There is a situation someone was sharing on Facebook that made me really angry.
A friend's daughter had a stuffed toy rabbit she'd had and loved since she was a baby- maybe since she was born. She is now 13 years old and still loves and sleeps with the toy.
And someone stole it, just to hurt her.
If that's not evil, then nothing is.
Her dad believes he knows who stole the toy, but can't prove it. Without proof he can't go kicking in doors and choking suspects- because he isn't a bad guy.
You might think a 13 year-old ought not be that attached to a toy. I might agree in principle- but I have to admit I can completely empathize with her. She wasn't hurting anyone. Whether she "should" be that attached to a toy isn't the point- she was, and someone violated her property and hurt her. On purpose.
That infuriates me.
I know there are others who are just as attached to other things- or even myths they mistake for things- that are harmful. Like The State.
If what they love so much didn't directly violate other people, I would say you need to leave them alone and let them keep their figurative teddy bear. The problem is, with the State, their teddy bear only continues to be as long as it is fed the blood of innocents.
These are the people who- as long as they can't stay out of the lives of the rest of us- need to have their beloved thing ripped from their hands and destroyed. Not innocent 13 year-old girls whose beloved possession isn't harming anyone.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Presidential debates have no value
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 30, 2016- Please note, my CNJ columns have moved to Wednesdays. The paper made some cuts, and dropped some opinion columns, but I survived the cut.)
Presidential debates are trivial entertainment (my chosen headline)
Is there value in time spent watching two liars trying to out-lie each other?
A lot of people seem to believe so. They watch presidential debates, and pretend they matter.
People have been fooled into believing "it's a two-party system" and a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote, and the debates confirm this belief. So, they continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, ignoring the fact that there are multiple evils to choose from.
Therefore, one of those two debating liars will soon be declared the president-elect of the tax-farm called "The United States". This winner will be using employees who will try to force you to behave in certain ways, and using your stolen property (stolen through "taxation") against you.
So you watch the debates.
It isn't necessary.
You want to know what to expect from the next president, right? I can give you a preview of what to expect right now.
The declared winner will build upon the misdeeds of his or her predecessors in the office. Even those things they criticized while campaigning. It's easier to condemn actions before you have the power to get away with committing them. I'm sure the new president's intentions will be pure, though. They always claim so.
All campaign promises will be ignored, but it will be explained that the promises aren't being broken; you aren't smart enough to see the Big Picture. As soon as a new president is let in on all the government secrets kept by the unelected people actually in power, it becomes clear why the indiscreet promises must be forgotten. It probably concerns the superstition called "National Security".
There's still hope. While no president is anywhere near as decent as his supporters want you to believe, neither is any president as bad as his opposition claims. Presidents are simply the gunk which floats to the top of the political soup, to be scooped up and held aloft as someone more noble than the rest of humanity.
Contrary to claims I have seen, presidents are unfit to imitate. If you believe a president-- any president-- should be a role model for children, you should probably put down the bong. Or pick one up. Because whatever you're doing isn't working.
As long as you are entertained by presidential debates, and don't take them too seriously, have fun watching. I have more important things to do, such as alphabetizing my cereals and sorting my cats' whiskers by length.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
Presidential debates are trivial entertainment (my chosen headline)
Is there value in time spent watching two liars trying to out-lie each other?
A lot of people seem to believe so. They watch presidential debates, and pretend they matter.
People have been fooled into believing "it's a two-party system" and a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote, and the debates confirm this belief. So, they continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, ignoring the fact that there are multiple evils to choose from.
Therefore, one of those two debating liars will soon be declared the president-elect of the tax-farm called "The United States". This winner will be using employees who will try to force you to behave in certain ways, and using your stolen property (stolen through "taxation") against you.
So you watch the debates.
It isn't necessary.
You want to know what to expect from the next president, right? I can give you a preview of what to expect right now.
The declared winner will build upon the misdeeds of his or her predecessors in the office. Even those things they criticized while campaigning. It's easier to condemn actions before you have the power to get away with committing them. I'm sure the new president's intentions will be pure, though. They always claim so.
All campaign promises will be ignored, but it will be explained that the promises aren't being broken; you aren't smart enough to see the Big Picture. As soon as a new president is let in on all the government secrets kept by the unelected people actually in power, it becomes clear why the indiscreet promises must be forgotten. It probably concerns the superstition called "National Security".
There's still hope. While no president is anywhere near as decent as his supporters want you to believe, neither is any president as bad as his opposition claims. Presidents are simply the gunk which floats to the top of the political soup, to be scooped up and held aloft as someone more noble than the rest of humanity.
Contrary to claims I have seen, presidents are unfit to imitate. If you believe a president-- any president-- should be a role model for children, you should probably put down the bong. Or pick one up. Because whatever you're doing isn't working.
As long as you are entertained by presidential debates, and don't take them too seriously, have fun watching. I have more important things to do, such as alphabetizing my cereals and sorting my cats' whiskers by length.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
Here's your "stupid" sign
Around town I see a couple of signs that warn me to not spend money with certain businesses.
No. I won't support dangerous gangs. I don't support those who violate peaceful people, no matter what their justification might be. And I don't support those who do. It's a pathetic quisling act to go out of your way to announce your support of scum.
I will not be spending any money at any business that advertises their support for gang activities. Policing is NOT about a person; it is about a set of aggressive, thieving behaviors. Behaviors no decent person would ever commit or condone.
It's a good thing that those who love rapists, murderers, thieves, and other molesters (with badges) let me know that they support the bad guys, so I can choose not to spend my precious dollars with them. If only all thug-lovers were so open about it.
But, I'm sure they are rewarded by copsuckers far beyond the loss of my piddling purchases. It's what "polite society" does. "Polite society" worships the parasites that feed on it.
"Support the Blue. We do"
"Support law enforcement"
No. I won't support dangerous gangs. I don't support those who violate peaceful people, no matter what their justification might be. And I don't support those who do. It's a pathetic quisling act to go out of your way to announce your support of scum.
I will not be spending any money at any business that advertises their support for gang activities. Policing is NOT about a person; it is about a set of aggressive, thieving behaviors. Behaviors no decent person would ever commit or condone.
It's a good thing that those who love rapists, murderers, thieves, and other molesters (with badges) let me know that they support the bad guys, so I can choose not to spend my precious dollars with them. If only all thug-lovers were so open about it.
But, I'm sure they are rewarded by copsuckers far beyond the loss of my piddling purchases. It's what "polite society" does. "Polite society" worships the parasites that feed on it.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Should be embarrassed, but not smart enough to realize it
"All taxes are theft and should be abolished? That means police, firefighters, the entire justice system, the military, all public infrastructure like roads and bridges, etc. should be funded through private donations? All those generous, philanthropic Americans out there would just graciously donate money to these groups even without a tax deduction (since there would be nothing to deduct from)? That sounds like the apocalypse, and would go over like a lead balloon. But at least the 'taxes steal our money' argument would disappear because there would be no Treasury or U.S. Mint to print the money we use. There will be no Federal Reserve either, so who's going to set interest rates, people on Wall Street? The SEC? Haha! Within a decade we'll be back in the Middle Ages trading chickens for grain. Sounds awesome. And don't tell me we could just privatize the Department of Treasury since that idea is so inherently flawed that the premise itself is illogical."
This is the so-called "thinking" of a statist. Posted without shame and free of irony on social media.
The flaws in his premises are so obvious they don't even seem worth pointing out. Feel free to do so anyway, in the comments. And they are numerous. Every scenario he apparently fears is based on an utter misunderstanding of how reality works, and what the bullies of "government" do.
I'll address just one of his delusions: money.
Money requires no government. If people want it, they will create it- without a "Federal Reserve" or a "Treasury Department" making bad money and ordering them to use it. And people WILL want money for most trades. I guarantee it.
Interest rates don't need to be "set" by anyone- they'll find their balance. Interest rates are like any other price. The market will find a price range, depending on many factors. If the "people on Wall Street" decided on an interest rate that was not in line with the market for money, anyone anywhere could compete with them, and beat them. It takes a government to protect a monopoly.
It should encourage you to know this is what we are up against. This is how the brighter-than-average statist on the street thinks. It is also how most of those who work for government think. And this is why they will go extinct. Sure, right now they have the drop on us. They have more guns and an open season on us. That situation won't last. I don't know when it will end, but it will end.
Bide your time. Prepare. Learn. Think. Educate. Speak up in private conversations and anywhere you believe it might have an impact. There is a change in the wind, and I can smell something new.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Always move toward liberty
(Previously posted to Patreon)
You can debate whether someone's chosen path toward liberty is smart or effective, but as long as the path they follow is truly toward more liberty, I'm in support of them. And it doesn't depend on the reaction of anti-liberty bigots- you can't live your life for them.
I would say, that as far as any particular method goes, I'm an agnostic. Even if I am unconvinced, let me see it actually work, and I'll get on board (or at least keep my doubts to myself). Until then I'll try to not be too critical, but I may be very skeptical. Being skeptical isn't the same as being negative. Or, if I realize a path I formerly supported leads the wrong direction, away from liberty and toward more theft and aggression, I may try to point that out, but I can't force anyone to change course.
I saw this happen with Bitcoin. I really didn't understand the hostility some people had against it. Sure, it might not work, but it sure looked like an attempt to go in the right direction. Let the experiment run and produce some data before flinging mud at it.
Wikileaks, too. I never see it as moving in the wrong direction to expose information the anti-liberty bigots don't want known. That it endangers some of their employees just raises the cost of being a tool of the State- and that's a good thing.
Maybe the same is true of v*ting. I doubt it, based on hundreds of years of pretty clear evidence, but some people keep trying to make it work. I am skeptical it ever can, and have laid out my reasons I won't be participating, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Just show me instead of calling me names. Convince this agnostic.
Keeping and bearing arms is the same. I am completely in favor of open carry. I have done it a lot- but not here. The bullies here are of the opinion that they can make up rules forbidding it, and they are happy to murder those who ignore any of their rules. And I don't have enough who would defy along with me. I would be the nail sticking up- even more than I already am. I cheer for open carry activists. Yes, it may scare some cowardly statists to see a gun. It may "drive people to the other side". But cowardly statists aren't going to be on the side of liberty anyway- if you coddle them it just makes them feel their opinions are as valid as anyone else's... and they aren't. Open carry is a move in the direction of more liberty- even if the cowards want to push back. Maybe in the long run it won't work, but no one can know that for sure. And open carrying is part of liberty. Pretending that someone shouldn't exercise their liberty because it will offend anti-liberty bigots isn't moving toward liberty.
The same could be said of my blog. It may not "work" and bring about more liberty to anyone, but at least I don't think anyone could seriously suggest it is moving in the wrong direction- away from Rightful Liberty.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. But, make sure you are always going in the right direction- it's the only thing that really matters.
