Divided (artificially) by government

This town in which I reside straddles the state line between Texas and New Mexico. So, it is "officially" considered two towns. But why?

One town, artificially divided by arbitrary government lines, with different rules... and so the residents can be robbed for the benefit of different gangs of archators. And with different government handouts (of stolen money).

Business-wise, it is one town. The businesses here compete with each other regardless which state they might be in. The differing "tax" rates probably artificially manipulate the market somewhat, but it's not noticeable to me when I'm shopping.

Socially, it is one town. People go to church across the line. They have friends across the line. There's one newspaper. It has one yearly parade and government worship festival.

It is only two towns when you have to take government into account. And then it is also two counties and two states. And two time zones, on top of that.

Government lines are silly.

And this particular line isn't even very consistent. It's supposed to be a straight north-south "border", but depending on where along the hundreds of miles of it you happen to be, the "official" state line is randomly east or west of other parts, based (I suppose) on historical assumptions or something.

Maybe there should be a wall!

This is the border marker. Can you see the state line?

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Going along to get along vs. Lines in the sand

I understand why people tend to go along to get along. I do the same when I can. But there are lines I won't cross.

I won't perform the pledge of allegiance.
I will not worship with a national anthem.
I will not honor cops or troops.
I won't pretend any form of political government is legitimate.

I just won't.

For that matter, I avoid places and events where these rituals are likely to occur. It just makes it easier, because I simply won't participate no matter what.

But there have been times I was caught by surprise and got dirty looks.

Most of the time I say nothing to anyone doing any of those things in my presence. It's none of my business what they worship. If only they would be as courteous toward me.

But they can't.

Anyone not performing the rituals must be confronted. Even threatened. Which makes me dislike their rituals even more.

I want to get along with most people. I'll even go along with some things that don't seem too important in the long run. It's a balance. I have no illusions I get it right, but I try.

But don't try to shove me across one of my lines in the sand.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Gear post: Spyglass

This is the antique spyglass I wear on my belt. I bought it in a consignment shop in Grand Junction, Colorado in the mid-1990s. I believe I paid $75 for it.

I don't know the place or date of manufacture, but something I once found online said these were sold by Sears Roebuck around the year 1900.
It's a 3 draw telescope. I'm not sure of the magnification power, but it's better than my modern binoculars.

It is made of brass, leather, and glass.

Extended length, 16.75".
Closed length 6.25".
Large end diameter: 1.5"

It has no identifying markings.

The large tube has a leather wrap, which has worn badly over the years since I've been carrying it. I believe the eyepiece once had a little "door" to close, but it has never had that since I've owned it.

I originally started wanting a spyglass because I wanted to get a better look at girls across the street from the pet store where I worked. I have since discovered it is great for a lot of reasons. Birdwatching, reading signs in the windows of stores from the parking lot, astronomy, and just general "what is that?" uses.

I've gotten a lot of use out of it (even though it embarrasses people I'm with when I whip it out). I even wore it with my buckskin gear.

I occasionally disassemble it and wipe off the lenses. Especially the eyepiece. I lightly oil the leather wrap every couple of years. I have also cleaned the brass draw tubes when they've gotten a little "sticky" and won't slide easily.

I carry it in a leather pouch I made for it, on my left side just behind my belt pouch.

-

Here's a general overview of my EDC as of January 2015. Some things have changed a bit since then. Someday I might do an update.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

'Deep state' isn't what you think

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 23, 2019)

You've probably been hearing about the "deep state" recently, with some pundits saying it's a danger and others saying it doesn't even exist.

It's real, but it's not the conspiracy theory some would have you believe. Its reality shouldn't be controversial; it's there for everyone to see and experience.

The "deep state" is, in simple terms, the government bureaucracy. It is all those parts of government which don't change from one presidential administration to the next.

When presidents change, the new president hires new people to run the various government agencies, but most employees in the massive agency keep their job. The new boss depends on the experience of those who have been in the job through multiple administrations to keep things running.

Since their jobs are safe they get entrenched, and in some positions, feel invulnerable because of their experience and years in the job. When no one else even understands or knows for sure what they do, how can they be replaced?

Thus, you have a "deep state".

Some people want to turn this recognition of reality into evidence of paranoia.

