Ways Government should fund its programs


Not only do I believe that the only morally legit government programs are fire-fighters, police, prisons, military & other national defenses, and science progression. But I also believe that there are about a dozen ways government should fund its programs and mandatory taxations like the income tax are not among this dozen. Allow me to elaborate what I am referring to.


A cooperative is basically a group that voluntarily meets to raise money for a cause. Now this may sound similar to charity, but here is the difference: Charities are typically Non-profit. Cooperatives are typically For-profit. Another similarity cooperatives have to charity is both kinds of organization are operated as democracies.


Basically the same as cooperatives but with no profit involved. Must I explain further?

Usage Fees

Sewage Treatment, Tap Water, Parking Meters, and Toll Roads all have something in common: They all come with something called usage fees. I say government should own these things and operate them for revenue instead of forcing tax dollars out of us.


In this nation, lotteries are used to great effect by the government to market to people who feel lucky every now and then. Historically, that is how this nation raised revenue on top of the next thing I wish to speak of: Consumption Tax

Consumption Tax

Consumption Tax is, in essence, a tax on a spending margin. For example, if I built a custom design costume, or cosplay, and the build cost was totaled at $85 and I sold it to someone for $200, the tax would apply to the $115 difference as a percentage.

Voluntary tax

With a voluntary tax, one can choose to pay a tax and have government services or one can choose to refuse government service by refusing to pay taxes, and either way the person being offered government service will not suffer legal penalties.

Land Sale

Government owns enough land that if it sold all of it to individuals who govern themselves, then the government would make a pretty huge sum. Therefore government should make use of this attribute soon. If not now.


Thank you all for reading this essay of mine,



Red Meat Winter and White Meat Summer?


Another post in the wide array of Non-political topics with nothing to do with atheism that I as a proud nerd feel the need to speak of online. But this time the topic is food, and the motive is I have been concerned that the warm season [Spring and summer] will be here soon and I have not slimmed back to 150 pounds yet. I think I may have to change my carnivorous habits on basis of what kind of meat it applies to

Red Meat vs White meat

The definitions of red meat

The definitions of white meat

  • Chicken is white meat
  • Seafood is white meat

Why This will slim me down for the warmth

  • White meat is always much lesser in fat content than red meat
  • I remember being slim and slender back when I was a big-time eater of white meat

This was for basically my entire High School era from 2009 to 2013. I remember never being lighter than 150 and never being heavier than 160. I am currently 190. What happened?

  • I started eating red meat often and white meat sparingly around 2015
  • I was doing exactly the opposite sort of carnivorous eating [white meat often, red meat sparingly] in my High School days and I was very slender


Yep. Just another On-My-Mind post. But then again, when don’t I post here based on something that has been on my mind for a long time? Thank you all,


Why Rand Paul needed to be the GOP Nominee


Remember how I said I give up on the GOP and will stick to the LP for the rest of my life? Well, I want to clarify what differences between the LP and Rand there are. I also want to use these differences as the evidence that Rand Paul needed to be the GOP Nominee for president.

Rand Paul’s Loyalty to the Bill of Rights

Rand Paul would have been the first president since the Founding Fathers to defend the entire Bill of Rights. Rand Paul also shares Marco Rubio’s loyalty to the Constitutional Safeguards of Civil Rights, as far as I can tell.

He is not going to deport US-born US citizens for being any particular religion like Donald Trump. Rand Paul also does not believe in violating 4th Amendment rights left and right like Marco believes in. Rand Paul even uttered the best sentence ever about treating LGBT individuals on basis of the same standard as fellow straight folks:

Look, I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered with government.

—Rand Paul

He basically says its illegal for government to legislate morality by the same standard it’s illegal for government to legislate equality. In the marriage debate he wants to take the government out of marriage and instead make an institution along individualist and voluntarist lines. Basically Privatizing marriage, exactly what I want with marriage.