You can debate whether someone's chosen path toward liberty is smart or effective, but as long as the path they follow is truly toward more liberty, I'm in support of them. And it doesn't depend on the reaction of anti-liberty bigots- you can't live your life for them.
I would say, that as far as any particular method goes, I'm an agnostic. Even if I am unconvinced, let me see it actually work, and I'll get on board (or at least keep my doubts to myself). Until then I'll try to not be too critical, but I may be very skeptical. Being skeptical isn't the same as being negative. Or, if I realize a path I formerly supported leads the wrong direction, away from liberty and toward more theft and aggression, I may try to point that out, but I can't force anyone to change course.
I saw this happen with Bitcoin. I really didn't understand the hostility some people had against it. Sure, it might not work, but it sure looked like an attempt to go in the right direction. Let the experiment run and produce some data before flinging mud at it.
Wikileaks, too. I never see it as moving in the wrong direction to expose information the anti-liberty bigots don't want known. That it endangers some of their employees just raises the cost of being a tool of the State- and that's a good thing.
Maybe the same is true of v*ting. I doubt it, based on hundreds of years of pretty clear evidence, but some people keep trying to make it work. I am skeptical it ever can, and have laid out my reasons I won't be participating, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Just show me instead of calling me names. Convince this agnostic.
Keeping and bearing arms is the same. I am completely in favor of open carry. I have done it a lot- but not here. The bullies here are of the opinion that they can make up rules forbidding it, and they are happy to murder those who ignore any of their rules. And I don't have enough who would defy along with me. I would be the nail sticking up- even more than I already am. I cheer for open carry activists. Yes, it may scare some cowardly statists to see a gun. It may "drive people to the other side". But cowardly statists aren't going to be on the side of liberty anyway- if you coddle them it just makes them feel their opinions are as valid as anyone else's... and they aren't. Open carry is a move in the direction of more liberty- even if the cowards want to push back. Maybe in the long run it won't work, but no one can know that for sure. And open carrying is part of liberty. Pretending that someone shouldn't exercise their liberty because it will offend anti-liberty bigots isn't moving toward liberty.
The same could be said of my blog. It may not "work" and bring about more liberty to anyone, but at least I don't think anyone could seriously suggest it is moving in the wrong direction- away from Rightful Liberty.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. But, make sure you are always going in the right direction- it's the only thing that really matters.
Competition is good!
The boots I wear all the time were good boots. They were given to me for Christmas about 8 years ago, and I wear them every day. I have climbed all over rocky canyons, walked rough mountain trails, and even crossed many a parking lot (which, in my experience is harder on footwear than anything else) in them. They have scratches, but keep holding up for the most part.
When the soles and heels start wearing out, I just run to the boot repair place and get them fixed up and ready for more years and miles. The cost has been about $25 to $40 both times I've had them fixed. Not a bad deal at all, considering what a new pair would cost me.
But, things change.
My boot repair shop went out of business a while back.
Not to worry; I knew there were more places around.
Well, now it is time for another repair. I looked and found that there were still two boot repair places listed locally. I took that information and headed out with my boots.
Then I hit a snag. The first place seems to no longer exist, and the phone number is non-working. Oops. Well, there's still one place.
So, that's where I went.
Unfortunately, they no longer have any competition in the area. What cost me $40 at most just a couple of years ago will cost me $90 this time! (I have no idea how I'm going to pay for it, either!)
I'm hoping that a lack of competition doesn't also affect the quality of their work. I guess I'll find that out next week.
Competition has benefited me in the past, and now a lack of competition looks as though it's going to cost me. I suppose the boot repair place is happy they no longer have any competition.
Competition keeps prices down, and keeps quality (and customer satisfaction) up. Just look at what happens without it- it's like government when there's no competition. Yes, I realize I still have a choice, so it's not completely government-like. I can drive somewhere else and find someone who might repair my boots more cheaply, or I can just buy new footwear, or buy something for my feet from Goodwill (Salvation Army had better prices, but they closed the local store a couple of years ago), or I can make some moccs. There are always choices, even if I don't like any of them.
I plead to the market gods- please inspire someone to open a new boot repair shop in the area! I can't afford the situation as it now exists.
When the soles and heels start wearing out, I just run to the boot repair place and get them fixed up and ready for more years and miles. The cost has been about $25 to $40 both times I've had them fixed. Not a bad deal at all, considering what a new pair would cost me.
But, things change.
My boot repair shop went out of business a while back.
Not to worry; I knew there were more places around.
Well, now it is time for another repair. I looked and found that there were still two boot repair places listed locally. I took that information and headed out with my boots.
Then I hit a snag. The first place seems to no longer exist, and the phone number is non-working. Oops. Well, there's still one place.
So, that's where I went.
Unfortunately, they no longer have any competition in the area. What cost me $40 at most just a couple of years ago will cost me $90 this time! (I have no idea how I'm going to pay for it, either!)
I'm hoping that a lack of competition doesn't also affect the quality of their work. I guess I'll find that out next week.
Competition has benefited me in the past, and now a lack of competition looks as though it's going to cost me. I suppose the boot repair place is happy they no longer have any competition.
Competition keeps prices down, and keeps quality (and customer satisfaction) up. Just look at what happens without it- it's like government when there's no competition. Yes, I realize I still have a choice, so it's not completely government-like. I can drive somewhere else and find someone who might repair my boots more cheaply, or I can just buy new footwear, or buy something for my feet from Goodwill (Salvation Army had better prices, but they closed the local store a couple of years ago), or I can make some moccs. There are always choices, even if I don't like any of them.
I plead to the market gods- please inspire someone to open a new boot repair shop in the area! I can't afford the situation as it now exists.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
"You have no right to" vs "You shouldn't"
(A looser than usual transcript)
Saying "you shouldn't" is an expression of opinion.
Saying "you have no right to" can be an expression of fact.
Don't get the two mixed up.
For me, there's a short, straight line from "have no right to" to "you shouldn't". One naturally follows from the other in most cases. But, it's not necessary for that to be the case.
No human has the right to archate. To archate means to initiate force, or credibly threaten to do so, or to violate private property rights. Basically, to act like a government or other kind of bad guy. It's the opposite of what makes up anarchy.
The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) could be rephrased as the Zero Archation Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to archate against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate archation." This clears up any confusion as to whether property violations which involve no physical force are addressed by the ZAP. Whether or not they were in the past, they are now.
So, you have no right to archate, but does that mean you shouldn't? My opinion is that it usually does- but not always.
Yes, pushing a kid from in front of a bus is an initiation of force. You don't have a right to do it, but I think this is one of those cases where you should. If it were me, I'd take the chance and deal with any complaints from the kid later. I'd willingly submit to arbitration if the kid I saved believes I owe restitution for initiating force against him in this instance. Maybe I'd then present him with a bill for services rendered, just to even things out.
There may be other cases as well, and if you believe it's important to archate- to do something you have no right to do- in some instance, you ought to feel it's worth dealing with the consequences that come from your act.
So, yes, saying you have no right to do something can be a statement of fact, if you indeed have no right to do it, but translating that into you shouldn't do something is a less supportable position. It's merely an opinion. And not all opinions are equally valid.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Being nice to monsters
On one hand, I try to be nice and considerate to everyone. Whether in person, or online.
On the other hand, there are some kinds of stupidity and evil I just can't abide, and I can be pretty nasty when exposed to it. Especially when those espousing the stupidity and/or evil are nasty about it first. Statists wouldn't be statists if they didn't embrace stupidity and evil.
The moments I am most proud of are those when I don't respond in kind to the nasty, stupid, evil notions being promoted by statists. When I treat them with more respect, understanding, and kindness than they deserve. I don't always manage it-- I'm only human, and flawed-- but it is something I strive for.
My hope is that treating nasty, stupid, evil statist ideas as "worthy of consideration" will inspire the same consideration of civilized behavior from those promoting those statist ideas. When given serious, honest consideration, it is obvious that mutual consent is always superior-- ethically, morally, rationally, and pragmatically-- to coercion, theft, and aggression. People just need to be exposed to the idea.
Some percentage will still reject it-- it doesn't fit with their ideas of how "society" works, and they don't see how some things can be provided without forcing others to go along. They are wrong. Period. There is simply no excuse. But it's probably pointless to waste breath on them once they've expressed an unwillingness to be civilized. Some monsters enjoy being monstrous.
And, yet, I still want to be nice and considerate. Which means walking away and leaving them to their barbarism-- with the understanding that I may be forced to defend myself from them in the future.
-
On the other hand, there are some kinds of stupidity and evil I just can't abide, and I can be pretty nasty when exposed to it. Especially when those espousing the stupidity and/or evil are nasty about it first. Statists wouldn't be statists if they didn't embrace stupidity and evil.
The moments I am most proud of are those when I don't respond in kind to the nasty, stupid, evil notions being promoted by statists. When I treat them with more respect, understanding, and kindness than they deserve. I don't always manage it-- I'm only human, and flawed-- but it is something I strive for.
My hope is that treating nasty, stupid, evil statist ideas as "worthy of consideration" will inspire the same consideration of civilized behavior from those promoting those statist ideas. When given serious, honest consideration, it is obvious that mutual consent is always superior-- ethically, morally, rationally, and pragmatically-- to coercion, theft, and aggression. People just need to be exposed to the idea.
Some percentage will still reject it-- it doesn't fit with their ideas of how "society" works, and they don't see how some things can be provided without forcing others to go along. They are wrong. Period. There is simply no excuse. But it's probably pointless to waste breath on them once they've expressed an unwillingness to be civilized. Some monsters enjoy being monstrous.
And, yet, I still want to be nice and considerate. Which means walking away and leaving them to their barbarism-- with the understanding that I may be forced to defend myself from them in the future.
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Why I won't v*te
There have been a lot of strawmen erected around the reasons that people like myself won't v*te. I'm sure you've seen plenty of them yourself.
But, here are the real reasons I won't v*te:
I would never try to stop anyone else from v*ting.
Some believe they "need to" in order to defend themselves from bad guys who are employed by government. But whether it's statists or muggers, bad guys will always be there, always seeking to impose their will on the rest of us. V*ting is as effective in the real world as chanting and shaking rattles to cure cancer. But, if it makes you feel better, go for it. Just don't get upset when others won't participate.
Just don't fall for the delusion that you have "done enough" by v*ting. If anyone stops at v*ting OR non-v*ting, and believes they have accomplished something, they are fooling themselves.
Which is part of why I think v*ting is irrelevant- you haven't actually done anything useful either way. You have GOT to do more to have accomplished something of value. And, just like in math, where something that appears on both sides of the equation can be ignored, the rest is what needs to be focused on.
I see someone who insists that I should v*te as saying "Well, mugging isn't ideal, but it's the system we have, so we'd better use it to our advantage".
Maybe v*ting can delay the collapse of civilization (I doubt that, but whatever). If TSHTF now, I am here to help. If it happens years down the road, I may not be able to help. People will probably be even less able to survive, having been softened further by government dependency. Putting something off almost always makes it worse in the long run. Might as well get the show on and see what becomes of it.
