Wilson's pop-up camper incident

Not the actual camper

After "Wilson" moved out of the house without heat, he and his elderly black chow (I'm blanking on the dog's name) moved into a pop-up camper he had bought.

He moved it frequently to avoid "imperial entanglements". This meant I saw him less often, and I don't even know where he was parked most of the time. I never was invited out to his camper; he probably didn't want anyone to know where he was parked. He was probably on Bureau of Land Management land-- it was all around us and I knew several people who lived on it.

He still stopped by the shop in town to visit during working hours, or dropped by my campfire if I was home.

One day he came to the shop very agitated. Almost explosive with anger.

He told me he had gone out for a hike and when he returned he saw a couple of people fleeing his camper, which had been vandalized. All the canvas around the door had been shredded. He was really angry, and I was sympathetic. After all, it was his home. He wasn't sure it could be (affordably and sufficiently) repaired. At least his dog was OK.

He was going to track the vandals down, and... what? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't have wanted to be them. So with grim determination, he took off again.

I felt really bad about his situation, but he wasn't usually open to accepting help.

I didn't see him for a couple of days, but when I did he was acting strangely sheepish. He needed to tell me something, and I could tell it was really bothering him.

He made sure no one could hear us and admitted there had been no vandals. His chow had ripped up the canvas to escape the camper, possibly intending to follow him on his hike. The dog was old and arthritic, and he had left him behind so he could get where he was going faster, and with less trouble. The dog wasn't too bright and constantly caused problems, on the trail and off. So the dog ripped up the canvas to escape, but ended up hanging around the camper anyway.

He seemed a little less excitable after this incident. I didn't hold it against him, even though I didn't really understand why he made up the story in the first place. That's the only time I know of that he wasn't truthful. This wasn't too long before he vanished from the area without a word.

-

Note: I've added the tag "Wilson" since it looks like I may keep posting of his escapades, if people ask for more. I'll post something about the highway patrol encounter next time.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Playing "grown-up"

You are not having an adult conversation if you are talking about "foreign policy", "tax policy", or "immigration policy". Not if you are talking about what "laws" need to be passed or enforced. Not if you honestly believe other people should be governed by states.

At best you are having a Middle School conversation. More suitable for the Jerry Springer Show than for anywhere else.

It's just like thinking the world revolves around who likes whom, who got invited to which party, or having the "right" brand of clothes-- and bullying based on all that silliness.

Feel free to focus your attention on those things if you enjoy it, but don't fool yourself into believing they are signs of an adult worldview, no matter how grave those discussing the matters appear to be. And no matter how much power they may have. No matter the fineness of their suits, ties, and shoes. It's just a costume designed to make you believe the matters have weight.

It reminds me of how cussing is referred to as "adult language". I always thought that was ridiculous. I consider it Middle School language. That's about the time of "peak cussing" in my observation-- although I probably peaked in 5th grade. Most people grow out of it to some extent as they mature. But at least cussing doesn't actually harm anyone; cuss all you want. The pro-government childishness can't make the same claim.

"Adult", when applied to these childish things, is inaccurate. You can take something seriously, but if it advocates theft or aggression it's adolescent behavior, no matter how old its advocates are.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Our president"

Does it grate on you when some government extremist utters the silly phrase "our president"? It annoys me a bit. It's the same when they say "our government", "our congress", "our schools", or any similar thing.

It bothers me because I don't have one. I can't have one. I don't want one or need one. Don't superimpose your weakness onto me. It doesn't fit.

It doesn't matter who the current president is or isn't. I will never have a president for the exact same reason I will never have a Grand Wizard or a Pope. I am not a participant in that particular religion or club. That you have one is your problem, not mine. It's your responsibility. If you try to act as though your social club offices and rituals apply to me, you are being rude and presumptuous. Or worse.

Yes, I realize the Believers will say I have a president whether or not I acknowledge one. In that case, they have a pope and a Grand Wizard whether they accept him or not. If I'm in any way responsible for a president, then they are responsible for the office holders in the clubs they reject as well.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Not my problem. It's socialized!"

I've recently seen an advertisement for the New Mexico "healthcare [sic] exchange" (ObamaCare's legacy). In it a spokesactress talks about health insurance-- and getting financial assistance for it-- while her "kid" seemingly runs off multiple times to engage in dangerous and impulsive behavior around her. Behavior that she doesn't have to worry about him engaging in because he's insured. Probably at your expense.

And this is one of the best arguments against socialized medicine.

Why should anyone subsidize her self-destructive crotch-fruit so that he doesn't have to be smart?

Makes me want to punch her.

Now, if there were no socialism involved, I wouldn't even see his behavior as all that bad. It's just normal young male behavior, I guess. Thrill-seeking, with little thought for consequences. But it's the thought that everyone else, who has no say in how he acts, is on the hook so that his "mom" can just shrug it off.

I'm thinking the ad didn't have the desired effect on me.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Best to be smart about social media

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 24, 2018)

Social media gets a lot of well-deserved criticism. It's presented as a service, but with the vast majority of social media platforms, you and your information are the products being sold.

Even worse than selling your information to advertisers, it opens its back door to government spies so they can come in, snoop around, steal your data, and watch everything you do. Definitely not the behavior of someone who's on your side. When they say "your privacy matters" they are lying. They may as well be saying "your life matters" while dumping plutonium into your drinking water.

You might insist "If you're doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?" but this puts the burden on you to prove your innocence and that's not how it works. Your privacy matters more than government interests. Your butler can't be allowed to spy on you, not even "for your own good" or to further the butler's agenda.