Sure, when you involve powerful agencies such as the CIA and FBI, opportunities for abuse are probably irresistible. It's likely that some will come to see themselves as the real power behind the scenes and see the elected officials as figureheads to be tolerated as long as they don't upset the status quo too much. Some of them undoubtedly act on this power.

Scenarios of "deep state" presidential assassinations and other undemocratic schemes are thrilling, but the majority of the damage is done to your liberty by the everyday governing which goes on openly, in front of microphones and cameras.

The state, both deep and broad, has been tightening the noose around the necks of Americans almost from the beginning.

The state has been preventing the people from choosing to uncouple from an out-of-control federal government since Mr. Lincoln's war to repeal the Declaration of Independence. It has been violating the Second Amendment since at least 1934. The state keeps the tax records which are used to entrap and enslave the people. It steals, compiles, and stores your private data. All in the name of governing you.

Yet people worry about what the mysterious parts of "deep state" might do to other parts of this enemy organization? This seems like displaced concern to me.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Special People and their bad opinions

Hollywood types almost always seem smarter before they open their mouths.

The fastest way for me to lose respect for someone is for them to express a political opinion. I know it's not polite to point out that opinions can be wrong, but they can be.

Saying tea is better than coffee is an opinion. There is no rightness or wrongness to it-- it's subjective. But to advocate slavery is wrong, even if that's your actual opinion. And these Hollywood people open their mouths to promote these kinds of things so often it's become routine. They pretend they're promoting something social justicy, but they aren't. It's anti-social and unjust.

There are so many ways to be wrong; so few ways to be right. It's entropy of a sort. Chances are if someone expresses a political opinion it's going to be a bad one. One that exposes them as an ignorant anti-liberty bigot. If they express this opinion innocently, that's one thing. Maybe they can be educated. If they express it with an air of superiority, I'm not going to be impressed.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Wilson's temper

Wilson had a bit of a temper, which I experienced a few times as his target. Fortunately, most of the time he was upset at someone or something else-- not me.

I would be sitting at the fire out by my riverside wikiup and he'd drop by ranting about something. I'd invite him to sit. We'd talk for a while about whatever was bugging him, and if he was still worked up I would suggest we go shooting. It was his therapy.

I've mentioned before how stingy he was with his ammo, but just the act of heading out to one of the local shooting spots was usually enough to calm him down. The whole process usually took a couple of hours from the time we left the house until we got back-- with driving time and all. He needed the release, even if it only involved firing off 3 or 5 rounds.

If that hadn't been an option, like the anti-gun bigots seem determined to bring about, then I don't know what would have happened. It couldn't have been good.

Everyone needs that pressure release valve, whatever form it may take. You take that away from people at your peril. I saw for myself how it could help an agitated person regain his composure. The more tightly you try to control people, "for their own good", the more people will eventually "pop".

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Don't follow a sick society

The more insane the majority of individuals in a society get, the more anti-social the sane people will appear to be.

At least that's my story.

When everyone's "solution" involves more archation, I'm going to reject their "solution" and seek my own path.

When I'm required to pretend people with mental issues are empowered to dictate the words I use, I'm going to seem unkind. Because I won't comply.

If you believe the "climate change" debate centers around what government should (or shouldn't) do about it, I'm going to reject your proposals. They are without validity, even if they would "work". Nothing can trump natural human rights. Not even "necessity".

I'm not going to pretend a political "solution" to anything is legitimate. Not "laws", not bans, not anything.

I'm fed up with the clamor to find ways to count yourself a victim. Micro-racism, "misgendering", microaggressions, cultural appropriation, and all the rest. I'm fed up with being told that violating me is the only way to solve some problem, whether real or imaginary.

I reject your control tactics. I reject your collectivism and your "intersectionality". I reject your politics. It's all BS.

If everyone wants to be a victim, they'll find some way I'm victimizing them no matter how I try to bend over backward to accommodate them. So I'm not going to bend. They can take their victimization and choke on it.

I will not archate. I will not support those who do. I will try to defend those who are targets of archation. But I'm not going to pretend fantasy is reality to make crazy people feel better about themselves.

If that makes me "anti-social", so be it.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Under the hammer of the State

It doesn't matter if you have the best idea in the world-- if you try to implement it using government violence, it's not ethical. It can't be.

There is nothing I want badly enough to advocate using government violence against you-- not even if I believe you are deserving of self-defensive violence.