I'm sorry if that isn't what you want to believe. Reality is harsh.
But, here are the real reasons I won't v*te:
- I don't "believe in it" anymore. I used to. I felt like I was doing something; doing the right thing. I would v*te for the candidate I thought shared at least many of my values. Usually, that candidate lost. When that candidate won, I always found out that he didn't share my values at all. He had lied to get my v*te. So, by helping that candidate win, I helped make the situation worse. I had helped give a bad guy power. I had undercut my own interests.
- My liberty is not up for a v*te. If every person v*ted for the rights of the one holdout to be violated, it's still not right to violate them. V*ting is mob rule. Might doesn't make right; neither does majority.
- I feel like if I v*te, I am making an illegitimate system look legitimate, or at least make it look like I support the idea that the opinion of the majority should be forced, at gunpoint, on the minority. (Ignoring that the "winning side" is only a majority of v*ters, not of the population.) Even if "my side" wins, and gets to force liberty on people who don't want it, how is that a good thing? You can't force people to be free.
- I get the "v*ting in self defense" argument. However, v*ting isn't aimed. It strikes the aggressor and the non-aggressor equally- if at all. Just because some people in a crowd threaten you, it doesn't justify spraying the crowd with bullets. Know your target and know what is behind your target.
- No one but me can represent me. It simply isn't possible. The idea is even more absurd when the "representative" is supposed to represent thousands or millions of people. This is magical thinking at its craziest. So, why go through the motions for something that isn't going to happen? That is impossible at its very foundation? It's like making a ritual of reading horoscopes religiously.
- I don't enjoy it. It's stressful and frustrating. Chances are, if I v*te for someone, that person would lose. If they win, all I can celebrate is that the other person lost. Then I can look forward to the winner treating my liberty just like the other guy was proposing to treat it. Just more slowly, or violating it in a slightly different way.
- It's unnecessary. Look, there will always be bad guys out there. To archate is a primitive human desire- politicians turned it into an art form. You can spend your life worrying about them, or you can live your life in spite of them. Does it enhance your life in any way to spend time thinking about politicians? Do you really look to them and their opinions for guidance? Do you let their opinions prevent you from doing what you know is right? Or force you to do what you know is wrong? I understand recognizing that what you are doing is "illegal" and not announcing it to the world, but if it's the right thing to do- or even if it is ethically neutral- just do it. But do it quietly if you don't want to get molested by employees of the State. Don't intentionally step in the dog crap, but step around it. And government employees are dog crap.
I would never try to stop anyone else from v*ting.
Some believe they "need to" in order to defend themselves from bad guys who are employed by government. But whether it's statists or muggers, bad guys will always be there, always seeking to impose their will on the rest of us. V*ting is as effective in the real world as chanting and shaking rattles to cure cancer. But, if it makes you feel better, go for it. Just don't get upset when others won't participate.
Just don't fall for the delusion that you have "done enough" by v*ting. If anyone stops at v*ting OR non-v*ting, and believes they have accomplished something, they are fooling themselves.
Which is part of why I think v*ting is irrelevant- you haven't actually done anything useful either way. You have GOT to do more to have accomplished something of value. And, just like in math, where something that appears on both sides of the equation can be ignored, the rest is what needs to be focused on.
I see someone who insists that I should v*te as saying "Well, mugging isn't ideal, but it's the system we have, so we'd better use it to our advantage".
Maybe v*ting can delay the collapse of civilization (I doubt that, but whatever). If TSHTF now, I am here to help. If it happens years down the road, I may not be able to help. People will probably be even less able to survive, having been softened further by government dependency. Putting something off almost always makes it worse in the long run. Might as well get the show on and see what becomes of it.
I'm sorry if that isn't what you want to believe. Reality is harsh.
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Government ‘help’ solves nothing
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 23, 2016- I honestly believe this is one of the worst CNJ columns I have ever written, and for that, I apologize.)
If you want something done, do it without forcing your will on anyone else, and without forcing others to pay for what you want. Good ideas don't require force.
After the recent SpaceX rocket explosion, I saw someone arguing that this was why space exploration should be left to governments, thus financed with taxation. After all, the apparent cause of the blast was something NASA solved fifty years ago.
While this may be true, you'll also notice tax-financed space exploration stagnated decades ago. Long before commercial rockets became a reality.
If you want space exploration to get anywhere, you need people trying new things and taking new risks; innovating, not just copying solutions found long ago.
Even when government does innovate it's as likely to make things worse as to make them better.
Government got involved and started regulating and de facto rationing health care over a century ago. This increased the cost of health care, which caused some to demand government "do something". Government did, and now we have ObamaCare regulating and rationing health care even further. When people start feeling the failure, some will scream for government to do even more, and the situation will accelerate toward a total collapse.
This belief, that government should get involved anytime someone sees a problem, creates even bigger problems; ones more meddling can't solve.
Government, if it is to exist at all, must stay within its limits. If it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution as something government is allowed to do, then it is a crime for government to do it, regardless of how many believe it's a good idea. A more permissive view would still limit government to protecting the life, liberty, and property of those who consent to its control. Government meddling does none of those.
Government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with space exploration, health care, education, travel, or even something as simple as pets.
When people decided government needed to "do something" about pets we ended up with animal control ordinances and animal shelters. For government extremists it wasn't good enough to let private individuals approach the problem-- if there was a problem. Force was used, and this coercive system is failing again.
Governments don't understand economics. When you raise the price of anything, especially if you charge for mandatory features people may not want, you reduce the demand for it. Yet they seem surprised at the decrease in the number of adoptions.
There are always consequences for letting government meddle. Government breaks everything it touches.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
If you want something done, do it without forcing your will on anyone else, and without forcing others to pay for what you want. Good ideas don't require force.
After the recent SpaceX rocket explosion, I saw someone arguing that this was why space exploration should be left to governments, thus financed with taxation. After all, the apparent cause of the blast was something NASA solved fifty years ago.
While this may be true, you'll also notice tax-financed space exploration stagnated decades ago. Long before commercial rockets became a reality.
If you want space exploration to get anywhere, you need people trying new things and taking new risks; innovating, not just copying solutions found long ago.
Even when government does innovate it's as likely to make things worse as to make them better.
Government got involved and started regulating and de facto rationing health care over a century ago. This increased the cost of health care, which caused some to demand government "do something". Government did, and now we have ObamaCare regulating and rationing health care even further. When people start feeling the failure, some will scream for government to do even more, and the situation will accelerate toward a total collapse.
This belief, that government should get involved anytime someone sees a problem, creates even bigger problems; ones more meddling can't solve.
Government, if it is to exist at all, must stay within its limits. If it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution as something government is allowed to do, then it is a crime for government to do it, regardless of how many believe it's a good idea. A more permissive view would still limit government to protecting the life, liberty, and property of those who consent to its control. Government meddling does none of those.
Government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with space exploration, health care, education, travel, or even something as simple as pets.
When people decided government needed to "do something" about pets we ended up with animal control ordinances and animal shelters. For government extremists it wasn't good enough to let private individuals approach the problem-- if there was a problem. Force was used, and this coercive system is failing again.
Governments don't understand economics. When you raise the price of anything, especially if you charge for mandatory features people may not want, you reduce the demand for it. Yet they seem surprised at the decrease in the number of adoptions.
There are always consequences for letting government meddle. Government breaks everything it touches.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
Cops and politicians- parasites?
Are cops and politicians really parasites? After all, they do "give back" in exchange for what they take. That makes some people disagree with the assertion that they are parasites.
But what they give back is harmful and unwanted (at least I don't want it). They give back rules and aggression in exchange for the liberty and property they take. Is that a good trade? Hardly.
I can't steal $100 from you, then give you a Twinkie (or a bruise on your head) and call it even. Consent has to be part of the equation. It's the most important part. Without consent, any act is a violation.
The cops and politicians could even give back more than they take, but when there is no consent in the taking, they are a parasite.
It's not OK for me to take your pizza and give you my car, if you don't agree to the trade. Maybe you have no use for a car, and are starving to death. I can't claim you should be happy with the trade, so you should just shut up. Or, I can't without looking like a thug. And this is what cops and politicians do. It is what they are.
Without consent, their taking- even if they imagine they give something up in return- is theft. They are parasites on society, because they are parasites on some individuals. Maybe not on you, but they are parasites feeding on me without my consent, and one person is enough to prove the claim.
Cops and politicians ARE parasites.
But what they give back is harmful and unwanted (at least I don't want it). They give back rules and aggression in exchange for the liberty and property they take. Is that a good trade? Hardly.
I can't steal $100 from you, then give you a Twinkie (or a bruise on your head) and call it even. Consent has to be part of the equation. It's the most important part. Without consent, any act is a violation.
The cops and politicians could even give back more than they take, but when there is no consent in the taking, they are a parasite.
It's not OK for me to take your pizza and give you my car, if you don't agree to the trade. Maybe you have no use for a car, and are starving to death. I can't claim you should be happy with the trade, so you should just shut up. Or, I can't without looking like a thug. And this is what cops and politicians do. It is what they are.
Without consent, their taking- even if they imagine they give something up in return- is theft. They are parasites on society, because they are parasites on some individuals. Maybe not on you, but they are parasites feeding on me without my consent, and one person is enough to prove the claim.
Cops and politicians ARE parasites.
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
It's your right, but is it a good idea?
Just because it isn't a good idea to exercise a right, does that mean you don't have the right to do it? No.
This usually comes up with regards to "bearing arms". You have the right to carry a full-auto AK-47 openly down the streets of NYC, and into a courthouse. And you would be murdered by government employees for doing so. I would argue this makes it not a good idea. But it is still within your rights.
This follows along with the right to commit suicide. Usually, I think suicide is not a good idea. But you have that right and no one can take it from you. And, I am sure other examples could be found everywhere, if one looked.
It's not always smart to do everything you have an absolute human right to do. Not in every situation.
Why do people get confused over this?
Know what you have a right to do.
Stay within those rights.
Weigh the costs.
Be aware of circumstances.
Be smart.
Accept responsibility for your actions.
This usually comes up with regards to "bearing arms". You have the right to carry a full-auto AK-47 openly down the streets of NYC, and into a courthouse. And you would be murdered by government employees for doing so. I would argue this makes it not a good idea. But it is still within your rights.
This follows along with the right to commit suicide. Usually, I think suicide is not a good idea. But you have that right and no one can take it from you. And, I am sure other examples could be found everywhere, if one looked.
It's not always smart to do everything you have an absolute human right to do. Not in every situation.
Why do people get confused over this?
Know what you have a right to do.
Stay within those rights.
Weigh the costs.
Be aware of circumstances.
Be smart.
Accept responsibility for your actions.