Recently we've also seen how social media manipulates opinions by what it allows you to see; promoting its own biased views as news, and any opposing views as "fake news" to be suppressed and banned.

Yet social media isn't all bad. It deserves a little praise, at least on a couple of things.

Social media helps people reconnect with those they once knew, and stay in touch with friends they no longer live near. In today's highly mobile society this is a valuable human service.

Another small thing I really appreciate is when it helps find lost pets so they and their owners can be reunited.

I appreciate how it helps people advertise yard sales, services, and social events. This is the free market in action. And it helps people organize.

Social media users frequently shut government and its laws out of the loop. To a point. You'll still usually be prohibited, for example, from the perfectly ethical act of using these platforms to sell a gun to someone who wants to buy it. And if your group is planning something the politicians have made up rules against, regardless of whether it's actually wrong, someone may report you to the political authorities. Yet there are still ways around almost all these barriers.

It's not necessary to shun social media; just be smart. Don't offer too much unnecessary information which the bad guys can use against you, but take advantage of the opportunities it presents. Opportunities beyond any the world has ever seen.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Holy Papers

One thing which seems really strange to me is how many supposed libertarians put faith in government documentation.

Whether it's constitutions, driver's licenses, or permission to pass between tax farms.

If you believe there's legitimacy in government paperwork, any legitimacy at all, why pretend to believe in anything other than government opinions?

Liberty or privileges? Your choice.

_______________


Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Wilson and the USPS

Here's the next installment of The Wilson Files.

This is all second hand, from "Wilson" himself, so it may have been embellished. He was keeping me informed almost hour-by-hour during the events, rather than dropping by my fire to tell me the story after it was all over, so I suspect it's close to the truth. (Although a later incident did show he could lie-- even if he soon came clean due to guilt. More about that another time, maybe.)

He wasn't getting some things in the mail he was expecting. Like the catalog he had requested from a freeze-dried survival food outfit in Utah. In fact, he wasn't getting any mail at all. He wouldn't use the internet, so catalogs in the mail were very important to him. Then his mom said she'd sent him something, but he never got that, either. He was getting pretty upset, and I didn't blame him.

We didn't get home delivery, but had multi-box units along the highway. (The picture above, courtesy Google Street View, is the actual bank of mailboxes in the story.) He saw the mail carrier stuffing mail in the boxes and stopped to ask her about his missing mail. I wasn't there, so I really don't know what was said, or how he said it. He could be a little intense. He suspected she was stealing his mail, and he probably said as much.

Then when he didn't get a satisfactory answer from the carrier, if I remember correctly, he went to the post office in town and complained about his missing mail.

A couple of hours later a pair of cops or deputies (he didn't live in town, but town cops often left town to spread their "service") came to his house to talk to him. His door was slightly ajar, so the cops just pushed it a little more and stuck their heads in the house while calling his name. Of course, their guns were unholstered "just in case". Wilson was familiar to them.

Wilson could be a little twitchy, and always open carried. This could have gone really badly, but he saw the cops before they saw him, and carefully placed his gun out of sight, but where he could grab it. (I was treated to a dramatic re-enactment at the scene later that day.)

They said the mail carrier claimed he had threatened her. He said he was just asking where his mail was going. The cops said threatening a postal employee was a federal crime. He said he made no threats, he just wanted his missing mail.

The cops told him to watch what he said to the carrier, and that it would be best if he didn't speak to her again or approach her while she put mail in the boxes.

Everyone survived the encounter, and Wilson wasn't arrested.

Funny thing was, the next day he started getting mail.

I can't remember if he ever got the item his mom had sent, or the catalog of survival foods. But that seemed to be the end of his missing mail problem.

To Wilson (and to me) this seemed to confirm his suspicions that the carrier was responsible for his missing mail. You aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"It's alive! Be amazed as I kill it!"

One thing you can credit the "Secure the borders"/"anti-illegal immigration"[sic] folks with is that they are invariably masters of the straw man.

They are Dr. Frankenstein, but instead of corpses, they build their monster out of straw, then they don't wait for the villagers to rally with pitchforks and torches; they burn their own creation themselves and pretend to be the hero.

I recognize the straw man for what it is, of course. But if you point it out, they just build another and another and another. They are experts and building and burning them. And they impress themselves very much.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Happy Thanksgiving

For the past 3 years, Thanksgiving has been kind of a chore for me. It hurts to celebrate it. I have to try to make myself feel it, with varying degrees of success.

But I am thankful. For many things and for several people.

I'm thankful to you and for you.

.

Bill Nye, the "science" guy on Mars

Poor old Bill Nye the non-scientist guy. He's a laughingstock and doesn't realize it.

He is completely, absolutely, 100% certain that humans have accidentally altered the Earth's atmosphere, causing climate change (AGCC). He's positive this change, if real, is harmful-- and government edicts are needed to solve it.
But he says it's not possible for humans to go to Mars and intentionally, with planned purpose, alter Mars' atmosphere to change the Martian climate for the better (for Earth life, anyway).

Make up your mind, Billy.

Of course, the best explanation of why he doesn't believe this is that he doesn't want to believe it.

Believing this would knock the air out of his doom and gloom climate disaster scenario, and make his preferred program of government supremacy unnecessary.

If we can intentionally change planetary climates, then we could fix Earth without adopting his communistic government supremacism. And we can spread out and move to Mars, almost doubling the land surface humans could live on. This would also reduce human impact without increasing government control and power. It's apparently not what he wants. It looks like he only wants the problem solved his way.