For example: Let's assume that I'm right and that more guns in individual hands is a good thing. Would I advocate a "law" to require everyone to own guns? No way.

Once you add aggression, including government violence in the form of "laws", to your idea, your idea is crap.

If your idea depends on theft ("taxation"), it's wrong.

If your idea relies on being imposed by "laws", your idea can't stand on its own.

If your idea needs government, then you need to let it go and find a different idea.

When you allow yourself to use the anti-social hammer of government, everything looks like a nail.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Gear post: Kershaw 1030 Deer Hunter

This is the fixed-blade knife I wear every day, everywhere I go. My dad gave it to me when I was 12. (That was about 43 years ago, for the mathematicians out there.)

It's a Kershaw 1030 Deer Hunter.
Fixed blade.
Overall length, 8".
Blade length 4".
Edge length, 3".

My dad says he paid $40 for it (new) back then. They are a bit pricier now if you can find them.

The handle has a very nice feel to it. The finger grooves are just right and feel nice in the hand.

The edge is thicker than most other knives I use, which made it a little tougher to sharpen well the first time. But sharpening knives is the one thing I feel I do a good job at so I was up to the challenge. I can shave with it now.

It originally came with a leather sheath, but that bit the dust decades ago. I was never thrilled with the sheath's design. The handle was too heavy and the knife would try to turn upside down on my belt and the whole contraption would flap around. Not good for how I lived. It needed a strap around the handle. I did add one, and that worked until the sheath wore out.

Now it resides on the back of my belt pouch, left side, edge forward, in a custom sheath I made for that position.

It has been a really good knife. At first I thought the blade would be too short, but it works for almost anything. I actually use my little lock blade more (maybe I'll do a gear post on that one sometime), but I like having this one available for when I need a beefier blade.

It has been a good knife and has survived an awful lot with me. (Although I didn't carry it while in buckskin clothes and "period" gear. That was a different set of gear.)

I would recommend this knife for a general purpose fixed blade.

-

Here's a general overview of my EDC as of January 2015.

_______________

Reminder: I could always use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Politicizing climate

Some would characterize me as a "climate change denier", which I'm not.

I simply oppose the politicization of AGCC. Just as I oppose the politicization of all science, self-defense, human rights, property, and life.

Politics is evil. When you politicize anything you contaminate it and destroy the thing you politicized. Science + politics = politics.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Time to break government addiction

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 16, 2019)

When an addict's supply is cut off, it's usually an agonizing journey through withdrawal to the other side of the addiction; where the poison finally loosens its grip on the person, giving him a new chance at life. I'm not talking about a chemical dependency this time, but a far more deadly condition: government addiction.

If you are feeling effects from this imaginary government "shutdown", even as simple as having noticed it, you are most likely somewhat addicted to government.

Do you feel as though you are suffering because you don't have enough government? Are you buying into the hysterics coming from the government extremists wanting the shutdown to end? 

Other signs of addiction can include a desire to see taxes increased, a call to build border walls, the obsession to outlaw tools of self-defense while saying that's what police are for, and many other things.

Those aren't the cravings of a healthy mind or spirit.

If you've ever wanted more government than you currently have, you are addicted and on a self-destructive path. Are you suffering any discomfort or emotional distress at all? If so, you are feeling the effects of withdrawal caused by your government addiction.

I'd love to help you kick your habit. You may think I'm joking; I'm not.

Like all addictions, breaking the addiction to government is going to hurt. Withdrawal is never fun. It is so much easier to chase after one more hit; one more law to ease the pain for the moment. If someone offers you a hit of government, and you take it, you've fed your addiction. You've kicked the can down the road. You've delayed healing rather than facing the problem and dealing with it in a responsible manner. It's your choice.

Addicts are responsible for their choices. No one is obligated to bail them out or save them from themselves. Yes, it is hard to watch someone hurt themselves. Worse, irresponsible behavior always has innocent victims; those who never asked to be a part of the sickness, but who get dragged down with the junkie.

This unique chance to break your addiction won't last forever. When it ends, and someone offers you a hit of your old vice, I hope you'll be strong enough to say "no". To say you don't need the poison anymore. If you need someone to talk to, to help you through the pain of withdrawal, I'm here for you. I'm completely serious.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Hierarchy

Hierarchy is one of those concepts I see underinformed people bash pretty often.

A politicized hierarchy is bad, not because of the hierarchy, but because of the politics.