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Those who "believe in obeying the law"
A while back the newspaper editor posted a link to the story about how more people were caged for "marijuana offenses" than for all violent crimes combined.
Of course, some copsuckers had to pipe up to tell us why we should just obey the opinions of evil people ("laws").
It is a very good illustration of the sick mindset of statists. It's actually an argument in favor of Anonymous' "Kill 'em all" comments, even though I hate to admit it, and I won't do that even if I could.
Anyway, here is a sampling of the comments from one of the law lovers regarding Cannabis prohibition:
Like running away from the slave plantation? If you let "law" dictate your ethics or morals, you have none.
Driving down Main St. at 90 MPH might be wrong if there are other people present, and if you present a credible threat to them or their property. But there is nothing inherently wrong with it just because someone made up an arbitrary "speed limit"
Stealing from a store is a violation of property rights. That makes it wrong. It would still be wrong even if legislation said it was OK- as with "taxation", for example.
So, you think slaves should just have waited until the "laws" were changed, and they were wrong when they tried to escape? If you believe in obeying the "law", without qualification, you are a fool and a moral cripple. Good people can't "just believe in obeying the law", but delusional State worshipers can. And do.
Actually, you do get to choose which "laws" to obey, just like the BadgeScum choose which "laws" to enforce against whom. If a "law" mandates you to do the wrong thing, or prohibits you doing the right thing, and you have ethics and principles, you will not obey that "law"- at least as long as you can break the "law" without being shot or kidnapped right now. I choose which "laws" to obey all the time.
And most people (well, smart people anyway) did negotiate with their parents regarding the rules. And they may even get some of the arbitrary or harmful rules eliminated through negotiation. I would rather my daughter be able to think for herself, and make a good argument against bad rules, than just be obedient. And I let her know that. Does it make parenting harder? Yep. Too bad for me- it will turn her into a much better person than demanding obedience ever could. Obedience is for slaves.
When the rules are harmful, only sociopaths enforce them, and only cowards willingly obey them. If you go downhill, either because you "broke the rules" or for any other reason, it's your own fault. Ask for help, and if you haven't been a jerk, help may be offered.
Society is NOT the same as government. Government's rules are often very different from society's rules. Society's rules have evolved over time, government's rules have been dreamed up by insane bullies and imposed by force. Often, government's rules oppose society's rules, to the detriment of society.
Yes, if your tail light is broken, get it fixed. You'll probably be safer, and I would appreciate your courtesy. I'll even let you know if I see it broken without using that as an excuse to steal from you, waylay you, or violate your privacy. Only a really nasty bully would see a broken tail light and use it as a pretext for those violations. And, yes, cops are just that sort of nasty bullies.
And there you have it. This is why "we can't have nice things". Because evil idiots like this guy believe they are the "voice of reason" when they advocate unreasonable things. When they excuse the inexcusable.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Of course, some copsuckers had to pipe up to tell us why we should just obey the opinions of evil people ("laws").
It is a very good illustration of the sick mindset of statists. It's actually an argument in favor of Anonymous' "Kill 'em all" comments, even though I hate to admit it, and I won't do that even if I could.
Anyway, here is a sampling of the comments from one of the law lovers regarding Cannabis prohibition:
"Last I knew it's still against the law."
Like running away from the slave plantation? If you let "law" dictate your ethics or morals, you have none.
"Not going to argue the point. You don't drive down main st. At 90 mph or steal from Wal Mart. Legalization is only a few years away but they can't wait. It's just a misdemeanor and unless they're carrying weight no jail time. I just believe in obeying the law."
Driving down Main St. at 90 MPH might be wrong if there are other people present, and if you present a credible threat to them or their property. But there is nothing inherently wrong with it just because someone made up an arbitrary "speed limit"
Stealing from a store is a violation of property rights. That makes it wrong. It would still be wrong even if legislation said it was OK- as with "taxation", for example.
So, you think slaves should just have waited until the "laws" were changed, and they were wrong when they tried to escape? If you believe in obeying the "law", without qualification, you are a fool and a moral cripple. Good people can't "just believe in obeying the law", but delusional State worshipers can. And do.
"My point is we don't get to chose which laws we will obey or disobey. I'm sure you didn't negotiate with your kids or your parents on their rules."
Actually, you do get to choose which "laws" to obey, just like the BadgeScum choose which "laws" to enforce against whom. If a "law" mandates you to do the wrong thing, or prohibits you doing the right thing, and you have ethics and principles, you will not obey that "law"- at least as long as you can break the "law" without being shot or kidnapped right now. I choose which "laws" to obey all the time.
And most people (well, smart people anyway) did negotiate with their parents regarding the rules. And they may even get some of the arbitrary or harmful rules eliminated through negotiation. I would rather my daughter be able to think for herself, and make a good argument against bad rules, than just be obedient. And I let her know that. Does it make parenting harder? Yep. Too bad for me- it will turn her into a much better person than demanding obedience ever could. Obedience is for slaves.
"It all has to do with sociopathic behavior. I don't need to play by the rules so when I go downhill it's somebody else fault. Play by society's rules. If your tailight is out. Get it fixed!"
When the rules are harmful, only sociopaths enforce them, and only cowards willingly obey them. If you go downhill, either because you "broke the rules" or for any other reason, it's your own fault. Ask for help, and if you haven't been a jerk, help may be offered.
Society is NOT the same as government. Government's rules are often very different from society's rules. Society's rules have evolved over time, government's rules have been dreamed up by insane bullies and imposed by force. Often, government's rules oppose society's rules, to the detriment of society.
Yes, if your tail light is broken, get it fixed. You'll probably be safer, and I would appreciate your courtesy. I'll even let you know if I see it broken without using that as an excuse to steal from you, waylay you, or violate your privacy. Only a really nasty bully would see a broken tail light and use it as a pretext for those violations. And, yes, cops are just that sort of nasty bullies.
And there you have it. This is why "we can't have nice things". Because evil idiots like this guy believe they are the "voice of reason" when they advocate unreasonable things. When they excuse the inexcusable.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Bad words!
Here's something I end up telling my 9 year-old daughter frequently: There are no such things as "bad words"; there are only words that upset some people when they are spoken.
Or written.
And, yet, words which represent true evil aren't usually included in that list by most people.
Words like "government", "police", "laws", "State", "arrest", "vote", and things of that nature are actually much worse than the words most people get upset over and call "profanity" or "obscenity". They represent the mainstream acceptance of truly evil acts. Acts of archation.
I apologize for the foul language used above. You'll live.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Or written.
And, yet, words which represent true evil aren't usually included in that list by most people.
Words like "government", "police", "laws", "State", "arrest", "vote", and things of that nature are actually much worse than the words most people get upset over and call "profanity" or "obscenity". They represent the mainstream acceptance of truly evil acts. Acts of archation.
I apologize for the foul language used above. You'll live.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
"Never discuss politics or religion"
Here's a secret: I don't like discussing politics or religion with people face to face, in real life.
It makes me very uncomfortable. Almost to the point of panic. Especially when it comes at me out of nowhere. I am almost never the one to bring up such subjects in real life. I just don't do it.
Yet, so many people want to discuss these things with me. They know I have an opinion- and generally even know what it is. But they don't want to learn- they just want to hear me talk about it so they can disagree.
Sometimes I just refuse to talk about it. Sometimes I'm caught off-guard and start talking before I realize what has happened. Then the "fight or flight" kicks in as soon as I realize where the conversation has gone. Probably not a good thing at all.
If there were going to be a good, honest discussion, it would be one thing. But it's not. It's always an attempt to trip me up (doesn't happen); to fling questions at me in rapid succession so I don't have a chance to answer one before 2 more have been tossed out (almost always), or find the areas where I have no simple answers (happens a lot).
In those type of "discussions", there can be no communication.
Yes, these are topics of critical importance. The quality of life- sometimes life itself- depends on getting the answers right. Carefully and thoughtfully. But, people are going to believe what they believe. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind under those circumstances.
I suppose it's the danger of being known as outspoken and opinionated.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
It makes me very uncomfortable. Almost to the point of panic. Especially when it comes at me out of nowhere. I am almost never the one to bring up such subjects in real life. I just don't do it.
Yet, so many people want to discuss these things with me. They know I have an opinion- and generally even know what it is. But they don't want to learn- they just want to hear me talk about it so they can disagree.
Sometimes I just refuse to talk about it. Sometimes I'm caught off-guard and start talking before I realize what has happened. Then the "fight or flight" kicks in as soon as I realize where the conversation has gone. Probably not a good thing at all.
If there were going to be a good, honest discussion, it would be one thing. But it's not. It's always an attempt to trip me up (doesn't happen); to fling questions at me in rapid succession so I don't have a chance to answer one before 2 more have been tossed out (almost always), or find the areas where I have no simple answers (happens a lot).
In those type of "discussions", there can be no communication.
Yes, these are topics of critical importance. The quality of life- sometimes life itself- depends on getting the answers right. Carefully and thoughtfully. But, people are going to believe what they believe. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind under those circumstances.
I suppose it's the danger of being known as outspoken and opinionated.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Monday, October 17, 2016
Government is slavery
It was near the beginning of my online life that I realized I am an abolitionist. Slavery is the ultimate anti-liberty. While no person can actually own another, the pretense that they can has been the justification for all sorts of evil throughout human history.
Most people don't seem to realize that slavery is still a big problem- and not just the kind that comes to mind when they think of the word "slavery"- but forms of slavery they they may not recognize and may even support.
Government- The State- is slavery in every sense of the word.
If you are forbidden to do what you have a right to do, you are being enslaved. If someone claims to have a right to tell you where you can live, what you are allowed to put into your bloodstream, how to use your property, can take your property from you against your will, and says they can forbid your right to own and to carry tools, they are trying to enslave you. If they kidnap and cage you for doing what you have a right to do, the slavery has gone from the abstract to the concrete.
How much you allow them to succeed is up to you.
In one sense, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
On the other hand, you must pick your battles. You are no good to anyone if you are dead.
And I can't make that choice for you. No one can. Because you are not a slave, no matter how many want to enslave you, as long as you take responsibility for your own choices.
As long as you do that, I am proud of you.
Be pro-liberty. Be an abolitionist. Be the anti-slave.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Most people don't seem to realize that slavery is still a big problem- and not just the kind that comes to mind when they think of the word "slavery"- but forms of slavery they they may not recognize and may even support.
Government- The State- is slavery in every sense of the word.
If you are forbidden to do what you have a right to do, you are being enslaved. If someone claims to have a right to tell you where you can live, what you are allowed to put into your bloodstream, how to use your property, can take your property from you against your will, and says they can forbid your right to own and to carry tools, they are trying to enslave you. If they kidnap and cage you for doing what you have a right to do, the slavery has gone from the abstract to the concrete.
How much you allow them to succeed is up to you.
In one sense, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
On the other hand, you must pick your battles. You are no good to anyone if you are dead.