He's either stupid or dishonest.

h/t: Claire Wolfe. Thanks for the laugh!

ADDED: It has been pointed out (on Patreon) that Bill is probably right and I am probably wrong. Mars probably can't be terraformed due to its lack of a magnetosphere-- any atmosphere just blows away in the solar wind. Personally I believe this is a problem which will be solved because we humans have to solve it or die out sooner than we otherwise would.
Also, yes, I realize the lower gravity will have negative health effects, but I think this will be less of a problem than you might imagine. I tend to lift whatever I can lift-- in Mars' gravity I'd just be lifting and moving around larger things.
There are also other problems, including increased radiation.
But, I accept that I could be completely wrong about all this.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Rep(rehensible) Eric Swalwell

That congressvermin who said that if you think you should keep your guns to fight tyranny, it would be a short fight because the government has nukes...

Yeah, he was probably "joking". So? It shows how he "thinks". It shows him as a government supremacist at the very least.

If the tables had been turned and someone joked about nuking congress-- or his personal house while he and his family (if any) were in it-- do you think he would have found it hilarious? Do you think he would have accepted it as nothing but a sarcastic joke?

You know he wouldn't have. His life is too valuable to take the chance. You are the expendable one to this parasite.

Anti-gun bigots are disgusting. That one would sarcastically "joke" about nuking Americans just because we value our natural rights over his mass-murderous opinions shows this without a doubt.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Badge doesn't grant extra rights

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 17, 2018)

A badge doesn't grant extra rights. When the law acts as though it does by treating people differently based on whether or not they wear a badge, the law undermines its appearance of legitimacy.

No job can grant extra rights because there's no such thing as an "extra right". All humans have equal and identical rights, whether or not the local law respects those rights equally and identically for all people.

If one person is given a pass because of his job, then everyone must be given the same pass. When police are allowed to do something you or I would be punished for doing you have a police state.

Police are simply paid to do things we all have a natural right to do, but may not want to be bothered with. If we don't have the right, neither do they.

The one thing which does come with a badge is extra responsibilities; a limit on what someone can do which doesn't apply to those without the badge. For one, it means if you wear a badge you must know every jot and tittle of the law forward and backward and upside down-- and follow it exactly. You shouldn't enforce something you don't fully understand. If you claim it's not possible to know the laws this well, this means the law is illegitimate and needs to be done away with.

Some might insist you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but sewage isn't bathwater, and that's no baby floating in it. Throw it out.

Often the legal standard is completely disconnected from right or wrong. Clear cases of defense are criminalized while clear cases of murder are excused; weighed differently based on the shooter's job. Sometimes, too, both sides are wrong, and when they collide, someone dies.

If someone is an immediate threat to your life or safety, you have the right to use deadly force to stop their attack. If they are running away from you, any danger has passed and to shoot them anyway is clearly murder.

If its wrong for me to shoot a thief after he has abandoned the stolen property and is running away, then it's wrong for anyone to do it, regardless of my feelings.

On the other hand, I wish every thief would die in the act of stealing. Every last one. Theft is a disgusting act. I'll never feel sympathy for a dead thief. The law doesn't necessarily agree with my wishes.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Politics = lies

I dislike dishonesty, particularly when it is used to harm people who aren't doing anything to deserve the harm. This is why I dislike politics-- beyond the institutional theft and aggression, that is.

I dislike the lies the political Left tells against the political Right.
I dislike the lies the political Right tells against the political Left.
Not because either of those statist sides is innocent, but because it seems like liberty is always caught in the middle.

The political Left lies and says that respecting the right of a business owner to choose to not bake a cake is hate which violates the rights of someone to buy a cake from someone who doesn't want to bake one for them. They blame the political Right for this outrage.

The political Right lies and says that anyone breaking a counterfeit "law" they agree with, such as "immigration laws" is a bad guy by definition. They blame the political Left for encouraging this criminality.

The political Left lies and says that if you don't want to ban guns you hate children and don't care if they die.

The political Right lies and says if you don't support the War on Drugs you want everyone to be addicted and on welfare.

The political Left lies and says that socialism isn't suicide.
The political Right lies and says cops are good guys.

The political Left lies about what Trump says and does in a way to rile up their side, and the political Right lies about what Trump says and does in a way to rile up their side.

Most of all, I dislike the lies the political Left and the political Right tell against those of us who don't buy into their lies.

Lies to the Left and lies to the Right. And I'm not on their spectrum at all.
_______________

Reminder: I could still really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Winning isn't permitted under their rules

You have probably noticed this, but in case you haven't: you can't win.

No matter what you talk about someone will say you are using the word wrong; even that you are a fool or a tool for using the word as you do.

From freedom and liberty, to government and state, anarchist and statist, and beyond. I've found this to be the case anytime I discuss a topic which is important and controversial (along the statist/anarchist divide, especially).

Which is why I try to make sure to explain how I use a word, and why I use it the way I'm using it.

But you still can't win. Because then you'll be accused of making words mean what you want them to mean instead of what they "really" mean. Even worse is the crime of coining your own words.

But, I don't care.

You can't win... if you play by their rules.

To me, winning is living in liberty. At least as much as possible when surrounded by people who believe in, and support, aggressive institutions which insist you aren't allowed to opt out. They are the real losers, no matter what they believe about themselves.

The fact that they try to redefine "winning" so it's exclusive to them doesn't change that.

--

I'm taking tomorrow off for personal reasons.



_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Wilson, the stubborn

I had a friend-- I'll call him "Wilson"-- who was... interesting.