I ask people who are against privatizing marriage this: If marriage was a private institution organized along middle-ground individualist and voluntarist lines would you nationalize it? Would you push for it to be a government institution organized along either far-right conservative lines or far-left progressive lines?

Rand Paul’s Fiscal Conservatism and Economic Individualism

Back when he had a presidential campaign, Rand Paul presented himself as the biggest Fiscal Conservative on the stage. And he is. He knows as I do that every aspect of taxation is terrible and needs to be demolished and started over from scratch. He shares my support for a Flat tax where every individual making a certain 5-digit amount of annual money or more should pay a low rate, with every individual making less than that owing no tax. Australia has a system wherein every Australian making $18,200 annually owes no tax. I would have Americans making $100,000 or more pay 25% and Americans making less than that owe no tax. Rand Paul would have Americans making $50,000 or more pay 15%. Well, actually its 14.5% but I like to work only with integers. And he would not charge tax on people like me who currently make a lot less than $50,000 annually. He also wants to demolish the regulatory burden that makes it so difficult to create jobs for individuals.

Rand Paul on Foreign Policy

Marco Rubio once claimed that Rand Paul is a committed isolationist. Allow me to explain these political labels to Marco and anyone else who thinks Rand Paul is isolationist:

  • Isolationism basically means merging Non-interventionist foreign policy with economic nationalism and walled borders and protectionism in trade. Rand Paul believes in economic freedom and unregulated free trade and he favors a middle ground border policy that expands both border security and freedom of travel.
  • Political Realism, the foreign policy philosophy that Rand Paul identifies with, has four basic principles to it:
    • The historic, current, and future world order was, is, and always will be anarchy
    • Nations are the most important actors
    • All nations are thinking actors who pursue self-interest and maintenance of as many resources as possible
    • Nations build up militaries for the number-one concern of survival.
  • Rand Paul supports certain US military bases on some foreign soils based on his Realist foreign policy views.

Not to mention Rand clarified in an interview that he does not want to intervene everywhere militarily and also does not want to intervene nowhere militarily [like his Dad] and instead he strives to be somewhere in the middle.

And one more thing: He wanted to raise military spending by something so menial as 30%. Also motivated by his Realist philosophy.


So I must say – How dare the Republican Party refuse to make Rand Paul their nominee for the 2016 presidential candidacy. Thank you all for reading though,


Where I Match & Do Not Match Ron Paul on Foreign Policy


I agree with Ron Paul on almost every issue within US borders. Seriously, I think he is one of America’s modern Domestic Policy geniuses. I agree with him on almost everything in Economy, Civil Liberties, State Powers, Environment, Health Policy, and Election Law. This is, with me, to the point where my only Domestic Policy dissent to him is:

  1. I don’t agree with decreasing Department of Defense funding
  2. Instead of supporting Bush Tax cuts and/or National Sales Tax I support a Flat tax where everyone annually making more than $90,000 gets taxed 25% and everyone annually making less than that gets funded 25%, and all making exactly that get neither taxed nor funded.
  3. I believe the oldest one can be to opt out of Social Security should be 35 rather than 25
  4. I personally don’t want government involved in the abortion issue for either side of the abortion debate, therefore I differ from Mr. Paul by being personally Pro-choice on this issue, but I will make a post here later about where animal life starts, and there will be little to no political language in that one
  5. I believe that the death penalty should be abolished and replaced with mandatory life in prison sentencing
  6. While I agree that big government and financial crisis are immediate threats to civilization, I will say to him out of dissent that science confirms that this planet overheating is a Long-term threat

And that is literally all of the domestic policy dissent I have toward Ron Paul. Now we can focus on the actual point of this post

The Seventh Category – Foreign Policy

I happen to differ very starkly from Ron Paul on foreign policy but I do not differ from him puritanically. So I figure I would commit this entire essay to illustrating what common ground I have with him and what dissident ground I have against him.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on his general views?