And I can't make that choice for you. No one can. Because you are not a slave, no matter how many want to enslave you, as long as you take responsibility for your own choices.
As long as you do that, I am proud of you.
Be pro-liberty. Be an abolitionist. Be the anti-slave.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Liberty, anarchy go hand in hand
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 16, 2016)
Libertarians advocate best government (my chosen headline)
What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
Libertarians advocate liberty. Specifically, maximum liberty and minimum government, because the two are inversely related. The more of one you have, the less you have of the other. What's the minimum level of government you can impose on others?
"That government is best which governs least" wrote Henry David Thoreau. The best government is zero government.
In the Tao Te Ching, written around 2,600 years ago, Lao Tzu observed "When the government is quite unobtrusive, people are indeed pure. When the government is quite prying, people are indeed conniving." Unfortunately that's what it takes to survive being governed. Government breeds distrust and dishonesty.
There can't be "too much liberty" because liberty, being the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate others, is self-regulating. If an act violates someone, it's not liberty.
Anarchy isn't about chaos, "Mad Max", or "kill or be killed". Those popular misconceptions come from people taught in schools controlled by the state, which has an interest in promoting fear and ignorance concerning a lack of government.
Anarchy isn't a rejection of rules, but of people who rule. You govern yourself, without imposing control on anyone else. The buck stops with you. You are responsible for your own choices; there is no one else to blame.
Anarchy isn't about throwing bombs and growing bushy beards. It isn't against free enterprise. It most certainly isn't socialism or communism- although those groups sometimes misuse the label for propaganda.
Libertarians who don't eventually become anarchists fail to mature. They are ignoring inconsistencies in order to avoid discomfort. They seem to be trying to justify the government functions they support by pretending those aren't based on theft and aggression.
Anyone who carefully considers what liberty means, without making excuses, will eventually see there can be no such thing as a good government, and that evil is never necessary. He may not want to call himself an anarchist, but labels are only words. What matters is what you do, not what you call yourself.
As long as you don't use violence against the non-violent, you respect the property of others, and don't make excuses for people who refuse to follow these non-negotiable rules of society, you are on the right side.
Besides, hasn't this presidential election shown you the folly in seeking political answers to anything?
So, what's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About six months. Or so the joke goes.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
Libertarians advocate best government (my chosen headline)
What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
Libertarians advocate liberty. Specifically, maximum liberty and minimum government, because the two are inversely related. The more of one you have, the less you have of the other. What's the minimum level of government you can impose on others?
"That government is best which governs least" wrote Henry David Thoreau. The best government is zero government.
In the Tao Te Ching, written around 2,600 years ago, Lao Tzu observed "When the government is quite unobtrusive, people are indeed pure. When the government is quite prying, people are indeed conniving." Unfortunately that's what it takes to survive being governed. Government breeds distrust and dishonesty.
There can't be "too much liberty" because liberty, being the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate others, is self-regulating. If an act violates someone, it's not liberty.
Anarchy isn't about chaos, "Mad Max", or "kill or be killed". Those popular misconceptions come from people taught in schools controlled by the state, which has an interest in promoting fear and ignorance concerning a lack of government.
Anarchy isn't a rejection of rules, but of people who rule. You govern yourself, without imposing control on anyone else. The buck stops with you. You are responsible for your own choices; there is no one else to blame.
Anarchy isn't about throwing bombs and growing bushy beards. It isn't against free enterprise. It most certainly isn't socialism or communism- although those groups sometimes misuse the label for propaganda.
Libertarians who don't eventually become anarchists fail to mature. They are ignoring inconsistencies in order to avoid discomfort. They seem to be trying to justify the government functions they support by pretending those aren't based on theft and aggression.
Anyone who carefully considers what liberty means, without making excuses, will eventually see there can be no such thing as a good government, and that evil is never necessary. He may not want to call himself an anarchist, but labels are only words. What matters is what you do, not what you call yourself.
As long as you don't use violence against the non-violent, you respect the property of others, and don't make excuses for people who refuse to follow these non-negotiable rules of society, you are on the right side.
Besides, hasn't this presidential election shown you the folly in seeking political answers to anything?
So, what's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About six months. Or so the joke goes.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
Do you have the right to defend yourself violently?
If you don't have the right to defend your life, liberty, and property, with violence, from ALL who threaten or violate them, government employees included, you have no rights at all.
Yet, there are those who seriously say you have no right to use violence against aggressors, because doing so violates their right to life.
Those who make that claim are wrong.
And, no, it isn't that aggressors "give up" their right to not have violence used against them when they choose to archate- it's that they had no right to do so, and by choosing to do so they violated you, and you have the right to defend yourself. With violence if necessary. They made the choice; they can deal with the consequences.
So, yes, you have the absolute human right to defend yourself- with deadly force if necessary- against violators. Regardless of whether they work for the State or not, and regardless if those who work for the State are "just doing their job". If their "job" is a violation, they are no different from any other violator, and should expect to be treated any different. If they don't like that, they should quit and find an honest job.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Yet, there are those who seriously say you have no right to use violence against aggressors, because doing so violates their right to life.
Those who make that claim are wrong.
And, no, it isn't that aggressors "give up" their right to not have violence used against them when they choose to archate- it's that they had no right to do so, and by choosing to do so they violated you, and you have the right to defend yourself. With violence if necessary. They made the choice; they can deal with the consequences.
So, yes, you have the absolute human right to defend yourself- with deadly force if necessary- against violators. Regardless of whether they work for the State or not, and regardless if those who work for the State are "just doing their job". If their "job" is a violation, they are no different from any other violator, and should expect to be treated any different. If they don't like that, they should quit and find an honest job.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
The value of liberty (PINNED)
... and of those working to promote it the best we know how.
Even though my subscriptions are down by $55 from last year, I have been scraping by. That is due to donations which often come in the nick of time. Mostly, it works. Which amazes me.
I love my donors.
I also love my subscribers.
I would really appreciate a few more of both. Or either.
I know these begging posts are annoying- they annoy me, too. I can't expect each reader to subscribe to the order of $100 per month, or many one-time donations that knock my socks off (and I don't expect either), but whatever you can do, if you consider this blog to be of value (and if you can afford it) is greatly appreciated.
Either way, know that I value each and every reader (yes, even you) whether you've ever subscribed or donated or not, and I hope you are getting something of worth each time you show up to read a post. Well, all the real posts, anyway. And I sincerely thank you.
Enjoy watching the train wreck called "politics", if you're into such things. Creepy clowns, indeed.
And if other liberty ideas are more important to you, I welcome your advice on topics you'd like me to explore from my perspective.
Have a great day!
.
Even though my subscriptions are down by $55 from last year, I have been scraping by. That is due to donations which often come in the nick of time. Mostly, it works. Which amazes me.
I love my donors.
I also love my subscribers.
I would really appreciate a few more of both. Or either.
I know these begging posts are annoying- they annoy me, too. I can't expect each reader to subscribe to the order of $100 per month, or many one-time donations that knock my socks off (and I don't expect either), but whatever you can do, if you consider this blog to be of value (and if you can afford it) is greatly appreciated.
Either way, know that I value each and every reader (yes, even you) whether you've ever subscribed or donated or not, and I hope you are getting something of worth each time you show up to read a post. Well, all the real posts, anyway. And I sincerely thank you.
Enjoy watching the train wreck called "politics", if you're into such things. Creepy clowns, indeed.
And if other liberty ideas are more important to you, I welcome your advice on topics you'd like me to explore from my perspective.
Have a great day!
.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
From the Extraordinary Claims Department
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim, not with those who scoff at the claim..
Such as the claim that government employees should be allowed to kill people as long as it is called "capital punishment" or "war".
It doesn't matter that governments have been doing both-- and getting away with it-- for thousands of years and few have stood up to say it's wrong. It is still an extraordinary claim.
I can't accept this claim without extraordinary evidence in its favor. And I have yet to see any evidence, extraordinary or not. Lots of claims and emotions and name-calling; religious and statist claims, but nothing more. That won't cut it for me.
My thought on the issue of capital punishment remains the same-- it is murder motivated by revenge. It is a primitive, superstitious cleansing ritual. It taints everyone involved-- no one comes out the good guy. When you hand government the power to kill, there is nothing left to hand it. You have accepted total State domination. It is wrong. Just because you approve of some of the murders doesn't change it.
The ONLY ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge. I understand the lust for revenge in some cases, but I also know it's wrong.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim, not with those who scoff at the claim..
Such as the claim that government employees should be allowed to kill people as long as it is called "capital punishment" or "war".
It doesn't matter that governments have been doing both-- and getting away with it-- for thousands of years and few have stood up to say it's wrong. It is still an extraordinary claim.
I can't accept this claim without extraordinary evidence in its favor. And I have yet to see any evidence, extraordinary or not. Lots of claims and emotions and name-calling; religious and statist claims, but nothing more. That won't cut it for me.
My thought on the issue of capital punishment remains the same-- it is murder motivated by revenge. It is a primitive, superstitious cleansing ritual. It taints everyone involved-- no one comes out the good guy. When you hand government the power to kill, there is nothing left to hand it. You have accepted total State domination. It is wrong. Just because you approve of some of the murders doesn't change it.
The ONLY ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge. I understand the lust for revenge in some cases, but I also know it's wrong.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
Friday, October 14, 2016
I come not to praise democracy...
I'm always seeing these embarrassing videos praising democracy and telling people why they should v*te.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
What a crock of male Bos taurus fecal matter.
Here's one example, and my response to it.
Video link
Sayu, you are badly off-course. Democracy isn't something to strengthen or promote. There is no good in it. It is mob rule. (As is a republic, which will always evolve into a democracy anyway. Before someone gets their constitutional panties in a wad. Both are just mob rule- "majority makes right" is wrong.)
Governing yourself is a good idea. Even necessary. Governing your neighbor? Well, that just makes you a thug- whether you do it personally, or v*te to have someone do it on your behalf.
Publicly praising democracy is the same as publicly praising other forms of theft, rape, kidnapping, and murder. Don't do it- and if you insist on doing it anyway, own it. Accept what you are praising and promoting. Understand why this makes you a bad guy. Understand that your condemnation of your critics is as empty as the protests of any other bully when people stand up and refuse to pretend you have some imaginary "right" to bully them.
Calling what politicians do "public service" is a lie. A nasty one which harms the innocent.
It doesn't matter what "race" or gender a politician is, or where it was born or hatched- NO ONE has the right to violate another using the excuse of governing.
A good politician (if such a thing were possible) wouldn't advocate for (or against) anyone based on "race" or gender or anything else, because all humans have equal and identical rights. It wouldn't matter who or what that politician is.
If you violate one person, you are violating everyone. If you leave everyone to live their life as they see fit (free of archation on their part), and free to defend their life, liberty, and property from those who violate them, it doesn't matter who you are. Just like it doesn't matter who you are if you violate others.