He was a bit of a conspiracy nut, more than a little paranoid, hated government, was good at outdoor survival skills, had questionable taste in women, and was very stubborn.

Yes, he had his flaws (as do we all) but all-in-all he was a decent guy. I always enjoyed hanging out with him.

Here's one tale about him:

One winter his woodstove was not safe and he couldn't use it. The stove pipe was messed up somewhere above the ceiling. His landlord refused to repair the stove pipe so a fire could be lit. This was the only heat in the house, and it was already winter near Gunnison, Colorado.

He told his landlord that he would fix the stove pipe himself and deduct the cost from his rent. The landlord said "no". Wilson wasn't the kind of person to just bite the bullet and fix it at his own expense. So after a bit more arguing over it, Wilson simply stopped paying rent. And the landlord never tried to kick him out.

He spent the winter in an unheated house-- which obviously meant he had no running water, either.

He was lucky-- I don't think the temperature ever got much colder than 20° below 0 (°F) that winter. He lived diagonally across the river from me, and I went to visit him a few times over the winter. His house was about the same temperature inside as the outdoors. He wore his coat all the time.

He slept in one of those "100 below" mummy-type sleeping bags, inside a pup tent, in his bedroom. He said it was warm enough. His house would warm up a little if he cooked something, but that didn't last long and I don't think he cooked much.

I offered to let him hang out at my house some, but he didn't want to. He said he didn't want to get used to heat. He would sit at my campfire out by the wikiup with me, though.

That was his last winter in the area.

After a few other incidents, Wilson suddenly vanished. Years later I ran into him far from home, while I was on a vacation. He was working in a resort town in New Mexico and I bumped into him on the street. We caught up a little; he told me of more recent incidents, and I got his (general delivery) address. I mailed him a few times, but eventually my letters came back as "undeliverable".

I might relate some other Wilson stories another time. There are a lot of them to tell: his clash with the post office, his clash with the sheriff, the time he became convinced I was working with the cops against him, his clash with the forest circus (his term), why he wouldn't use the internet (he would know this is about him, but I know he'll never see it), his pop-up camper incident, his clash with the highway patrol... I notice a pattern here. But not all fit the pattern. If any of those pique your interest, let me know and I'll write it up for another day.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The enemy of liberty

This local town government is anti-liberty, as has been whatever government any town I've ever lived in or near suffered under.

The Texas and New Mexico governments are anti-liberty. So was every state government I have been bothered with.

The U.S. government is anti-liberty. That's the only national government I've had any experience with, but I'd be willing to be all the others are anti-liberty to some extent.

A world government would be anti-liberty.

What's the common thread? Government.

Government is anti-liberty.

Liberty is the enemy of tyranny. Governments (or their supporters) seem to take this personally. So, of course, all governments are going to be against liberty to some extent. If they want to consider me their enemy because of this, that's fine with me.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Coercive "solutions" make problems worse

Just because there's a problem, that doesn't make it OK to violate people because of the problem.

Poverty exists. It's not good. That doesn't justify theft-financed "welfare" programs, even if they eased the pain of poverty. There are better, voluntary ways to deal with it.

Maybe Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is real. Maybe not. Maybe, if it is real, it is a net negative. But even if it is, that doesn't justify putting government in charge of fixing the problem; empowering government to crush your rights-- your life, liberty, and property-- to fix it. Even if government-- the world's worst despoiler of the environment-- even had any actual inclination to do so, or knew how.

Even if anti-gun "laws" would reduce crime (archation), it doesn't mean it's OK to violate the natural human right to own and to carry weapons.

Even though people are born ignorant, that's no excuse for forcing others to pay to indoctrinate them as they grow. And if you say it's about education, you're lying.

The right to violate rights, even with good intentions, doesn't exist. Even if it actually worked.

Problems are always going to exist. Government is just another problem, and can't solve the others. If you can't think of a way to make problems less harmful without stealing and attacking other people, you are part of the problem. It's time for you to let it go.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Government should be a servant

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 10, 2018)

When most people use the word "government" they are talking about the collective more accurately called "the state". Not in the sense of the fifty familiar shapes making up maps of the United States of America, of which New Mexico is one, but in the sense of out-of-control institutional authoritarianism; statism.

I, too, use the word "government" in this way when speaking to people about the pitfalls of the state. It's not quite accurate, but most people understand.

However, there is a difference.

Government can be good, bad, or neutral. Government is simply people coming together, under unanimously consensual rules, to get things done. It is never mandatory. Government, if done right, might even help protect the life, liberty, and property of the individuals who voluntarily join together.

The state, on the other hand, is always anti-social; the more powerful it becomes, the weaker society gets. A state does not operate by unanimous consent, but is imposed against the wishes of at least a large minority of its victims. The state is established to steal, to control every human action with laws, and to give favors to the politically connected. States are designed to rule and enslave.

Once a state takes hold, and the people identify with it, the destruction of the society is underway.

I can almost understand why someone would accept a government as a helper; to assist with the things the person can't (or believes they can't) do on their own. Possibly to complete big projects like bridges and space programs. Perhaps to coordinate training for defense against the weapons of an enemy state. Maybe to provide a "safety net".

I think they are wrong, but I can understand their thinking.

What I can't even begin to understand is how anyone could allow a government to mutate into a state and become their master; to control them, tell them what they are allowed or forbidden to do, and to threaten them with punishment if they don't comply. This is a perversion of government. Government is to be the obedient servant and never the overbearing master; to never become a state.