Yes to his support for free trade, freedom of travel, freedom of association, and honest friendship with foreign nations. No to his opposition to US involvement in the issues of other nations, because my question to him is this: “Given that individuals who are very hardcore friends typically defend each other against all odds, how should nations who are very hardcore friends be any different?” Issues of foreign nations can and very often do include attacks against honest friends by obvious enemies.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Non-intervention?

With some limits I do: I agree with him in full on his opposition to Wars of Aggression and on his opposition to military alliances. I agree with him on bringing troops home from everywhere except Japan, Korea, and the GME. In other words, I agree with Ron Paul on bringing troops home from Western Europe, from Northern Europe, from the South American continent, and from the continent of Oceania. However I do still want us to honor the basic, historic definition of a friendship in regard to the Thomas Jeffersonian value of “Honest Friendships with foreign nations” by sticking up for them when thuggish nations violate the Non-Aggression Principle against them.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Afghanistan?

Hm… I share his support for the initial War in Afghanistan, and I agree that we should only have been targeting the actual Al-Qaeda. However, Paul does not address the proofs that the Taliban at the time were the second largest sponsor of Al-Qaeda to only Saudi Arabia:

  • The Taliban regime was the State Sponsor of Al-Qaeda who was harboring them
  • The Taliban regime was using Afghan taxpayer money to preserve and protect Al-Qaeda from 1996 to 2001.
  • The Taliban regime shares a puritanical approach to the Koran – called Sunni Nationalism – with Al-Qaeda

While I agree with Ron Paul that we should not have conducted a long, open-ended occupation with the intent of redeeming Afghanistan, I worry he has not legit Grand Strategy to offer as an alternative to morally ideal war for morally ideal goal. Me on the other hand, if I was in my 20’s or even teens at the time and had the maturity and intellect I had now, then I would have advocated Scorched Earth warfare for Unconditional Surrender and published evidence for both what I am talking about and how its a good idea using William T Sherman’s Savannah Campaign as how to go about a campaign against the Taliban and their ‘pet militia’ at the time, Al-Qaeda.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Iraq?

Well… I do agree with his notion that in general the Iraq War was a total fail, however Mr. Paul and I differ on the issue of HOW and also WHY it was and is a total fail.

Firstly, our attack on the Saddam regime was in reply to him scheming to murder Israel’s one-third Atheist/Deist/Nonreligious minority at the time [1990’s and early 2000’s decade] over Israel’s self-defenses in the Arab-Israeli War that Israel propped up against Arab Nationalist regimes like the Palestinian Authority since the early 1960’s.

That means the War in Iraq was waged in Defense of an Honest Friend. Remember how I set my standard of true friends to include ready and willing defense of each other? Yeah, Israel is one of those “Honest friends” of America, as of 1947 when they became their own nation. Which brings us to how and why the Iraq war was and is a total fail.

The actual means by which the Iraq War was epic fail was the fact that we once more fought a Thomas Aquinas-minded “Just War theorist” fight for once again a Self-sacrificial goal of, wait for it… wait for it… Redeeming a broken regime. Our goal should have instead been Unconditional Surrender by Saddam, and our conduct should have instead been Sherman-style Savannah Campaigning.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Israel?

You mean that stuff he says about how America can be a better friend to Israel?


The only thing I don’t agree with him on is his opposition to letting Israel do what it had to in order to stop Gaza’s flotilla’s weapons from getting to Hamas. I also don’t agree with him saying Israel cannot defend itself from aggression any way it needs to.

But I will give Ron Paul praise for recognizing that we should not give free money to basically any of Israel’s neighbors, and I also share his belief that we should not dictate whether Israel is free to buy Non-American when it buys weapons and such.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Iran?

I share his opposition to sanctioning Iran for radically opposite reasons to those for which he opposes sanctioning Iran.

Iran, as of 1979, is a Shia Nationalism funding and highly genocidal bully, it wants to murder Israel and Israel’s 5.2 million Atheists and Deists, that makes my fellow Nonreligious out to be 65% of the Israeli population.