It doesn't matter who is governing- it matters that you allow governing to happen right in front of you. That's wrong.
You do get one thing right though: You admit that politics is about fear and taking things away from others. And yet, you want to promote more of this. Sayu, politics makes people stupid. Looks like you are suffering from exposure and you need to find a cure. Or, at least take that first step. You can't even know the meaning of liberty or freedom until you turn away from politics. I hope it's not too late for you.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.Video link
Sayu, you are badly off-course. Democracy isn't something to strengthen or promote. There is no good in it. It is mob rule. (As is a republic, which will always evolve into a democracy anyway. Before someone gets their constitutional panties in a wad. Both are just mob rule- "majority makes right" is wrong.)
Governing yourself is a good idea. Even necessary. Governing your neighbor? Well, that just makes you a thug- whether you do it personally, or v*te to have someone do it on your behalf.
Publicly praising democracy is the same as publicly praising other forms of theft, rape, kidnapping, and murder. Don't do it- and if you insist on doing it anyway, own it. Accept what you are praising and promoting. Understand why this makes you a bad guy. Understand that your condemnation of your critics is as empty as the protests of any other bully when people stand up and refuse to pretend you have some imaginary "right" to bully them.
Calling what politicians do "public service" is a lie. A nasty one which harms the innocent.
It doesn't matter what "race" or gender a politician is, or where it was born or hatched- NO ONE has the right to violate another using the excuse of governing.
A good politician (if such a thing were possible) wouldn't advocate for (or against) anyone based on "race" or gender or anything else, because all humans have equal and identical rights. It wouldn't matter who or what that politician is.
If you violate one person, you are violating everyone. If you leave everyone to live their life as they see fit (free of archation on their part), and free to defend their life, liberty, and property from those who violate them, it doesn't matter who you are. Just like it doesn't matter who you are if you violate others.
It doesn't matter who is governing- it matters that you allow governing to happen right in front of you. That's wrong.
You do get one thing right though: You admit that politics is about fear and taking things away from others. And yet, you want to promote more of this. Sayu, politics makes people stupid. Looks like you are suffering from exposure and you need to find a cure. Or, at least take that first step. You can't even know the meaning of liberty or freedom until you turn away from politics. I hope it's not too late for you.
-
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Thursday, October 13, 2016
What are people worth?
In politics, one's worth is almost entirely subjective.
Sure, all humans have a baseline "worth" simply because they are humans. From that level ground, they either add to their worth during their lifetime by being kind, helpful, or productive, or they subtract from their worth by being aggressive, unpleasant, or parasitic.
Since politicians are some mix of both- with the unshakable reality of aggression and parasitism attached by definition to the poor choice of being a politician- they have to appear to lean heavily toward the positive human traits to break even. Very few manage it even for a short time. Think Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi as prime examples of those who gave up even trying to appear pleasant. Or even human.
Someone is not worth more due to being president, a congressvermin, or any other political position. In fact, by my estimation, the very best possible outcome for a politician's worth is that he'll be as worthwhile as any random person you might encounter on the street. That's just hypothetical, of course, since the reality is none have even approached that level.
But, for those blinded by the star-power of politicians, they imagine them to be of a higher class than the rest of us. "Worth more". It's a silly opinion, but it's what they believe. You aren't going to reason them out of their delusions.
Your worth is also subjective to a politician. What can they get from you and how can you be used? Beyond that, you are nothing to them, no matter how they act to your face.
(Steemit link for those of you who "do Steemit" and would like to help out without actually donating or subscribing.)
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Sure, all humans have a baseline "worth" simply because they are humans. From that level ground, they either add to their worth during their lifetime by being kind, helpful, or productive, or they subtract from their worth by being aggressive, unpleasant, or parasitic.
Since politicians are some mix of both- with the unshakable reality of aggression and parasitism attached by definition to the poor choice of being a politician- they have to appear to lean heavily toward the positive human traits to break even. Very few manage it even for a short time. Think Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi as prime examples of those who gave up even trying to appear pleasant. Or even human.
Someone is not worth more due to being president, a congressvermin, or any other political position. In fact, by my estimation, the very best possible outcome for a politician's worth is that he'll be as worthwhile as any random person you might encounter on the street. That's just hypothetical, of course, since the reality is none have even approached that level.
But, for those blinded by the star-power of politicians, they imagine them to be of a higher class than the rest of us. "Worth more". It's a silly opinion, but it's what they believe. You aren't going to reason them out of their delusions.
Your worth is also subjective to a politician. What can they get from you and how can you be used? Beyond that, you are nothing to them, no matter how they act to your face.
-
(Steemit link for those of you who "do Steemit" and would like to help out without actually donating or subscribing.)
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
 |
| When "Don't tread on me" just isn't enough |
(Steemit link)
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Prohibition dangerous as addiction
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 9, 2016)
Prohibition is drug abuse (my chosen headline- I didn't even try to come up with something they'd use this week)
Drugs can make people crazy. For proof, just look what drugs have done to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.
His craziness apparently doesn't come from taking drugs, but from his murderous lust to prohibit them. Like so many prohibitionists in the US.
He's a perfect role model for supporters of the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Particularly for those who have the political power to continue to impose prohibition on society.
People who support prohibition are some of the most dangerous drug abusers out there. They abuse the excuse that some people will use drugs, some of those who use drugs will abuse them, some of those who abuse them will become addicted, and some of those who become addicted will be harmed to find justification for harming everyone; drug abuser or not. In fact, the drug war has been used as a model for the equally perverted war against gun owners. This chain of linked excuses can be used to violate any liberty you have.
Drug abuse is dumb, but prohibition is evil. Prohibition never has the effect its pushers claim, but instead adds crime and corrupt law enforcement to the list of harm the drugs may do, without preventing the harm done by drugs.
Most of the harm claimed to result from drug abuse-- legal trouble, loss of jobs and social standing-- can be traced more to the effects of prohibition than to the drugs themselves. And prohibitionists are OK with that-- anything to punish drug users. To prohibitionists, it's worth any collateral damage.
Those who advocate prohibition are effectively saying "Drugs are bad for you, and to prove it we will destroy your life, and maybe kill you, if we suspect you possess drugs". It's one of the craziest acts ever committed in the name of "for your own good".
Prohibitionists are on the wrong side of morality, and on the losing side of history. One day their crusade will look as backward and evil as the acts of those who supported the runaway slave acts. On that day those who enforce prohibition will be seen in the same light as those who captured and returned-- or killed-- runaway slaves in the name of "enforcing the law". In fact, growing numbers of us already see them this way.
Some of us also see them as absolutely crazy, like President Duterte, and hope they come to their senses before they do more damage.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
Prohibition is drug abuse (my chosen headline- I didn't even try to come up with something they'd use this week)
Drugs can make people crazy. For proof, just look what drugs have done to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.
His craziness apparently doesn't come from taking drugs, but from his murderous lust to prohibit them. Like so many prohibitionists in the US.
He's a perfect role model for supporters of the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Particularly for those who have the political power to continue to impose prohibition on society.
People who support prohibition are some of the most dangerous drug abusers out there. They abuse the excuse that some people will use drugs, some of those who use drugs will abuse them, some of those who abuse them will become addicted, and some of those who become addicted will be harmed to find justification for harming everyone; drug abuser or not. In fact, the drug war has been used as a model for the equally perverted war against gun owners. This chain of linked excuses can be used to violate any liberty you have.
Drug abuse is dumb, but prohibition is evil. Prohibition never has the effect its pushers claim, but instead adds crime and corrupt law enforcement to the list of harm the drugs may do, without preventing the harm done by drugs.
Most of the harm claimed to result from drug abuse-- legal trouble, loss of jobs and social standing-- can be traced more to the effects of prohibition than to the drugs themselves. And prohibitionists are OK with that-- anything to punish drug users. To prohibitionists, it's worth any collateral damage.
Those who advocate prohibition are effectively saying "Drugs are bad for you, and to prove it we will destroy your life, and maybe kill you, if we suspect you possess drugs". It's one of the craziest acts ever committed in the name of "for your own good".
Prohibitionists are on the wrong side of morality, and on the losing side of history. One day their crusade will look as backward and evil as the acts of those who supported the runaway slave acts. On that day those who enforce prohibition will be seen in the same light as those who captured and returned-- or killed-- runaway slaves in the name of "enforcing the law". In fact, growing numbers of us already see them this way.
Some of us also see them as absolutely crazy, like President Duterte, and hope they come to their senses before they do more damage.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
Rule yourself
There are those who prefer the idea of autarchy over anarchy. I believe they are basically the same thing- if you have no king, then you rule yourself... which means you are your own king.
The only "problem" with the word "anarchy" is that bad guys have used the word to describe their non-anarchist acts, and other bad guys embraced and spread the misinformation. Not much you can do about that, besides use the word correctly when you use it.
Maybe the word "autarchy" has less baggage (not none), but if it started being talked about, it would gather baggage very quickly. I don't really see much point in abandoning a word you like to use due to baggage. But, whatever.
None of that changes the basic fact: You are the rightful king of your own life- including of your liberty and property. No one else has a higher claim on it, and if they try to act as if they do, they are the bad guys. It doesn't matter if they call themselves "the police" or the mayor, or anything else. No one else has a legitimate claim on your life, liberty, or property unless it is due to a debt you took on. You can't take on a debt by being born in a particular place, or by a gang coming together to assign a debt to you.
Those who believe they can create a debt for you to owe, against your will, or without you archating, are liars. Don't fall for their lies.
If you let someone rule you, they are probably going to violate you in some way, and they will definitely have you violating someone on their behalf- even if it is just through your silence in the face of the evil they do to others.
Anarchist, Voluntaryist, abolitionist, autarchist, libertarian... whatever you call yourself doesn't really matter, as long as you don't archate, and don't support or excuse those who do. You are your own king. Be a good one.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
 |
| Get your own crown |
The only "problem" with the word "anarchy" is that bad guys have used the word to describe their non-anarchist acts, and other bad guys embraced and spread the misinformation. Not much you can do about that, besides use the word correctly when you use it.
Maybe the word "autarchy" has less baggage (not none), but if it started being talked about, it would gather baggage very quickly. I don't really see much point in abandoning a word you like to use due to baggage. But, whatever.
None of that changes the basic fact: You are the rightful king of your own life- including of your liberty and property. No one else has a higher claim on it, and if they try to act as if they do, they are the bad guys. It doesn't matter if they call themselves "the police" or the mayor, or anything else. No one else has a legitimate claim on your life, liberty, or property unless it is due to a debt you took on. You can't take on a debt by being born in a particular place, or by a gang coming together to assign a debt to you.
Those who believe they can create a debt for you to owe, against your will, or without you archating, are liars. Don't fall for their lies.
If you let someone rule you, they are probably going to violate you in some way, and they will definitely have you violating someone on their behalf- even if it is just through your silence in the face of the evil they do to others.