Hierarchy is the recognition that some people are better at some things than I am. I learned to make fire with the bow drill from Burnt Spoon because he knew more and had more experience than I did. Larken Rose is better at explaining liberty than I am. To deny those facts, just because I don't want anyone in the hierarchy "above" me, would be insane and unhelpful.

If an employee doesn't listen to a supervisor just because he doesn't want to be "lower" on the hierarchy than the boss, he may mess up. The employee may lose his job. Yes, he might be right, and it might be worth it to defy the boss, but it's not automatically oppression to defer to someone else who knows more about something than you do. Any legitimate hierarchy is a hierarchy of competence.

But, as with anything else, once you add politics to the mix your hierarchy is probably no longer based on competence, but on power and imaginary "authority". This kind of hierarchy is illegitimate and you have no obligation to submit to it.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Defending scoundrels

Years ago I encountered a wise quote:

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." ~ H. L. Mencken

The more experienced I become, the more important-- and wiser-- that quote seems to be. To me, personally.

Over and over I have to step up and defend the natural human rights of people I don't like. I understand it's just as wrong to violate my enemy as it is to violate my friend. Or me.

Defending these people causes other people to sometimes get angry at me. They claim I'm taking the bad guys' side. I get chided and scolded and even lied about.

Yet it's worth it. If you can keep the counterfeit "laws" off the scoundrels, there will be fewer counterfeit "laws" used against the rest of us.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The archators I notice

Here's another of my personal flaws.

Of all the people I encounter and notice archating -- in person on a regular basis-- the vast majority of them are Hispanic.

Does that sound racist? Is it a fluke of geography?

The Hispanic "neighbors" on one side of my house throw trash in my yard, trespass, allow their yard trash to accumulate and blow into my yard. They and their guests will stroll right past my "no trespassing" sign without hesitation. These are the people who kept driving across my yard and parking in it, until I put out the "no trespassing" sign, and had to then tell them to stop driving into my yard. I don't like them.

My daughter's frenemy, who I've spoken of before, is Hispanic.

The majority (but not all) of the teens at the park, breaking things and dropping their Powerade bottles on the ground, as well as the family groups leaving their piñata debris scattered all over, are also Hispanic.

I could go on.

There's no part of that I want to be true-- but I don't get to dictate reality to the Universe. There's also no part of that which makes me want to justify a giant welfare/police state program-- excuse me, a government "border". I don't even like noticing a person's "race" in the first place, because it means nothing.

Yes, there are non-Hispanic archators around here. I don't like them either, but I don't encounter them as often, nor do I see them archating quite as openly. And there are plenty of other Hispanic people living around me who I either have no problem with or who I think are wonderful people. They don't archate in any way I can see. They are preferable to any of those who archate, regardless of "race" or culture. One of my daughter's best friends-- one I adore and think is a terrific positive influence on my daughter-- is mixed "race" (none of which are "white").

Is it racist of me to notice the Hispanicity of most of the archators who negatively impact my life? It feels that way to me. It is certainly collectivist, in that it can make me feel negative toward people who aren't doing anything wrong. I try not to fall into that pit. But I'm also not one to cover for archators due to their "race" just to appear more enlightened.

It's probably more about culture than "race" anyway. If that's the case I don't care much for their culture (nor do I care much for the "American culture" either, for different reasons).

If you archate, and continue to do so after it has been pointed out to you, I'm probably not going to like you. No matter who or what you are.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Which "minarchy"?

I understand the appeal of minarchy. After all, it's where I came from; what I used to advocate. Even though I knew I was an anarchist personally, I used to imagine minarchy as the most practical way to be as liberated as possible.

But minarchy-- keeping a little bit of cancer around and under control to prevent a different cancer from getting a foothold-- is an unsustainable Utopian fantasy. Much more so than anarchy could ever be.

And, it's confused.

As a minarchist, which "minimal government" would you pick? Only things such as government fire protection, government policing, military, government-controlled roads, and government courts? Other minarchists might have other preferences. Some would include "securing the borders" or other Big Government welfare programs. Any version includes the "taxation" to pay for it all, along with the bureaucracy to collect and distribute the money and find and punish the opt-outs.

Does every minarchist get to impose the particular flavor of "minimal government" they want? If so, it is no longer "minimal".