As I have mentioned before Israel was and is a sibling-like friend [avoided using ‘brotherly’ or ‘sisterly’ because nations cannot have genders] to America since it got started in 1947. Iran is bullying Israel with uniquely venomous genocide threats. In this case we should conduct a Savannah Campaign against the whole Iranian Plateau for the Iranian Revolution’s Unconditional Surrender.

Same applies to Syria’s State Sponsorship of Shia Nationalist acts of terror, and to the ISIS de-facto ‘nation’ and the ultimate Sunni Nationalism sponsor Saudi Arabia as well.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Sudan?

On one hand… The Sudan genocide does not directly endanger America or any of its Honest friends. On the other hand… the Sudan regime does pose massive danger to such True friends of America as Morocco, Algeria, Nigeria, Albania, and Israel by being the State Sponsor of Terror that Sudan is.

So I agree with him on not attacking Sudan over Darfur. However I do not agree with him on letting the current Sudan regime be as-is.

Rather I say we need to End Sudan for Sponsoring Sunni Nationalist terror. Now I can already hear individuals claiming that the Janjaweed militia is one of these groups. But they are a racial and ethnic Nationalist terror cell and not a religious Nationalist one, so yes they can be still counted as a Terror-militia that Sudan sponsors, even if they are just within the south-eastern Sahara nations. So actually our reason for ending the Sudan regime should be because they sponsor religious and racial Terror against their neighbors and thereby create dangers for Honest Friends of America.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Cuba?

To an extent, I do. I believe that the current Cuban president is not a State Sponsor of Terror like his brother and predecessor was, but I also believe Cuba is not any kind of friend of the US. Like I do support opening Free Trade and Freedom of travel for Americans to and from Cuba, but I want said policy to be adopted very cautiously, meaning I think we should be ready and willing to retaliate for any Cuban regime violations of any citizens of America or of any Honest Friends. Like something were we Speak to Cuba Peacefully, but Carry A Huge Mace.

Maybe this could include handing them a list of We The People’s Honest Friends [Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do not count as friends] so they know whose citizens to respect as foreign tourists. Base the list on which nations are most popular to Americans and which ones view America’s population mostly happily before making the discussion though.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on International Organizations?

I share his opposition to every multilateral organization except for the OECD, which I don’t think he has addressed. Our NATO friends, for example, are all our Honest Friends [except for Turkey] and we therefore do not need military alliance with them. There is a big difference between alliance and friendship.

As for the OECD, that’s really the one that does not violate American Independence, and therefore its the one we can actively seek for our friends who are not already in it to join and that we can also actively stay in.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on International Trade?

I fully agree with Ron Paul about free trade and I share is hostility to Protectionism. Like him I also believe that free trade should be based on a free-market module of setting prices freely by mutual agreement between, in this case, American and foreigner.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Borders and Immigration?

I agree with his support for Documented immigration. However, I believe Undocumented immigration should be handled entirely in an individualist manner, with basis on whether the Undocumented is ‘legal or illegal’ being based on whether they respect our Constitution while respecting the Non-Aggression Principle, or not. This means I believe Undocumented immigrants who consistently avoid malum in se crimes should be allowed to have citizenship. But I also think Undocumented immigrants who actively commit malum in se crimes should be deported.

As for borders, I believe there are ways of toughening our border security that do not violate Free Trade or Freedom of travel that need to be utilized, and if there are not then I’m happy to observe we live in a century where smart people and tough people can get together and invent such middle-ground methods as I am imploring.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Terrorism?

Let us see… I fully agree with Ron Paul on the idea of using the Letters of Marque and Reprisal permission from Article One Section Eight to post bounties on Terror militias. But I do not believe that the War On Terror was created to curtail civil liberties, this does not make me blind to government violations of the Constitution. I observe though that government is doing terrible things by curtailing our civil liberties, and that the War On Terror is not being conducted correctly.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Airport Security?

