Hard to believe in 'accusation market'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 26, 2018)

I don't want to be cynical, but the emergence of a market in politically convenient accusations of sexual misconduct, made at just the right moment, is making me cynical.

It's as though people collect and save these accusations in hopes that someday the person they are prepared to accuse will seek a political position, when the accusation can be whipped out, shined up, and presented as a tactic to derail the ambition. If the accuser and accused support different wings of the political vulture, anyway.

I assume anyone inclined to seek political power is probably more likely than the average person to have bad behavior skeletons in their closet, but it all seems too predictable, too convenient, and too politically one-sided as well.

This "accusation market" makes me hesitant to believe any such accusations, regardless of who makes them against whom. And that's a shame. I know there are predatory creeps out there. I believe they should be exposed. But the timing of the accusations-- often decades old-- makes me suspicious.

It also makes me suspect many of these accusations are likely fictitious, created and released to prevent the other political side from getting more power. The passage of so many years makes false memories a near certainty, even if honesty is the goal. And when the game is politics, honesty is never the goal.

Before you accuse me of picking a side, let me remind you where I stand: I don't want any political side to have any power. I would be fine with it if everyone who seeks a political position or office were found unfit for the job. I don't believe anyone is suited to wield political power over others; least of all those who want this power.

It doesn't matter if I don't like most of the people who are targets of these politically convenient accusations. I also don't care much for accusers who stayed quiet and, if their accusations are true, allowed the predators they knew of to continue to victimize others for years or even decades.

Once upon a time, I thought "where there's smoke, there's fire"; when someone was accused of something of this nature. I assumed it was probably at least partly true. I'm less sure today. Today it just looks like the newest way to play politics and force your way on others. Is this where they really want to go from here? How is any of this a good thing for actual victims?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

"Guilty" of possession?

Mere possession of anything can't be a krime. There must be possession plus... something. What "something"? To be a krime there has to be possession plus archation--possession plus an act which violates someone, and mere possession doesn't. It can't.

Possession is passive. Believing this violates someone is basically the same as believing offending someone violates them-- it's like believing in "microaggressions". No one has a right to not be offended, and no one has the right to prohibit mere possession of something.

This was the realization which long ago ended my support of the War on Drugs; which made me realize it was really the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.

But then I thought and considered this from every angle for a decade or two and finally came to realize it didn't end there. Mere possession of anything doesn't violate anyone, ever. I keep trying to think of a way to passively archate-- violate someone in some real way without acting-- and I haven't yet.

For possession of anything anywhere to be archation you have to have possession plus. Plus a credible threat to archate. Plus aggression. Plus theft. Plus radiation or some other active dispersal of something physically harmful onto another person or their private property. Plus something. Because mere possession isn't a violation of anyone's rights.

Just one example, concerning a hypothetical freedom of religion scenario:
You can possess any religious beliefs you want. You can possess those beliefs wherever you go, even when on the private property of someone with different religious beliefs. This is passive. No one can possibly be violated by your religion-- no matter what it is-- until you put your beliefs into action by actually doing something; by no longer passively possessing those beliefs, but by acting them out. By whipping them out and waving them around, as it were. You can be banned from performing rituals on someone else's property, but they can't reasonably (or ethically) ban you from passively possessing religious beliefs they oppose while on their property. It's just none of their business.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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