Do you use v*ting to decide which bits of government you get to impose on me? Then it's mob rule-- "might (through superior numbers) makes right".

Through v*ting and "taxation" you've cut the brake line on anything holding back government growth.

As I say, I understand, but a "little bit of statism" is still evil.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Don't be "PC"

"PC", or political correctness (along with its "conservative" twin: patriotic correctness) is the embracing of lies. Or at least the hiding of truth.

If you speak the truth the Correctists will try to hurt you. They may even succeed, just because there are so many of them and they have so much power. But they are still wrong. And there's a weakness-- a rot-- at their core, just because of the lies they embrace and tell.

Will it cause their destruction in time? I hope, but I don't know.

However, I'm not going to lie or hide the truth to protect myself from them, and I won't shy away from pointing out their lies. Even knowing the consequences.

Their lies need to be countered with truth. In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act. As with all truths, this remains true whether or not George Orwell actually said it.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Aim small; miss small (or maybe don't miss at all)

You've got to have a target in mind.

If you don't know what you're aiming for, how will you ever hit it?

The world will always try to fight against your aim. If you have a crosswind you have to take it into account, but still with the intention of hitting the target. You can't just let the wind push your aim where it will. You have to think about where you intend to hit and compensate for the crosswind. If you let the winds push your aim downwind, you'll not even hit close to your target.

By the same token, if you allow statism to push you in the direction it is blowing, you'll never hit the target of individual liberty. Yes, you may have to compensate, by being even more "radical" than you're comfortable with, but if you want to be on target you have no choice. You won't hit the target by deciding that hitting the target isn't realistic. You won't hit it by finding a substitute target you believe would be easier to hit. You won't hit the target by giving up and putting your gun down.

I know it's frustrating to be told constantly that you're not being realistic by insisting that the target you want to hit is the one you really are interested in hitting. That trying to shoot an easier target that you don't even want is the pragmatic compromise you're just going to have to settle for. Why even bother, in that case? And maybe that's the point. Get people to give up. That seems like a tactic the other side-- the statists-- would be using against you.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Let others make their mistakes

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 9, 2019)

One of the hardest things you'll ever have to do is let people make their own mistakes. Whether you're seeing your child about to make a mistake, or seeing other people making pointless and unnecessary mistakes, it's hard to watch without stepping in.

It's even harder when you know those mistakes will hurt you or other innocent people who had no part in making the mistake. In such cases, warning people they are making a mistake is self-defense.

Most people will ignore your warning. It's frustrating when simple solutions are rejected and the mistakes are treated as the reasonable course. "This is how we've always done it" is a common excuse for doing the wrong thing.

When that happens, brace for impact. It's going to hurt-- unless you find a way to protect yourself. No one is obligated to let other people's mistakes hurt us.

Except, apparently, when you are talking about government. The way government is structured means you are legally required to suffer the mistakes of others.

How can anyone believe this is right?

It is said people always get the government they deserve. The trouble is, the government the worst people "deserve" gets imposed on the rest of us. This is like saying some people commit murder, so it's OK to sentence everyone to life in prison. Or to death.

If I see you jumping off a cliff and can't reason you out of your foolish death-plunge, who believes I'm obligated to jump with you? In any realm, other than politics, no one would expect you to willingly leap to your death just because someone else does so.

People are attached to their political mistakes. They keep making the same ones over and over, for decades; often making the same mistakes their entire lives. Those of us who prefer another path are made to suffer along with those who don't want to believe they are making mistakes.

It can be frustrating, but like the weather, it's beyond your control. The best you may be able to do is ride out the storm in as much comfort as possible. Notice the mistakes others are making, don't copy them, and find ways to protect yourself-- or profit if possible. If you can find ways to profit from their mistakes, after you've warned them they are making a mistake and they refuse to change, why shouldn't you?

You're not profiting from the suffering of others, you're honoring their choice.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

The Socialist Century (-ies?)

Looking back at 20th Century "world leaders" [sic] such as the domestic enemies Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, and foreign thugs like Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, and all the rest, it seems socialism was all the rage-- even when called something else.

So many "common people" also fell for the socialism lie and thought envy was a great thing to rally around and use as a foundation for a "society". Socialism was everywhere, and we are still suffering the effects.

The 20th Century should be known as the Socialist Century.

My hope would be that it would be a singular mistake, not repeated in the 21st Century. But I'm not optimistic. Judging by current trends, we may be entering Socialist Century 2.0. And it may end up being even worse than the previous century before it's over and done.