Yes, I do. Should I elaborate? Or should I talk of my airport travel experiences?

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Investigation?

You mean about FBI needing to improve and/or change their investigation tactics? Yes, I do.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul on 9/11 Conspiracy theory?

I absolutely and proudly share Ron Paul’s strident rejection of the weirdo ultra-fantasies and pure-fictions that are the 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is only evidence-based common sense to reject these theories. And while I agree that the real issue was a fail in our federal government, I also know from my studies of history that there is more to it than that:

Do I agree with Mr. Paul about the Operation to kill Osama Bin Laden?

Ron Paul says we did it wrong, which I think is absolutely not true. Pakistan was harboring the guy and was refusing to let us access him, plus the Pakistan regime boasted at one point in history about sponsoring and harboring terrorists like Bin Laden. So we were doing the right thing sending troops in without this Enemy Regime’s permission, and by ending Bin Laden we did right by the American people. The only thing we did wrong was dumping Bin Laden’s body into an ocean instead of burying him somewhere uninhabited like we did with Saddam, because now the 9/11 Truthers have something to cite for claiming that their fantasies are somehow realities. Pakistan has historically proven itself to not deserve a nation of its own, and no one can tell me I didn’t give evidence because I already linked to observational articles about Pakistan’s history and nature.

Do I agree with Mr. Paul about the Operation to kill Anwar al-Awkali?

I do share his belief that American citizens who are suspected of terror should be tried in US courts. So in this sense, yes, I agree that the US government handled Al-Awkali poorly.


So I do agree with some of Ron Paul’s foreign policy pointers, but I think I have more dissent on his views than agreement with his views. I just wanted to make some disclosure on any ideas of how similar or different I am from Mr. Paul. Thank you for reading this,


Speaking About people vs Speaking For them


So I re-watched a favorite video of mine on YouTube and I checked the comments and apparently someone mentioned despising liberals but also wanting nothing to do with conservatives. Americans like me instinctively think this is middle ground libertarian. But then the replies to this comment got interesting…

Speaking For

This guy who made this comment hates anyone but him speaking for him. One reply he got from someone else encouraged him to reply to political label requests by asking the request’s maker to ask him his exact view on a specific issue instead.

Speaking About

Speaking about someone is referencing, and can be either honest or dishonest depending on its basis on evidence. If someone is basing their speech about others on polarizing rhetoric, then they are lying, in example.


Yep, just a tiny rant. That was all I wanted to get across this morning. Next post here I think I will speak of something larger-scale. Not sure what it will be about though. Thank you all,


Libertarians and US Foreign Policy: The Independent Impact on US Foreign Policy


So here we are again returning after a few unrelated posts to the primary subject matter of this WordPress account: The correlation between Libertarianism and Internationalism.

Libertarians in general

In order to make libertarian foreign policy make sense to people who may not be 100% libertarian, or who may be a moderate amount left-leaning or right-leaning, I must break this essay down into this category, break this category into Foreign Policy section and Military policy section, and then add a category for each of two trends: Paleolibertarian and Neolibertarian.

The main research paper I will use to make this essay happen for WordPress. Courtesy of Pew Research Center fact tank.

Libertarians, in the US anyway, are about a ninth of the national population, or 36 million Americans given the 322 million people of America.

Polling Data confirms that libertarians in the US typically oppose national defense cuts, and slightly more libertarians in the US support Drones than oppose. Overwhelmingly libertarians desire an all-volunteer national defense. When it comes to Military toughness, libertarians more often agree than disagree with the notions that:

  1. The best way to ensure peace is through military strength
  2. Using overwhelming military force is the best way to defeat State Sponsors of Terror and the terror groups they sponsor

The other thing unanimously agreed upon by American libertarians is that Americans should never give up their privacy to be safe from State Sponsors of Terror.

