Don't fight politics with politics

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 8, 2017)

Why has everything become political? It's a tragedy.

Politics drives people apart. It makes people miserable, angry, and sad. Politics makes people believe crazy things and gets them to defend the indefensible. It turns regular people into bullies and scapegoats. Politics distracts people from doing productive things and keeps them too occupied to do pleasant things.

I understand. It is said that even if you don't have an interest in politics, politics is interested in you. The same could be said of a mosquito.

It's a shame that politics, and those addicted to it, can't leave anyone unmolested. The hunger to control what other people do, even when they aren't harming anyone else's life, liberty, or property, is one of the most vile traits ever found in humans, yet is a most common failing.

I view politics as an attempt to live among people you don't like. When you like someone, politics isn't mistaken for a proper way to interact. You just get along, compromise, or agree to disagree-- and move on. With people you don't like, whom you feel a need to use politics against, you skip the civilized behavior and move straight to asking someone to use violence on your behalf against them. The more people you dislike, the more political you become.

Maybe you believe others should finance things you feel are important, but they won't do it voluntarily. Send in the guns of the State to force them to contribute, or suffer the consequences.

Perhaps they do things you don't like, but which don't actually "pick your pocket or break your leg", to use Thomas Jefferson's phrase-- so self defense isn't an option. Send in the guns of government to force them to live as you would prefer, or suffer the consequences.

This is as wrong as attacking them in person, although it has somehow become more socially acceptable.

When someone starts using politics against you-- and there's no other way to use politics than against someone-- it's only natural to be tempted to strike back. Natural, but there's got to be a better way than to fire "laws" back and forth in some never-ending "Hatfield versus McCoy" feud.

The next time someone you don't like does something you disagree with, or tries to use politics against you, why not try to deal with the situation in a mature way-- non-politically. Give it a shot and see if you can be the better person.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

An extraordinarily evil "citizen"

Look at the magazine cover below:

What information can you glean about the people who publish it?

First, it is published by "Focus on the Family". I consider this group to be a political cult within Christianity, due to decades of familiarity with them, but that's obviously just my opinion.

Notice they use the political term "citizen" as the name of the publication. This indicates their focus is probably political in nature. The group would change its name to "Focus on the Politics" if they were interested in being honest. If...

The "political means" is the unethical way of interacting with others-- the means used by muggers, politicians, rapists, cops, and other bad guys-- as opposed to the only other option for interacting with others: the economic means. If you can't get what you want by mutual consent, where both participants gain, you force them-- at gunpoint, if that's what it takes-- to do what you want, with "laws" and enforcer gangs, so that there's a winner and a loser.

Being political also goes against just about everything taught by Jesus, but it would be inconsiderate to point this out to them.

"Citizen" is also a term used to indicate slave status under the State. Strange position for this "religious" group to take and promote, since this puts the State in the place of God.

It is interesting to me that a "religious" group would embrace unethical behavior so completely that they would name their publication "citizen". This is why I differentiate between "moral" and "ethical". They are behaving "morally" according to the "principles" of their group, just like the suicide bombers of other religions are doing, while being completely unethical, as illustrated by the cover story.

And, let's look at that cover story.

They obviously believe that "vices" should be crimes, and should be enforced as all "laws" ultimately are. They are claiming it is a "bad idea" to stop killing people and destroying their lives with "laws" based on lies. Lies about a plant. Lies about who should have the power to control each person's body. They believe a state refusing to stop molesting people is a good thing. Sick!

What if someone turned the tables on them and outlawed something they value?

Their twisted position in support of prohibition makes me wonder what their position on ending (other forms of) slavery would have been. Actually, I don't really wonder- I think it's pretty clear. They would have been celebrating any state which refused to get rid of "laws" legalizing chattel slavery. They would want slaves to obey the "law"-- to be "good", obedient slaves-- and be punished or killed if they didn't. They would want fugitive slave "laws" enforced, and would support the agents who enforced those "laws". If they object and claim that they wouldn't support that position with regard to slavery, then why the inconsistency? Why the hypocrisy?

The real "bad idea" here is giving people the political opportunity to meddle in the lives of others, and punish them when they don't cooperate with their own violation. No good group would condone such evil.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)