Too many pseudo-thinkers still love the idea of stealing from some and giving to others. For political power and money. They lie when they claim it's about caring. But, all politics is based on lies, so what do you expect?

It seems obvious that socialism will increase until self-inflicted disaster forces an end to it.

I hope you and I can use the awareness of what's coming to prepare and prosper throughout it-- or at least survive it. If you can profit from it, on the backs of the socialists who are trying to eat you alive, do it with a clear conscience. If you can profit off the socialism by helping the rare fellow non-socialist through the rough times, just know you are providing a service-- you are one of the good guys.

Through all the pain it causes you, just remember the monumentally greater pain it will cause the dolts who embrace it when their chickens come home to roost. They'll be shocked and caught by surprise. You won't. That makes you mighty.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Cooperation is libertarian

One thing I find very interesting, and a little frustrating, is how often people will try to put words in my mouth.

I guess it's a facet of the strawman tactic.

Recently someone kept trying to say that I was against cooperation; that cooperation is against libertarian principles, so I have to be against it. Even after I explicitly said several times that I think cooperation is a great thing, and I'm completely in favor of it.

Libertarianism rejects cooperation? I've never made such a silly claim, nor have I ever seen anyone who understands liberty make a claim like that. It's completely absurd.

But, because I'm opposed to stealing money to fund government or government "borders", I must be against cooperation.
And if I am in favor of cooperation, then I must obviously see the "value" of theft and coercion in the name of government.

Yeah, I don't get that connection either.

Government is the opposite of cooperation. If people willingly cooperate (and there's really no such thing as non-willing cooperation) there is no need to rob them or to coerce them to do what you believe should be done. That's not cooperation, that's slavery.


_______________

Reminder: I could really use some cooperative help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

If the State don't fit, it's illegitimate

As long as the State (or government, for those who believe in the possibility of good political government) is "one-size-fits-all", it will be illegitimate. And, if it isn't "one-size-fits-all" it isn't what anyone in current society would consider a government/the State.

"One-size-fits-all" only works when you are dealing with identical, interchangeable pieces. The only thing identical about humans is that they share identical rights with all other humans, and humans are not interchangeable.

With regard to rights and liberty, and only in that case, "one-size-fits-all". In all other cases, "one-size" is more likely to harm almost all.

It doesn't matter how the State is structured, how it is carried out, or what you imagine would happen in its absence.

You can not ethically govern other people without their explicit consent and without allowing them to opt out without giving up things unrelated to the governing.

This is why each human is responsible for governing his or her own life, and no one else's. Yes, some people shirk that responsibility, but your only responsibility in that case is to defend yourself (and possibly others) from being violated.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The one way I support "border" walls

If someone wants a wall along their property line, and their property line happens to coincide with a government "border", I'm fine with there being a wall along that segment of the "border". Even if the adjacent property owner doesn't like the wall.

As long as they fund it themselves, or with voluntary contributions, and don't try to extend it beyond their own property lines.

In that case-- and ONLY in that case-- a border wall is not a property violation. But I've seen no one among the Wallists advocate for this kind of border wall.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help, but I'm not building a wall. Yet.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Uninformed, misinformed, brainwashed statists

If you don't watch "the news" you might be uninformed; if you watch it you will be misinformed.

"News" is opinion. There's no such thing as just presenting the facts; there never was. There's always going to be a slant to it. It's almost always a statist slant.

If they don't honestly portray cops as a gang, politicians as thieving thugs, government as religion, "laws" as slavery, they are not telling the truth. They are opinionizing. Lying. Covering up the truth to protect the bad guys.

Any bland "news" story about the "arrest" of a drug dealer, and the drugs, cash, and guns confiscated from him, is a nest of lies-- opinions, if I were to be nice about it. It will assume statism. It will assume the legitimacy of prohibition, "taxation", government police, "gun control" [sic], "laws", the "justice system", and a hundred other things which shouldn't be assumed.

They are selling their opinion to people who mostly agree with them (even when they feel they are on the other side), or who they are trying to fool into agreeing with them. It largely works.

I think that's why you see "Right" vs "Left" in almost all "news"/opinions. All "news" comes from one side or the other... yet the sides are really the same. They are statist, anti-liberty bigots to the core. So the "news" gets people to arguing over which of those identical twins is correct, when they are both wrong.