Foreign relations pursued by libertarians tend to be based on military non-intervention, a policy of only engaging with other nations diplomatically and following the Thomas Jefferson advice of “Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship with foreign nations, entangling Alliances with None”.

However, there is a split in the libertarian ideology on foreign policy – one trend I will label Paleolibertarians and another I will label Neolibertarians. Both of these trends oppose Wars of Aggression.


Paleolibertarians are those who believe that the US should concentrate on problems at home and that foreign problems are made worse by US involvement. Paleolibertarians typically reject American Exceptionalism but do not want America to be subject to foreign entity’s laws. The other thing that sets the paleolibertarian trend apart is their commitment to a “diet pacifism”. Now, what do I mean by ‘diet’ pacifism? I am referring to the fact that the only kind of wars that paleolibertarians approve of are Defensive Wars, and even then only after the US is attacked first. When it comes to diplomatic debates with foreign politicians, paleolibertarians oppose the idea of applying the Empire of Liberty to diplomatic debating.


Myself and other neolibertarians are those who support an America who is active in the world and can agree that foreign problems are solved – or at least made less bad – by US involvement. But again, this does not always mean military involvement. Mainly this means diplomatic involvement. We neolibertarians support applying Empire of Liberty to diplomatic discussions with foreign politicians, and as far as I can tell almost all of us support preemptive strikes and many, but not all, of us including me support the use of preventative wars. In both cases, though, most of us only support these courses of action in defense of America And Friends against State Sponsors of Terror. There do exist some of us, including Mark Humphrys but not including me, support Liberation wars against tyrannical regimes. When fighting back against Terror Regimes who violate the Non-Aggression Principle, some of us including me favor ‘scorched earth’ warfare for unconditional surrender instead of morally ideal warfare for morally ideal goals. Humphrys is not one of those who favors this kind of warfare.


I never thought I would be able to speak of something I am this knowledgable in in under 1000 words. Quite an accomplishment I have had. So… yes, thank you for reading this from me and thanks for learning from it as well,


Can Living Wage happen in Free Markets?


I am very supportive of a Free Market system, which can be supported by capitalist-right libertarians like myself or by socialist-left anarchists and a type of center-left libertarians called “market socialists“. The reason I am naming different political ideologies across the capitalist-socialist spectrum is because I wanted to give another reply to the Bernie Sanders platform, while not espousing it.

What is a Living Wage?

Living Wage, as far as I can define in my own words, is a wage that allows a full-time worker to afford a generic wooden cabin like the one I stayed in during a camping trip I went on in autumn of 2015, while also affording food, clothes and recreation. Given this definition I can see this being reasonable policy idea on the surface, but there are some principles I must reveal:

  1. Free markets lack intervention by government
  2. Free markets lack monopolies by any corporation
  3. Free markets lack commandments by any religion
  4. Free markets lack any other brand of price-setting monopoly
  5. Free markets allow for wages to be set freely by agreement between workers and employers
  6. Free markets allow for prices to be set freely by agreement between sellers and buyers

Looking at the 5th Principle

So I just said that free market wage policy means letting employer and worker set wages freely by mutual agreement. This is no conclusion, but rather I suspect this is true because of how prices are set and because of the fact that profits are the things that guarantee wages. Economically prices determine profits and profits determine wages and wages often determine prices. Basic cycle I suspect of being real based on my scientific logic. I do not know this, and the same source of my logic, science, forbids me from pretending to know everything, that is why I do not confirm this as true without having looked deeper into it yet.

However, I am willing to say that a Living Wage is possible in a Free Market if… we have a law that says employers and workers need to calmly and rationally discuss what kind of wage is reasonable for:

  • What the worker’s job is
  • Whether that job is entry level or PhD level or some level in between
  • What lifestyle the worker desires as an individual
  • Whether the worker’s individual lifestyle makes sense for entry-level vs PhD level
  • If the employer can afford to pay the wage arrived at
  • What items or services the worker actually had a hand in providing
  • What kind of personal life expenses the worker has
  • What kind of personal life expenses the employer has
  • How the worker plans to get around

And that says police may only intervene if one conducts a violent crime or property crime against the other.