America has cancer. America is burdened with a state where armed state employees give orders to the people who are their moral, ethical, and political superiors. This is backwards. Government, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, was replaced by a state established and empowered by the coup which resulted in the U.S. Constitution. This path doesn't end well.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Theft makes "society" happy

Is it good to take your property from you if doing so makes me feel good, and makes the person I give it to feel good?

What if almost everyone says they are made happier when I take your property?

People who believe in "public good" are OK with it. And, it seems that everyone who believes in political government thinks it's OK.

Even if you say you only support a "night watchman government" you're advocating the same thing with the same justification. But you can keep your "night watchman"; I don't need or want one. I have better things to spend my money on. If I come to believe I need a night watchman I would rather spend my money on security cameras and more weapons. If for some reason I feel particularly scared for a while I would rather hire a night watchman of my own choosing, and I wouldn't expect you to chip in to pay him... unless you want to.

I see people who support government making this kind of argument all the time. They believe if enough people are happy that my money is being taken, then it's good. I would be crazy to object-- my opinion isn't a serious opinion. I am not one of the "adults" contributing to the conversation. All because I don't support theft just because "the majority" are made happy because of it.

Funny that I don't see it that way at all. There is NOTHING I want bad enough to have someone steal from you to pay for it on my behalf.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The UN's Universal Declaration of Human "Rights"

Some people, particularly in other parts of the world, praise the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and seem to think it's really something special. I've never paid any attention to it myself, even though I've heard it mentioned for years. I had never read it to see exactly what it actually said, but curiosity finally got to me.

So, I guess it's time to put my nose to the slime-stone and see what's in there.

Oh, look! It starts with a preamble. All important documents should have a preamble. Let's see what's in it. I notice the English used is a little awkward here and there. I'll pretend I don't notice.

Hmmm. The preamble displays some seriously flawed misconceptions, such as the delusional belief in "the rule of law", which you probably realize is a myth always and forever, everywhere. It's simply not a "thing".

It also pretends "nations" can act and develop "friendly relations" with each other, and that this is somehow tied to human rights. Well, governments fighting each other can be seriously bad for the people caught in the middle, but the solution for that is the dissolution of the offenders.

The declaration is determined to promote "social progress", yet it promotes government supremacy which is the opposite. This is dangerously regressive thinking.

It also, as is so common, mistakes freedom for liberty. It's a convenient conflation.

The pompous preamble ends by pretending territories can be under the jurisdiction of "Member States".

So, that was kind of a mess. Let's see what the rest of the thing says.

(I'm not going to copy the whole declaration, just bits and pieces. If you want to follow along as I work my way through it, here's the complete text.)

Article 1.

(What do the writers of this document consider "a spirit of brotherhood"? If it is mutual respect for each other's rights, then I'm fine with that. But so often, proglodytic documents seem to feel "brotherhood" enslaves one to another. I suppose we shall see where this leads below.)

Article 2.
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms (ahem... liberty) set forth in this Declaration...

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs..." 

(So, humans as property of a State) 

"...whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty" 

(States aren't sovereign; people are-- I sense government supremacism on display here.)

Article 3.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." 

(Yes. And this means they also have the right to defend these rights with the proper tools: weapons, equal to the weapons of any potential violators [particularly the relevant government] as personal property. Otherwise this right is being treated as a privilege.)

Article 4.
"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." 

(That's nice, but... "prohibited"? By who? Enforced how? Does this include imprisonment by governments?)

Article 5.
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." 

(Unless government and/or a majority of the population approve and call it "necessary".)

Article 6.
"Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." 

(Recognition as a person is meaningless when the law is counterfeit and when it is administered and enforced by a State.)

Article 7.

(Pretty much a repeat of Article 6)

Article 8.
(In which they promote the notion of "competent" government "tribunals", and assert that rights are "granted" by constitutions or laws. No thanks. If it's "national" I want no part in it. Give me competent independent arbitration which is not connected in any way to any State. And my rights don't hinge on the opinions or documents of bullies.)

Article 9.
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." 

(Dare they define "arbitrary" in some way which doesn't excuse enforcement of counterfeit "laws"? Nah.)

Article 10.
(Again with the tribunal. Why always a tribunal? If one arbitrator is independent and impartial, one is enough. If the tribunal members are statist government supremacists, then the tribunal is a bad joke and you're doomed.)

Article 11.
"(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." 

(Will the legitimacy of the "law" also be judged? If not, no thanks.)

"(2)" 

(Again, just because something is a "penal offense" doesn't mean it's wrong.)

Article 12.
("Arbitrary" again. The "law", and those who wield it, is the main culprit. Who will hold it accountable when it is the one interfering and attacking?)

Article 13.
"(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." (Why only within the borders? And where do private property rights come in?)

"(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." 

(How about the right to have no country?)

Article 14.

(I don't see any big problems with this one, other than the UN's haughty self-promotion. Maybe you can find something.)

Article 15.
"(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality." 

(But is everyone obligated to have a nationality?)

"(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality." 

(I'm now Liberlandian, except on those days I'm devoid of nationality.)

Article 16.
"(1)...the right to marry and to found a family..." 

(Yeah. And...? Government has no right or "authority" to meddle.)

"(2)...the free and full consent of the intending spouses."

(Common sense.)

"(3)"

(A bit of editorializing by the authors. State "protection" is often a death sentence. How about keeping the State out of it.)

Article 17.

(Agreed. Now if only governments would recognize that they and their decisions are all arbitrary.)


Article 18.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..." 

(No one has the right to use government or its "laws" to impose his religious beliefs on others, whether it's called Sharia or "Blue Laws" or prohibition or...?)