Statists live in a statist bubble, even if they sample statist opinions from the "other side". It's still only statism.

Libertarians don't have the option of living in a bubble. We get exposed to the other sides. All other sides. Constantly. Whether we intend to or not. It's unavoidable. That's why we are better informed than the uninformed or the misinformed statists. And it's why the statists try so hard to ridicule our position. They have to, otherwise they might realize they are losers going in circles, chasing hallucinations.

_______________

Reminder: I will inform you I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Past racism is the ugly past

I went through a phase where I was terribly racist. Mostly against "black" people.

It began soon after I moved to Arkansas from Texas. Interestingly enough, my elderly grandmother underwent the same transformation within a few months of also moving from Texas to Arkansas to be closer to us. Before she moved she had scolded me for saying ugly racist things, yet soon after she moved she was saying the same things she had previously objected to me saying.

My racist thoughts and feelings began to fade as soon as I left Arkansas.

Maybe it was a coincidence, or maybe there was a reason the area had that effect on two people who had never thought racist thoughts before. I can't say.

What I can say, and know, is this: I was wrong. I don't know a stronger way to say it. It was collectivist and disgusting. Nothing done to me personally can justify it. I should have simply focused my dislike on the individuals who were violating me, not on their "race" and not on individuals I grouped with them who had never done anything to me.

Yet, in the midst of my racism, I had a really good "black" friend. He always called me a "nigger" and I called him a "honkey"-- the most common racist slurs used by ignorant people against each group at that place and time. When we were hanging out I would "talk black" and he would "talk white". We switched roles in every way we could think of. We thought it was hilarious and we laughed hard over it. The other kids ignored us. The teachers were aghast but they didn't try to stop us. Imagine that happening today-- outside of follower-hungry YouTubers and "white" kids who want to emulate rappers, I mean.

I never wore "blackface" or a KKK robe and don't know of anyone who ever did. I knew a bunch of kids who revered the KKK (at least in theory) and bragged about relatives who belonged to it. But I didn't speak up against those things because I didn't care.

I'm ashamed of that now. I'm not that person anymore. I hope I'm a better person than I used to be.

Should I be judged on what I did and thought back then? I hope not. I'm horrified by my past self now and I don't even like sharing this.

This is all to say I think the current witch-hunt over the politician who is being scolded for a yearbook page, appearing on a page with someone in "blackface" and someone else in a KKK robe, is dumb. That was years ago-- he's not the same person today that he was then.

He's undoubtedly worse.

Criticize him for the wrong he's doing NOW. He's a politician, just like all other politicians-- including the politicians of the Congressional Black Caucus. That's evil. That's archation. His past is nothing but a distraction from his current krimes.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Social events no place for politics

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 2, 2019)

In spite of how libertarianism is often portrayed, it's not a middle ground between conservatism and progressivism. It's not even on the scale with those positions. But during social gatherings libertarians can be a neutral zone between conservative and liberal disagreement.

The silliness of the political right and left is clear to libertarians, yet we have common ground with each, on those few issues where they still support individual liberty. Progressives and conservatives are more similar to each other than they'll admit. Why should they fight over the minor details on which they disagree?

Cousin Xander might believe government should do something which Cousin Yolanda opposes, while Yolanda wants government to do something Xander feels would be the end of civilization. The libertarian in the room knows that neither cousin's wish excuses government violence. Pointing this out can distract the factions from being at each other's throats by giving them a common enemy.

Expressing skepticism about the importance of the issue they value enough to fight over can make them unite against you.

Grandpa Al and Grandpa Bill may revere different presidents and hate the presidents revered by the other. Their libertarian grand-kid can see the flaws of both politicians and the ridiculousness inherent in the office of president. To explain there's no substantive difference between their respective heroes is a sure way to help them forget their disagreement with each other for a moment.

Once you understand that all politics is the search to justify government violence against those who are looking for an excuse to use government violence against you, it's easy to see why politics doesn't belong in society. It also helps you understand why those who are arguing aren't nearly as different as they imagine.

If you find yourself under the boot of government violence you won't care whether it's a right boot or a left boot. Libertarians decry the boot while progressives and conservatives argue over which foot ought to be wearing it. Consistent libertarianism is non-political, which is why the Libertarian Party-- being political-- has such a hard time gaining traction among libertarians.