Well… I suspect I have been clear about what a Free Market Living Wage could be. So, thank you all for learning,


Free College Education?


If you know my education policy views, you know I support Freedom of Education out of my instinctive support for Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Media, and Freedom of Religion. But what about education financing? Well, let’s find out what I believe about that part…

Sanders’s Free College Ed Proposal

The presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wants to create an education policy where he raises taxes to fund community colleges so that every student can go for free. The problems I have with this, in order from biggest to smallest problem, are:

  1. This policy does not address the First Amendment-related problems that currently permeate our schools, like the venom we know as Political Correctness and the censorship and life-ruining it glorifies
  2. This policy also does not acknowledge the possibility of Non-government, Non-profit charities guaranteeing free education for every community college student
  3. This policy forgets that government does own and can raise prices on toll booths on the high ways and metropolitan roads
  4. This policy forgets that government does own and can raise prices on lotteries for this purpose
  5. This policy forgets that government can charge high rates of consumption taxes, which if applied to a cosplay supply that was bought for $23 and sold for $55, then said tax would apply to the $32 difference.
  6. This policy forgets that states and cities can reform their tax codes to a voluntary tax, where tax-funded services are only provided to those who choose to pay their taxes
  7. This policy forgets that government owns and can set prices for usage fees that apply to non-road government services like the city water.
  8. This policy forgets that government is very capable of setting up charities called Cooperatives, and make participation in them Optional-but-Encouraged for all citizens
  9. This policy forgets that government can sell a colossal chunk of the colossal amount of land it owns to pay for free community college education

Evidence of possibilities of volunteer-funding of free community college education linked here.


I don’t think I need to address education policy any further, least not in this post. Thank you all for learning today,


Rethinking my Battle for Middle earth II mod


Yes guys, I do plan to make a mod for the Windows game Battle for Middle-earth II and I do plan to rethink it once more. Even though the game is from TEN years ago.

Background info for those who don’t know the game:

Battle for Middle earth II is a real time strategy video game for the Windows operating systems of Windows XP and later. I linked to the Google definition of strategy because the director, a guy called Mike Verdu, had his workers program the game to have no room at all in its Skirmish mode for coherent strategy. And this game is based on the Lord of the Rings book and movie trilogies.

One way I can do it

I can wait for the Special Extended Edition mod to be re-released as Director’s Cut edition, but that would cancel my plans for a mod of my own given the things I notice will be the Director’s Cut of the mod.

Borrowing from other mods

I can go around asking permission from other mod-makers to use their contents, including:


Perhaps I should not really be making official decisions for my mod plans until I have a copy of each of Windows 10 Pro and Parallels 11, the latter being how I will get windows 10 pro onto my computer. Thank you for reading,


Victory for my Independence from the Major parties


I have wanted to switch to Libertarian Party for over a month since the Republicans’ promises to keep on looking backward and to keep on ignoring Millennial social policy preferences.

Republican Promise to Ignore young libertarians

  • Republicans want to continue opposing Marriage Equality
  • Republicans want to continue denying that any entity needs to do anything to help the environment, even the free market.
  • Republicans want to continue opposing the basic tenets of a permissive society cultural policy
  • Republicans want to continue spitting out polarizing rhetoric in place of actual free-market solutions

There do exist fellow neolibertarians within the LP

  • There is the Libertarian Defense Caucus
  • Their site is powered by WordPress, just like mine
  • My latest internet name is inspired two-thirds by the LP neolibertarians of the LDC
  • If you read my essay of reply to the Reason Magazine millennial survey, you know that I have more common ground with the LP than with either Demopublican Party anyways.


Even though the Party I am switching to tomorrow morning has pacifism anchored into its platform, I can still rest assured there’s a future time wherein that will no longer be the case. Thank you,