Article 19.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." 

(Google doesn't think so. That's why they help the US government spy on everyone in the world, and why they are helping the Chinese government censor search results to keep people ignorant and complacent. But the right of freedom of expression doesn't mean anyone is obligated to let you stand on their soapbox or to listen to you ramble on.)

Article 20.
"(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."

(Why only "peaceful"? You have the right to assemble and associate violently to meet an aggressive threat.)

"(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association." 

(Including a "country"? Can I be compelled to pay "dues"?)

Article 21.
"(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." 

(No one has the right to use politics to govern others.)

"(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country."

("public service"? Are they talking about access to "public services" like being thoroughly policed, etc., or about the equal "right" to have access to run for political office and "serve"? Either way, it sounds like a scam. I'll pass.)

"(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." 

("Authority" is the most dangerous superstition. According to this document, mob rule is beautiful.)

Article 22.
(This article is just trying to justify entitlements and a socialist "safety net". States have no resources. Anything they possess to redistribute is stolen.)

Article 23.
"(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." 

(So, no "freedom of association" then? In that case I want to be employed in some job where I do what I already do, but I make several thousand dollars a week (or even per month). Hey, it's my right to choose this employment and these just and favorable conditions!)

"(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work."

(Sure, if that's the agreement you make with the person you work for. Just because I spend X hours per day researching and writing doesn't mean I'm entitled to be paid the same amount that J.K. Rowling is paid for the same amount of work.)

"(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection." 

(Stolen from other people against their will.)

"(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."

(And every employer has a right to employ members of that trade union, or not, as he sees fit.)

Article 24.
(A denial of "freedom of association" again. Who limits the working hours? Who pays for the holidays?)

Article 25.
"(1)"

("Entitlements", Paid for by theft.)

"(2)"

(Extra "entitlements" just for being a mother or child.)

Article 26.
"(1) Everyone has the right to education..." 

(Yep). 

"Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages..." 

("Free"? Wait, are you speaking of education or schooling?). 

"Elementary education shall be compulsory." 

(Slavery. So not education, but schooling after all. Sad.) 

"Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." 

(Merit is good... And if you can't pay? People shall be enslaved for your benefit?)

"(2) Education ... shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace." 

(So, indoctrination, not education.)

"(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." 

(Wait... but you said it would be compulsory. Pick one. And no one can be "given" an education. They can be given the opportunity to educate themselves.)

Article 27.

"(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits." 

(So if I want to go to the movie, a concert, or Billy Bob's Backyard Beer Bash and Karaoke Party, I can just walk right in and quote the above because I have the right to "participate in the cultural life of the community" and "enjoy the arts"? If I want the newest iPhone or to get an MRI just for the fun of it, it's my right, because I have the right to "share in scientific advancement and its benefits"?)

"(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author." 

(I guess that settles it-- Intellectual Property (IP) is real!)

Article 28.
"Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized." 

(What if I recognize that some of the "rights" you've detailed aren't rights and I am ethically opposed to them? What if I know of rights you've ignored or violated with this document? Am I entitled to a social and international order based instead upon actual rights and liberty, under the Covenant of Unanimous Consent?)

Article 29.
"(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible." 

(Your only duty to the community is to respect the rights of every individual in it.)

"(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." 

(This is a particularly horrible one. "Law" is either harmful or useless. Morality is more accurately known as situational ethics, and can be downright evil, depending on the prevailing culture. "Public order" means "Stop making a scene and let the nice policeman murder you in the streets or in your home at 3 a.m.", and general welfare-- as promoted by statists-- is a lie used to justify anything government wants to do. If it's not to the individual's welfare, it isn't to the "general" welfare. And democracy is mob rule; NOT something to promote.)

"(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." 

(There goes the myth of the Rule of Law right out the window. It sounded nice until it got in the way of the "authority" of this governmental body.)

Article 30.
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." 

(What about the rights you conveniently ignored? Or the imaginary "rights" you made up?)

And that's the end of the thing.

So, it's a mixed bag. Not as bad as I had supposed, but falling far short of actually recognizing, much less helping individuals protect, their natural human rights in accordance with living in liberty.

It's much too excited about "democracy", and can't seem to shake the superstitious belief that government is somehow legitimate and has "rights" over what to do with the individual people laboring under the weight of supporting this elitist millstone. It recognizes some natural human rights while promoting some unnatural human "rights".

There are much better rights-promoting documents, but no document can protect rights. That's up to you and me, as individuals. And States, as promoted by this document, are the natural enemy of rights and liberty.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The "right to vote"

Is there any such thing as "the right to v*te"? Can there be any such thing? Or is it just a figment of the imagination?

In the past week or so I sure saw a lot of people talking about this supposed "right".

There is no such thing as a right to govern other people. Any act of governing others is archation-- it violates their natural human rights in several ways. No one can have the right to archate.

To v*te is to endorse using political violence, through government and its "laws", against others. Do you really have a right to do that?

Sure, it is possible you might only be endorsing using political violence against those who are endorsing the use of political violence against you-- in self-defense. And some people might think it's preferable to use defensive political violence instead of using defensive violence of other kinds, such as shooting those who are threatening you in a credible way.

But is it really better? I'm not sure. I'm not even so sure it ever works, in the long-run.

I sympathize with the claim of defensive v*ting, even if I don't completely buy it.