Personally, I don't think social occasions are any place for politics. Yet politics will crop up in the most devious ways and in the least appropriate places. Having a libertarian in the mix helps unite all the pro-government people against the one who can't embrace their government extremism. It's our sacrifice for the cause of world peace. Happy New Year!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Benefit of the doubt

When I say socialists/statists are stupid, it is my attempt to give them the benefit of the doubt. The unpleasant alternative, which I'm trying to avoid, is that they are evil. I believe evil is worse than being stupid.

Once they've decided it's OK to allow government to commit a "little bit" of theft or aggression (archation) on their behalf-- and if they're not stupid-- they've willingly chosen evil.

Why they did so-- fear, "culture", pragmatism, complications of statism, whatever-- doesn't figure in.

If I believe they are smart and yet they continue to advocate socialism/statism, stupidity is no longer an excuse. That option has been taken off the table. So what is left?

I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but they make it hard and don't appreciate it anyway.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Less emotional; more reasoned"

The first time I encountered social psychologist Jonathan Haidt I had a kind of visceral dislike for him. I don't even know why. However, I have since listened to more of his interviews and lectures and found some pearls there-- the instinctive dislike I felt at first has largely faded.

Yes, he is way too enamored of the State (as are so many). He can't even face the question of whether it is a legitimate human endeavor to govern others. It's assumed, and he only concerns himself with how it is carried out. That's a huge strike against him in my book.

Anyway, I was listening to this lecture/interview (from Skeptic.com) with him and got a laugh from this quote:

"Some people are less emotional, more reasoned. We call these people 'libertarians'. There's actually data on this-- that libertarians are lower on emotion, higher on reasoning ability. They have worse relationships, they care about people less, but they are better able to just reason through a lot of data."

If I felt any more emotion than I do, I think I would die. To believe I am less emotional than other people scares me. How do other people manage if they feel more emotions than I do? I can't even imagine the horror!

Beyond that, I care about people a great deal. That's why I don't want them robbed, enslaved, molested, murdered, or governed. Isn't it odd to believe that you "care more" if you're OK with doing these things to people?

He slipped up on a few other things, not realizing that socialists and communists aren't anarchists while consistent libertarians are, but I don't really expect outsiders to get the details correct. All in all, it was an interesting lecture and interview. I found things to agree with and things to roll my eyes over.

Added: I remembered why I disliked Haidt from the beginning. The first thing I ever saw (heard?) from him was an interview (by Jordan Peterson) where he was promoting something which smelled like "cultural purity"/excuses for borderism. Other things I have seen from him seem to back away from that a bit, so I may have misinterpreted what he was saying at first.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Taking the bait; abandoning the high ground

There is no such thing as an "unethical necessity" or "necessary evil". It's an oxymoron.

If something is necessary, it can't be unethical, and if something is unethical it can't be a necessity. Maybe you can't see another way, but it's there. It is never necessary to rape a baby, in other words.

Those who believe in such fantasies have fallen prey to pragmatism.

Yes, I can understand why they do it. Principles are hard. They may not even be safe to stick with-- no one ever said doing the right thing was easy, safe, or would result in instant (or eventual) Utopia. But it's still the right thing.

For some reason, Trump and "immigration" have fooled more people into abandoning principles-- and what's right-- than anything I've ever personally witnessed. Maybe other things were stronger archation bait in the past, but that must have been before my time.

This would be scary, except that I understand the concept of winnowing grain; to allow the chaff and harmful debris to fly away with the breeze so it doesn't end up choking you in your food. So I see this as a way to see who's on the side of liberty, and who was hanging around while it was convenient and easy. Seeing some of those who have chosen to fly to statism at the earliest provocation has been a huge surprise... and a bitter disappointment... to me.

Someone has to stake out the ethical, principled ground. There are plenty of pragmatists and quislings around; that position is well represented. No more of them are needed.

If you approach every problem from the position that statism is unavoidable (or necessary), you're going to find statist "solutions" to accommodate your statist objections every time. You'll be blind to real, lasting voluntary solutions when you assume statism. Thus you'll justify States and all the horrid things which come along with them-- while using the inevitable results of statism to show why "we need statism". You'll get angry at anyone who points out that your assumptions are flawed.

And that is the unvarnished reality.

_______________

Reminder: Another unvarnished reality is that I could use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.