Anarchist, Voluntaryist, abolitionist, autarchist, libertarian... whatever you call yourself doesn't really matter, as long as you don't archate, and don't support or excuse those who do. You are your own king. Be a good one.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Monday, October 10, 2016
What do I know?
I prefer to only blog about what I know.
That's fairly easy because that's what I find myself being passionate about; what I want to write about.
Of course, there's always a chance that in my passion I am wrong- and if I am I hope you'll straighten me out (but you have to convince me with reason rather than with emotions or superstitions).
But, really, what chance is there that theft and aggression are better things to incorporate into your life than mutually consensual, voluntary interactions- and self defense against those who refuse to reject theft and aggression?
The rest of the stuff I'll either not talk about, or I'll tell you what I think, while letting you know I am not sure about it. That's why you don't see some subjects that other blogs dwell on here.
I hope that works for you.
(Steemit link, for those who are on Steemit. I sure could use some upvotes...)
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
That's fairly easy because that's what I find myself being passionate about; what I want to write about.
Of course, there's always a chance that in my passion I am wrong- and if I am I hope you'll straighten me out (but you have to convince me with reason rather than with emotions or superstitions).
But, really, what chance is there that theft and aggression are better things to incorporate into your life than mutually consensual, voluntary interactions- and self defense against those who refuse to reject theft and aggression?
The rest of the stuff I'll either not talk about, or I'll tell you what I think, while letting you know I am not sure about it. That's why you don't see some subjects that other blogs dwell on here.
I hope that works for you.
-
(Steemit link, for those who are on Steemit. I sure could use some upvotes...)
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
Sunday, October 09, 2016
Politics- bullying writ large
In the past I have referred to politics as an attempt to live among people you hate.
Now, I think I'd modify that somewhat and call it an attempt to force people you don't like or trust to do what you want, while avoiding seeing yourself as a bully.
But, if you use politics and v*ting (or anything else) to force your opinions on others, you are still a bully.
Yes, I realize "they" are doing the same to you. They are bullies, too.
I wish everyone would just leave me out of their childish, yet deadly, squabbles. Keep your filthy politics and evil government to yourself. Hands off my life and the lives of my kids.
Of course, this is easy for mature people to do, but almost impossible for DemoCRAPublicans to live with. For them, it's all about the politics. And that is really sad.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Now, I think I'd modify that somewhat and call it an attempt to force people you don't like or trust to do what you want, while avoiding seeing yourself as a bully.
But, if you use politics and v*ting (or anything else) to force your opinions on others, you are still a bully.
Yes, I realize "they" are doing the same to you. They are bullies, too.
I wish everyone would just leave me out of their childish, yet deadly, squabbles. Keep your filthy politics and evil government to yourself. Hands off my life and the lives of my kids.
Of course, this is easy for mature people to do, but almost impossible for DemoCRAPublicans to live with. For them, it's all about the politics. And that is really sad.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Saturday, October 08, 2016
Judgmental, but not controlling
For all my faults, I am not a controlling person.
I notice that things others do, things which don't bother me in the slightest, drive some people nearly insane. I look and try to figure out what the exact problem is, but all I see is "they are doing something I don't like!!"
As long as a person isn't archating, I'm going to be pretty much OK with whatever they do. (If they are archating, then it's my business because violating anyone violates everyone.) Sure, I might recognize that what they are doing isn't something I would do, and I might even consider it disgusting or immoral, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it.
But in most cases I see, it's nothing even that serious.
Whether it's a neighbor who hasn't mowed in ages (I can be guilty of that myself), or who has a lot of (what I see as) junk in his yard, or a house with "too many cars", or "possibly illegal" Mexicans living a couple houses down. Whatever.
I really see no reason to start trying to tell them how to live.
It strikes me as strange when others think any of those things are their business, and I see it as wrong when they sic the State on them in order to have their opinions forced on others.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
I notice that things others do, things which don't bother me in the slightest, drive some people nearly insane. I look and try to figure out what the exact problem is, but all I see is "they are doing something I don't like!!"
As long as a person isn't archating, I'm going to be pretty much OK with whatever they do. (If they are archating, then it's my business because violating anyone violates everyone.) Sure, I might recognize that what they are doing isn't something I would do, and I might even consider it disgusting or immoral, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it.
But in most cases I see, it's nothing even that serious.
Whether it's a neighbor who hasn't mowed in ages (I can be guilty of that myself), or who has a lot of (what I see as) junk in his yard, or a house with "too many cars", or "possibly illegal" Mexicans living a couple houses down. Whatever.
I really see no reason to start trying to tell them how to live.
It strikes me as strange when others think any of those things are their business, and I see it as wrong when they sic the State on them in order to have their opinions forced on others.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Friday, October 07, 2016
Trump's taxes, and everyone else's, too
I don't want Donald Trump to pay any taxes.
Nor do I want Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson to. I don't even want Bernie Frickin' Sanders to pay taxes.
I don't think churches should be taxed.
There is no such thing as "your taxes", no matter who you are.
For one thing, the word "tax" is a lie.
Taxation is theft, no matter who the target is, and I don't want a single, solitary cent going to fund government at any level. I'd rather my worst enemy keep all his money than to force him to give any of it to government.
If the money was collected dishonestly, give it back to the victims without giving a cut to The State. If giving it to the victims isn't possible, let him keep it. It's still better than letting the government get any of it.
Now, if anyone is so stupid as to want to send government his own money, I wouldn't stop him. Anyone can waste their money any way they want- even to the point of giving it to thugs who will hire bullies to try to molest me. I have the right to stop those bullies and those who sent them, obviously.
People who are in favor of taxes could easily send as much of their own money to the State as they want. But that's not what they really want. They want to force YOU and ME, at gunpoint, to send our money, too. That's evil.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
(Steemit link)
Nor do I want Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson to. I don't even want Bernie Frickin' Sanders to pay taxes.
I don't think churches should be taxed.
There is no such thing as "your taxes", no matter who you are.
For one thing, the word "tax" is a lie.
Taxation is theft, no matter who the target is, and I don't want a single, solitary cent going to fund government at any level. I'd rather my worst enemy keep all his money than to force him to give any of it to government.
If the money was collected dishonestly, give it back to the victims without giving a cut to The State. If giving it to the victims isn't possible, let him keep it. It's still better than letting the government get any of it.
Now, if anyone is so stupid as to want to send government his own money, I wouldn't stop him. Anyone can waste their money any way they want- even to the point of giving it to thugs who will hire bullies to try to molest me. I have the right to stop those bullies and those who sent them, obviously.
People who are in favor of taxes could easily send as much of their own money to the State as they want. But that's not what they really want. They want to force YOU and ME, at gunpoint, to send our money, too. That's evil.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
(Steemit link)
Thursday, October 06, 2016
Just get it DONE!
(Previously posted to Patreon)
But, maybe not quite the "it" you imagine.
I recently found a guy on Youtube who doesn't beat around the bush. Well, I mean, he does beat around The Bush, but in a very constructive way.
The guy does Stone Age living skills in Queensland, Australia and I am utterly in awe of his skills. He makes me feel like an absolute amateur.
I mean, he does some of the same things I can do, but he does them more "naturally". Like he's not even trying- but I realize that's not the case, it is just how it looks to someone who hasn't got his skills. But, having barely enough skills to appreciate what he does makes me recognize the almost unimaginable amount of work he puts into learning, practicing, and perfecting the skills he demonstrates. Again, I am totally in awe of him.
I don't have any idea of what the guy's "political leanings" are, or if he even has any, but I would love to hang out with him for a while, learning at his side. I can't imagine a man who took the time to learn the skills he has learned would be a cowardly, needy statist- but I could be wrong. He has things to teach me in any case.
And, this brings me to another point.
I wish I could do for liberty what he does for self-sufficiency with mud, stone, and plants. I spend more time than you might imagine reading, absorbing, internalizing, and then pondering the ideas and principles to draw out more connections and conclusions concerning liberty than you might think. But is it enough? Is it even "the right thing"? Does it make any difference?
Who knows. All I can say is that I can't imagine doing anything else. Even if I were out in the Bush building mud huts with self-fired terracotta roofing tiles, I would still be pondering liberty. I know, because of prior experience in somewhat similar situations.
I know I am not nearly as impressed by what I do as I am by what he does.
He doesn't just talk about Stone Age skills (in fact, in his videos, he never says a word), he just goes out there and does it. And, when it comes to promoting liberty, just living it makes a lot more difference than a hundred people like me yammering on about it.
When something matters, you need to just do it. If liberty matter to you, you'll do more than read about it. So, prove to yourself that it matters and get out there and live it the best you can.
(And on he's on Patreon, too! So if you feel inspired by his efforts, throw him some support.)
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
But, maybe not quite the "it" you imagine.
I recently found a guy on Youtube who doesn't beat around the bush. Well, I mean, he does beat around The Bush, but in a very constructive way.
The guy does Stone Age living skills in Queensland, Australia and I am utterly in awe of his skills. He makes me feel like an absolute amateur.
I mean, he does some of the same things I can do, but he does them more "naturally". Like he's not even trying- but I realize that's not the case, it is just how it looks to someone who hasn't got his skills. But, having barely enough skills to appreciate what he does makes me recognize the almost unimaginable amount of work he puts into learning, practicing, and perfecting the skills he demonstrates. Again, I am totally in awe of him.
I don't have any idea of what the guy's "political leanings" are, or if he even has any, but I would love to hang out with him for a while, learning at his side. I can't imagine a man who took the time to learn the skills he has learned would be a cowardly, needy statist- but I could be wrong. He has things to teach me in any case.
And, this brings me to another point.
I wish I could do for liberty what he does for self-sufficiency with mud, stone, and plants. I spend more time than you might imagine reading, absorbing, internalizing, and then pondering the ideas and principles to draw out more connections and conclusions concerning liberty than you might think. But is it enough? Is it even "the right thing"? Does it make any difference?
Who knows. All I can say is that I can't imagine doing anything else. Even if I were out in the Bush building mud huts with self-fired terracotta roofing tiles, I would still be pondering liberty. I know, because of prior experience in somewhat similar situations.
I know I am not nearly as impressed by what I do as I am by what he does.
He doesn't just talk about Stone Age skills (in fact, in his videos, he never says a word), he just goes out there and does it. And, when it comes to promoting liberty, just living it makes a lot more difference than a hundred people like me yammering on about it.
When something matters, you need to just do it. If liberty matter to you, you'll do more than read about it. So, prove to yourself that it matters and get out there and live it the best you can.
(And on he's on Patreon, too! So if you feel inspired by his efforts, throw him some support.)
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you. My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
Government real outlaw in crises
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 2, 2016)
People naturally solve problems (my chosen headline)
Recently, in Belarus, smugglers took a neglected gravel road and fixed it. They made it better for their own purposes, while helping others in the process. Just what were these black market villains smuggling on their newly improved road? Drugs? Weapons? Slaves? Not exactly. They were smuggling fruits and vegetables.