I won't condemn anyone who feels the need to v*te. Even though it sure seems like an endorsement of the "system" and a pledge to go along with whatever results from the election. After all, democracy, like all politics, is "winner take all"; "win/lose". It's "American Roulette". Why play a rigged game you can't win, even if you believe you have the right to do so?
_______________

Reminder: I could still really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Liberty" doesn't mean "with permission"

I've once again encountered one of those people who likes to believe that the word "liberty" means something along the lines of "with the permission of an authority". This is mostly based upon the military's long-standing intentional misuse of the word.

It's similar to authoritarians' intentional misuse of the word "anarchy" to mean socialistic nihilism.
And the way the word "literally" is so often used to mean "figuratively", which is literally the word's antonym; its polar opposite.

Make people confused over what words mean and you can control how they think... or if they think.

Freedom is doing whatever you want. Nothing more; nothing less. You can say, as some do, that freedom carries responsibility, but then it wouldn't really be freedom, since so many don't want the responsibilities, and they wouldn't be "free" to reject them.

Liberty is doing what you have the right to do. And you have the right to do anything and everything which doesn't violate someone else's equal and identical rights. In this way liberty is self-limiting; there can never be "too much" liberty because you never have the liberty to violate others. But you do have the freedom to violate others if no one is holding you at gunpoint to prevent it and it's what you want to do.

Because too much freedom can be a problem, and if they can get you to confuse freedom for liberty, and liberty for "with permission", they can get you lost in the swamp. If you can see the downside of too much freedom you can be manipulated into believing there can be "too much" liberty. And if you're lost in the swamp that badly you aren't a threat to them and you won't be much use to yourself.

One of the worst things the military has done-- besides the mass murder, oppression, and destruction-- was to take a good word and fool people into believing it means the opposite of what it means (and even get it into the dictionary), and then convince them to fight to preserve the perverted, wrong meaning in order to keep people on the wrong track. I guess that's an example of "military intelligence"; intelligence to serve evil.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The trap of niceness

Many libertarians try to err on the side of niceness. I think that's praiseworthy. It's nice to be nice.

But, what worries me is that misplaced niceness makes the bad guys believe that they really aren't doing anything all that bad.

If no one is willing to call you out on what you're doing, then it must not really matter. Either you'll believe it isn't really bad, or no one cares very much so it must not be important.

It's a hard line to walk, and I know I don't always get it right.

I want to be nice to everyone, but I also don't see it as nice to let people get away with violating anyone. Yet calling them out on it isn't nice, and there's really no way to make it seem nice while making sure they understand the seriousness of what they are doing.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Racist "libertarian" nationalists

A Facebook group I was recently added to, with "libertarian" in the name, seems to mostly be a hangout for "white supremacists/nationalists" who want to pretend their stance is somehow "libertarian".

One recent post in the group claimed that since "94% of libertarians" are "white", a libertarian best serves his/her own interests by making sure to only do business with "white-owned" businesses.

I confessed in a comment that I have never once chosen to do business with a place based upon the "race" of the business' owner. I usually don't even know it, anyway, and I'm not going to waste time and effort finding out.

I'm much more concerned about whether or not the business owner supports individual liberty. If they have a "no guns" sign, or proclaim that they "support law enforcement" then I know they are anti-liberty and spending money with them only hurts my interests. The "color" of the owners never even crosses my mind, and it never would have had I not seen the post in that group.

But, the guy who made the post LOLed at me and said "Sure you haven't" and "^not a business owner" in reply to my response. Seriously.

I foolishly fed the troll and said that no, I really had never chosen a business based on the "race" of the owner-- I was only concerned with whether I could get what I wanted at a price I was willing to pay, and mentioned that I had owned a few businesses in the past and that I technically had a couple going on right now. (And I still don't care about the "race" of those I trade with.) I'm sure he believes I'm a liar, seeing his world-view is what it is.

I said I thought his was the most pointless, self-defeating criteria for choosing whom to trade with I had ever heard anyone admit to. He would be embarrassed if he had any sense. But he doesn't so he isn't.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

End government; improve health

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 3, 2018)

Have you seen there are people who are blaming their health problems on the results of the most recent presidential election? Not just their mental health and happiness, as with the widespread "Trump Derangement Syndrome", but their physical health, too. They believe politics, of a particular sort, is making them sick. If so, it's because they have chosen to get sick over politics.

In which case they take politics much too seriously.

Had their preferred candidate won they wouldn't be suffering this way, or wouldn't admit it if they were.

I'm not thrilled to be forced to put up with any president or other politician. It's as if I'm forced to buy tires and insurance for a car I've never owned and have no use for. I don't make myself sick over it, though.

It would be healthier for those who are making themselves sick to find something productive to do.

Go do something a less-responsible person might want government to do. You don't need a law to give you permission to get things done.

Join a pet rescue group on social media. See a person in need and help them out. Plant a garden. Check your emergency preparations and water supply. Or inhale helium and recite squeaky poetry. Anything's better than getting sick over politics.

Although I'm not a fan of video games, it amuses me that people who waste their lives on politics act as though they are doing something more productive than the people who sit in front of a screen for days at a time, controlling imaginary characters in made-up situations. Politics is just as unproductive, but more harmful. Real deaths, property damage, and-- apparently-- health problems result from playing politics. I thank the gamers, who stay away from seeking to control the lives of others through politics, for their service. Their sacrifice doesn't go unnoticed.

