed for the same excuse.
They have lowered themselves to be licensed by The State to do various things humans have a right to do, so everyone else must do the same.
They (or their forebears) "immigrated legally" (or, more likely, before there was any such silly concept as "illegal immigration") so everyone else should be forced to jump through the same hoops.

Seriously, if I thought that way I would say that because I lost my daughter, everyone else should be forced to suffer the same agony. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.

Reduce the misery in the world; don't perpetuate it. Don't share it. Don't demand it.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, February 01, 2018

My evil self

In the past I did things I now consider evil. Things which violate my values, principles, and ethics-- or at least the ones I have now. Some of those things I even considered evil when I did them, yet I did them anyway. What's up with that?

I feel a lot of guilt for some of those things, but am learning to move on. And I will make up for them.

I realize I am not the same person that I was back then. In very real ways. Pretty much all my cells are different now. Just about every atom in my living systems has been replaced over the years. And my mind, my self, is vastly different-- I have different, more consistent, and more coherent (better) values, principles, and ethics.

I'm far from perfect, but it is now rare for me to do anything I consider evil. Stupid, yes. But not usually evil. I consider that an improvement.

But I know that if pushed, I still have that dark side. Sometimes I feel it. The trick is to control and channel it, and to not let it come out at the wrong time. To never let it archate. To only let it out in times when defensive violence is necessary. And then, to let it be a focused beam, surgically applied to the problem. "Collateral damage" is not an option.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit