(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 17, 2018)
A great many people are upset because President Trump is claimed to have observed that many places around the world are, shall we say, "less than ideal". Of course, being Donald Trump, he is claimed to have used a colorful metaphor to describe those places. It is honest, but not polite.
His detractors see racism in this observation, which isn't surprising since they are the same people who see racism around every rock and hear it in every word. I don't see racism, but I do see denial.
The harsh truth is there are many places around the globe fitting this description. They can have a negative effect on the ethics and intelligence of those who live there.
Trump is, however, unlikely to admit what usually creates those conditions. It isn't the people who live there. In almost every instance, the horrible conditions are primarily the fault of the governments the people in those places are burdened with; the states they live under.
Obviously, in some cases the residents chose the government, but normally they didn't. Did you personally choose any of the governments-- not just people who hold some government positions-- which impose themselves on your life? I didn't think so. How much blame do you want to accept for the actions of any of the governments around you? How much should you accept? Unless you support one or more of those governments or their policies, I don't hold you personally responsible for the atrocities they commit, or the conditions which result.
This brings up another guilty party, largely responsible for the conditions mentioned..
In many cases a place is "less than ideal" because of acts committed by the U. S. government (usually through its military) against the people, society, infrastructure, and resources of the foreign land. It's extremely dishonest to wreck up a place, then insult the victims over the mess you made of their home. And to then complain when the people leave and look for a new home is downright evil.
Of course, governments thrive on chaos, and refugees create chaos, so creating refugees is a win for government. No matter which side of the issue they pretend to be on.
This illustrates why governments shouldn't have "immigration policies" to begin with, and shouldn't be able to get away with going around the world killing people and breaking stuff. Governments are a net negative on the world. Don't add to the misery and chaos by supporting any of them.
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, February 18, 2018
To "advocate"
No one has the right to advocate the initiation of force or property violations. If you are libertarian, this is something you know. But, what exactly does it mean to "advocate" something?
It doesn't just mean to believe it, or to even accept it. It doesn't mean to discuss it with others as a hypothetical possibility.
Dictionary.com says to advocate means "to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly"
It means to try to convince others to do something you want them to do. This can be good or bad.
It's not a "free speech" issue once you start advocating that someone do something they have no right to do.
In spite of "legal" opinions to the contrary, you do have a right to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but you have no right to light the flames and then claim you didn't do anything wrong, it was the fire's fault. Advocating archation is lighting the flames of archation in weak hearts and minds. You have no right to do so.
Sure, if you are trying to talk someone into violating life, liberty, or property, and they actually do it, the bulk of the guilt is on them for being the ones who chose to archate. However, you had no right to advocate what you did, so you share the blame.
If this weren't the case Hitler would be innocent of any wrongdoing. After all, he probably never killed anyone himself, he simply advocated that others do so. Rather effectively. So did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Bill Clinton, George Bush (both of them), Obama, and every other tyrannical mass murderer throughout history. Even if any of them did personally kill some people, the numbers of those killed because they advocated it is orders of magnitude greater.
This doesn't mean I want "laws" used against you, or to see you punished if you advocate archation. It means I am warning you that people have the right to defend themselves from you when you are out there advocating their violation. You are warned.