You may believe I'm joking, but there's not a person in the world who is fit to govern others. Not one. Least of all those who want to hold political power and call it "service". Instead of trying to remove people from the office they hold, or to block them from getting on the Supreme Court so you can put someone else into the job, just abolish the position. I promise you wouldn't miss it. Judging from those suffering due to the political winds not blowing their way, your health would probably improve, too.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-- poster-child for crazy

If you ever a need a poster-child for "sanpaku", now you have the perfect example.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

I knew there was something about her that creeps me out-- beyond her being a self-admitted socialist. (It's not bad to call a self-admitted socialist a socialist-- it's honest.)

Then the other day it hit me. It's her sanpaku crazy eyes. Really creepy.

Of the two types of sanpaku, she displays the most dangerous type: "...when the upper sclera is visible it is said to be an indication of mental imbalance in people such as psychotics, murderers, and anyone rageful." That's her to a "T". But that's kind of the textbook description of any socialist.

I would be very concerned if she got any real power, and wouldn't want to be alone in an elevator with her. She's one to never turn your back on.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

There's no place like home

This is the wrap-up from the questions brought up here, here, here, and here (among other places).
The popular conviction that I am wrong about the issue brings one question to my mind:
Do you have any rights-- any at all-- once you set foot off your own real-estate? Yes or no.

Do you only have rights when on your own real estate? What if you don't own any real estate? Do you then have no rights? That seems to be the implication.

If you do have portable rights which travel with you, what are they?

And, if so, how do you keep these rights while you "lose" others? What makes the ones you keep "special" and permanent while the others are disposable?

Is there really any such thing as an "inalienable right", or do rights only exist when you are on your own property? If that's really the case, then it is what it is, but we should stop pretending rights actually exist-- which raises other related questions.

Remember-- the difference between a right and a privilege is that you need permission to exercise a privilege; rights are yours to exercise without anyone's permission.

So, again, do you have any rights beyond your property lines-- beyond the physical boundaries of the real estate you own?

Might you only have the right to not be murdered while traveling, but no other rights? Or do you even have that right? Do you only exist at the whim of others when not on your own property?

Because, frankly, what is being promoted by all those who think I'm wrong here feels exactly like the Mad Max world anti-libertarians always claim will result from libertarian ideas-- where you are at the mercy of warlords who claim the territory and you have no "rights" unless they allow you to. Could they have been correct all along, after all?

How would this not justify every statist anti-liberty policy, rule, or "law" on the planet as long as the majority believes governments own the entire country? And since you never actually "own" real-estate, but are forced to pay a yearly ransom ("property tax") to keep government from taking it from you, how could you even have rights at home? You obviously don't actually own it. You already know government doesn't believe you have rights on your own property-- thus door-bashing 3 A.M. enforcement of anti-gun "laws" and anti-drug "laws" which they believe apply to you in your own home.

The only reason this comes up seems to be that people, even libertarians, are uncomfortable treating the right to own and to carry weapons as a right, They want to leave wiggle-room to turn it into a privilege so as not to scare or offend people, and in order to do so, they have to go into the mental landscape outlined above. Even though they don't seem to realize where they are going.

Change my mind by addressing the points above.

And we've finally come to the end (as far as I'm concerned) of this particular path. On to other things I hope we can agree on.

P.S.-- I really do appreciate the discussion we've been having around this. Even if almost everyone disagrees with me.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

A rickety pedestal

How did some property rights-- specifically, real estate rights-- end up on a pedestal; elevated above all other rights, including other property rights? They are being treated by some as superior to the right of self-ownership. Greater than the right to life. More fundamental than the right to control your own body, from which all other property rights-- including property rights over real estate-- arise.

Property rights with regard to real estate are a piece of the puzzle; not the whole picture. They are essential but not sufficient. You don't get to violate every other right in every other person by yelling "property rights!" Yes, I believe in property (real estate) rights, but not to the detriment of all other human rights. I don't believe they are superior to all other rights, or even that they trump other property rights.

I can't square the claim that it's not OK to shoot a kid who's just cutting through my yard with the claim that it is fine to violate people in other ways just because they are on my land, even if I coerced them into agreeing to "suspend" their rights as a condition of entry. It's only a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. If one is OK, then so would the other be-- if we are being consistent.

If I invite you onto my property, I don't demand you surrender or suspend any of your rights, including your property rights, and that would never be a condition of my invitation. It's unthinkable! I assume liberty. I don't pretend I have the right to attack or rob you just because you are visiting. Neither do you have the right to attack or rob me while on my land, but that should be obvious. As long as you don't do those things there will be no issue.

I expect the same consideration from others.
__

OK, one more day of this topic and it's done.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

You don't have the right to violate others

You have the right to own and carry a weapon, which only means no one has the right to forbid you from doing so. If they did have this right, then your right wouldn't be a right, but a privilege.

You don't have the right to threaten or shoot innocent people with your weapon while claiming "gun rights". Completely separate issues.

You have the right to own and control property-- real estate-- which means no one has a right to forbid it. If they had the right to forbid it, this would mean you only have the privilege to own and control property rather than the right.

You have no right to violate people's rights just because they are on your real estate by claiming "property rights". Completely separate issues.

Your rights never include violating the equal and identical rights of others. I don't have the right to violate your rights on my property, so you don't have that right, either. That right can't exist, by the nature of rights. You have the responsibility to not violate other people's rights while exercising your rights.

So, you don't have the right to shoot innocent people due to your right to own and carry weapons just because you wanted to shoot, and you don't have the right to make up rules which would violate other people's natural human rights as a condition of them being on your property.

Some speak of rights "conflicting", but they don't. My property rights end where yours begin, and yours begin-- at the minimum-- at "you". My rights don't overlap yours. There is no conflict.

It's the difference between "You're on my property" and "You are my property".

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."