(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 7, 2016)
When you ignore the rules of reality, you get hurt.
Notice I don't say when you break reality's rules, because those rules can't be broken. They can only be accepted or ignored. Ignore them at your peril.
Take gravity, for example. If you ignore gravity you will suffer, and you may even fall to your death. Once you accept the reality of gravity, you can use the rules governing it to fly or even to experience "weightlessness" in orbit. Neither is a case of defying gravity, but of using it to do things which seem to go against what you expect from gravity. You don't even need to know why gravity exists, or how it works, to accept and use it. You just need to know it exists and be able to measure its effect.
If someone walks off the edge of a cliff, you can expect them to fall to the ground far below and splatter like a ripe watermelon. Maybe bushes will slow their fall, or deep water at the bottom will cushion their landing, but don't depend on it. Nothing will truly defeat gravity unless you can turn off the rules of the Universe- and you can't.
There are also rules of civil behavior you ignore at your own risk. Those rules weren't dreamed up by any legislator and don't rely on anyone enforcing them.
If you choose to use violence against the non-violent, a chain of events will be set in motion. The same goes if you violate the property of others.
You may believe you are exempt from the effects due to imaginary rules someone created. Rules designed to give the illusion of authority to those who feel entitled to break the real rules. Their dreamed-up rules can't change reality.
If you decide to steal, trespass, or shove people around, even if you claim authority under made-up "laws", there will be repercussions. The fallout may not be what you or your victims expect. It may not even be timely- you don't know precisely when you'll hit the ground. Usually those who use the "political means"-- non-consensual tactics resulting in a winner and a loser-- to get what they want deny the possibility of unpleasant consequences to themselves. They will be surprised.
You won't avoid the costs you incur, even though the bill may not come when you'd expect and may not be what you expect.
No one is immune to consequences. Reality doesn't allow that option.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
▼
Sunday, January 08, 2017
Disarmed "warriors"
I don't support or appreciate ANY government military. Not here, there, or anywhere, at any time throughout history. There are reasons for that, and I accept that all statists, of every degree, disagree vehemently with me.
Regardless of statists' feelings, government militaries are never on the side of liberty or freedom; concepts they can't even begin to understand.
That being said, if you have a government military, keeping the participants disarmed seems really stupid. If you are going to have a military, the whole point- the only point- is for them to be armed and able to deal with threats. If you can't trust the participants around each other, or around the "public", while armed, you can't trust them at all. So, either they are untrustworthy, or you are a sniveling coward. Or both. If you can't trust the participants, how can you expect me to?
And putting "No Guns" signs on your facilities makes you look ridiculous. Who is going to take you seriously if you are so scared of armed people that you feel the need to post "We don't care if you die" signs at your doors? I mean, really. You want to be seen as tough and dangerous and all that, and yet you fear me with a gun? Pathetic.
Either choose to have a real military, individually armed 100% of the time, or disband and go home, leave the stolen money in the pockets of the people you were pretending to protect, bulldoze the Pentagon, sell off the weapons, and let the militia handle it.
Regardless of statists' feelings, government militaries are never on the side of liberty or freedom; concepts they can't even begin to understand.
That being said, if you have a government military, keeping the participants disarmed seems really stupid. If you are going to have a military, the whole point- the only point- is for them to be armed and able to deal with threats. If you can't trust the participants around each other, or around the "public", while armed, you can't trust them at all. So, either they are untrustworthy, or you are a sniveling coward. Or both. If you can't trust the participants, how can you expect me to?
And putting "No Guns" signs on your facilities makes you look ridiculous. Who is going to take you seriously if you are so scared of armed people that you feel the need to post "We don't care if you die" signs at your doors? I mean, really. You want to be seen as tough and dangerous and all that, and yet you fear me with a gun? Pathetic.
Either choose to have a real military, individually armed 100% of the time, or disband and go home, leave the stolen money in the pockets of the people you were pretending to protect, bulldoze the Pentagon, sell off the weapons, and let the militia handle it.
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.