In another show of outlawry, the recent floods in Louisiana brought out neighbors in boats to rescue people from danger. They willingly accepted risk to themselves to help people they may not even know. These heroes are known as the "Cajun Navy".
Louisiana lawmakers want to make sure events like this are prevented from happening again. Not the floods, but the unregulated rescues. In fact, so deep was their concern, they sent police to stop rescuers from getting to the people in need. It was more important to stop people from helping, than to actually help.
When there is a problem, the natural tendency of people is to solve it. Unless, apparently, they have banded together as government to prey on the population. In which case, obedience to rules becomes sacred.
The Louisiana situation is a repeat of what happened after Hurricane Katrina in 2005: people left to suffer, and volunteer rescuers threatened with violence, because government employees believed they had a monopoly on assistance-- while refusing to do anything toward that end. In fact, government's "help" made the suffering worse.
To those who believe government is a solution, things like this may be dismissed as extreme cases. But they aren't.
In the example of the Belorusian road, as soon as government noticed the increased traffic, they sent agents to steal from the entrepreneurs. They call the theft "customs".
The black market road builders are heroes, and those who follow them to rob the traders are the bad guys.
The Louisiana lawmakers may be even worse.
If you want to help people, do it. You can't foresee and avoid every eventuality. It isn't possible. There are too many crises which can happen; too many circumstances where people need help. There are always risks.
Going into a situation where someone's life is in danger puts you in danger. You still have an absolute human right to try to help, without asking permission from anyone. Some even see it as a responsibility. True heroes don't wait for permission to help, and accept that there are consequences to every choice. True heroes don't look to government for guidance.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
People naturally solve problems (my chosen headline)
Recently, in Belarus, smugglers took a neglected gravel road and fixed it. They made it better for their own purposes, while helping others in the process. Just what were these black market villains smuggling on their newly improved road? Drugs? Weapons? Slaves? Not exactly. They were smuggling fruits and vegetables.
In another show of outlawry, the recent floods in Louisiana brought out neighbors in boats to rescue people from danger. They willingly accepted risk to themselves to help people they may not even know. These heroes are known as the "Cajun Navy".
Louisiana lawmakers want to make sure events like this are prevented from happening again. Not the floods, but the unregulated rescues. In fact, so deep was their concern, they sent police to stop rescuers from getting to the people in need. It was more important to stop people from helping, than to actually help.
When there is a problem, the natural tendency of people is to solve it. Unless, apparently, they have banded together as government to prey on the population. In which case, obedience to rules becomes sacred.
The Louisiana situation is a repeat of what happened after Hurricane Katrina in 2005: people left to suffer, and volunteer rescuers threatened with violence, because government employees believed they had a monopoly on assistance-- while refusing to do anything toward that end. In fact, government's "help" made the suffering worse.
To those who believe government is a solution, things like this may be dismissed as extreme cases. But they aren't.
In the example of the Belorusian road, as soon as government noticed the increased traffic, they sent agents to steal from the entrepreneurs. They call the theft "customs".
The black market road builders are heroes, and those who follow them to rob the traders are the bad guys.
The Louisiana lawmakers may be even worse.
If you want to help people, do it. You can't foresee and avoid every eventuality. It isn't possible. There are too many crises which can happen; too many circumstances where people need help. There are always risks.
Going into a situation where someone's life is in danger puts you in danger. You still have an absolute human right to try to help, without asking permission from anyone. Some even see it as a responsibility. True heroes don't wait for permission to help, and accept that there are consequences to every choice. True heroes don't look to government for guidance.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
Be relentlessly annoying
If you see a person walking toward the edge of a cliff while wearing a blindfold, should you say anything to them?
If they don't react the first time, should you continue to say something?
Is this "harping on it"?
Well, people who continue to archate or support those who do are walking straight toward a cliff, wearing a blindfold, in the dark. If they notice your warnings, they usually just get angry and want the noise to stop. They are on a determined path, and nothing is going to stop the vast majority of them.
But, occasionally, you get through to one individual who will stop, take off the blindfold, and try to find a light.
That's what keeps me going, in spite of the anger of the majority who deny the existence of the cliff.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
(Steemit link)
If they don't react the first time, should you continue to say something?
Is this "harping on it"?
Well, people who continue to archate or support those who do are walking straight toward a cliff, wearing a blindfold, in the dark. If they notice your warnings, they usually just get angry and want the noise to stop. They are on a determined path, and nothing is going to stop the vast majority of them.
But, occasionally, you get through to one individual who will stop, take off the blindfold, and try to find a light.
That's what keeps me going, in spite of the anger of the majority who deny the existence of the cliff.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
(Steemit link)
Tuesday, October 04, 2016
Government is wrong
Government, and support of government, is parasitic. It is wrong. Just so wrong.
The political means is the method of the parasite. Where one lives at the expense of others. Where there is a winner and a loser. The political means is what rapists and muggers and cops and burglars and DMV employees employ. It is wrong. Even if you can't imagine life or civilization without it, it is wrong.
Its opposite- the economic means- is the method of the decent person; the non-parasite. Where both parties win. Where interaction is by mutual consent. Where there is no punishment for choosing to not interact.
You can see the evil inherent in the political means more clearly by using the economic means as a mirror. Doing so, honestly, you can't fail to see that government- The State- and all associated with it are in the wrong.
Is this judgmental of me?
Yes.
I am judgmental toward people who commit acts of pure evil and destroy the lives of others; who act as parasites so that they can win while others lose.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
(Steemit link)
The political means is the method of the parasite. Where one lives at the expense of others. Where there is a winner and a loser. The political means is what rapists and muggers and cops and burglars and DMV employees employ. It is wrong. Even if you can't imagine life or civilization without it, it is wrong.
Its opposite- the economic means- is the method of the decent person; the non-parasite. Where both parties win. Where interaction is by mutual consent. Where there is no punishment for choosing to not interact.
You can see the evil inherent in the political means more clearly by using the economic means as a mirror. Doing so, honestly, you can't fail to see that government- The State- and all associated with it are in the wrong.
Is this judgmental of me?
Yes.
I am judgmental toward people who commit acts of pure evil and destroy the lives of others; who act as parasites so that they can win while others lose.
The question is, why would anyone not be?
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
(Steemit link)
Monday, October 03, 2016
Willful blindness?
The nicest government employees are blind to what they are doing.
They are like crew on a cruise ship. They see the beauty surrounding them, and see the things they produce and believe those things are good. They see the satisfied passengers and believe that is a clear sign that they are doing the right thing. They feel pride in what they do.
They don't recognize that their ship floats on an ocean of crushed bodies, is fueled with human lives, and uses people as the raw material for everything it produces. Bodies and the property of the innocent and guilty alike; stolen and fed screaming into the furnaces and the grinders to provide fuel and raw materials for everything they do. They don't see it. Maybe they choose to not see it, because it would make them uncomfortable.
The worst offenders are those who do see the dirty side and refuse to admit what it is. Or those who empower the destruction. Those are the politicians, bureaucrats, cops, judges and others whose job involves manning the death stations in one way or another.
Those who are a step removed could be excused for failing to see the death and misery beneath all they accomplish, but those involved in stealing lives to feed to the ship have no excuse, and should face serious consequences.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
(Steemit link)
They are like crew on a cruise ship. They see the beauty surrounding them, and see the things they produce and believe those things are good. They see the satisfied passengers and believe that is a clear sign that they are doing the right thing. They feel pride in what they do.
They don't recognize that their ship floats on an ocean of crushed bodies, is fueled with human lives, and uses people as the raw material for everything it produces. Bodies and the property of the innocent and guilty alike; stolen and fed screaming into the furnaces and the grinders to provide fuel and raw materials for everything they do. They don't see it. Maybe they choose to not see it, because it would make them uncomfortable.
The worst offenders are those who do see the dirty side and refuse to admit what it is. Or those who empower the destruction. Those are the politicians, bureaucrats, cops, judges and others whose job involves manning the death stations in one way or another.
Those who are a step removed could be excused for failing to see the death and misery beneath all they accomplish, but those involved in stealing lives to feed to the ship have no excuse, and should face serious consequences.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
(Steemit link)
Sunday, October 02, 2016
Experts vs bullies
People get very confused over words which have multiple, even contradictory, meanings. One of those is the word "authority".
"Authority" can mean experienced expert in some specific area, or it can mean a bully.
In politics, it only means the second one.
That's because no one can be an experienced expert at running other people's lives. Sure, they might be experienced at doing it, and they may be an expert at getting away with it, but they are still only a bully.
It's why I never soil the reputation of an expert by calling him or her an "authority". It is just too dirty a label.
I respect experts, and love to learn from them. But I despise bullies and never feel bad when they pay for their evil. "The authorities" are among the lowest scum on the planet. Always and forever, and there's nothing which can ever change that reality.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
(Steemit link)
"Authority" can mean experienced expert in some specific area, or it can mean a bully.
In politics, it only means the second one.
That's because no one can be an experienced expert at running other people's lives. Sure, they might be experienced at doing it, and they may be an expert at getting away with it, but they are still only a bully.
It's why I never soil the reputation of an expert by calling him or her an "authority". It is just too dirty a label.
I respect experts, and love to learn from them. But I despise bullies and never feel bad when they pay for their evil. "The authorities" are among the lowest scum on the planet. Always and forever, and there's nothing which can ever change that reality.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
(Steemit link)
Saturday, October 01, 2016
The best argument a statist has
Someone on FB made a post about Donald Trump and his "taxes", or lack thereof. People were piping up with all sorts of irrelevant tangents, avoiding the core issue.
So, as I try to consistently do, I made an inflammatory comment:
Some guy got his petticoats ruffled soon after I posted:
Wow. That is so convincing! Ha ha!
So, he came back with a killer rebuttal:
Ah well. Let him have his beliefs. We have to respect every belief, right?
Statists are so silly. And delusional. And devoid of decency.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
(Steemit link)
So, as I try to consistently do, I made an inflammatory comment:
Me: "Taxation" is theft. I never want anyone to be robbed, and I never want government to have ANY money.
Some guy got his petticoats ruffled soon after I posted:
Him: Taxation is not theft. Never has been, in a democratic society. Every argument you make after saying that is immediately discredited
Wow. That is so convincing! Ha ha!
Me: Why not post something other than an assertion which ignores the definitions of both "theft" and "taxation"? https://youtu.be/H585nogZWpQ
So, he came back with a killer rebuttal:
Him: Why post stupid comments no rational person, including our founders believes? Your statement was stupid rhetoric and I said so. Deal with it.
Ah well. Let him have his beliefs. We have to respect every belief, right?
Me: Denial is so cute. That's OK honey. You just go on believing that legislation can magically turn wrong into right. I guess you have to get moral direction from somewhere.
Statists are so silly. And delusional. And devoid of decency.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
(Steemit link)