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 perhaps better.
KentForLiberty pages
Sunday, May 19, 2024
Note to railroad: Be a good neighbor
Saturday, May 18, 2024
Do your best regardless of mistakes
What if they DO understand?
I'd prefer to attribute harmful actions to ignorance rather than to malevolence. But, in my post about things statists don't understand, readers made the point that they do understand; they choose to do the wrong things for evil purposes; to steal money and liberty and let others suffer the consequences.
I'm afraid my readers are right.
I want to think people wouldn't willingly choose to commit evil, but evidence shows that they will. Readily.
And all those things I listed in that previous post are harmful. Each has a better way than the one statists insist on imposing. And if they know it, this means they are choosing to harm people to advance their agenda, which is also harmful. That's the definition of evil.
Statists-- government supremacists-- choose to commit evil. All because evil aligns with their beliefs and what they want. You can't have political government without choosing to commit evil against your fellow humans.
Make better choices.
Reject evil. Embrace liberty.
Friday, May 17, 2024
Me vs USPS
Thursday I nearly got into a fight with the local postal manager/supervisor. As she antagonized me in the post office, I kept Wilson's USPS experience in mind. I don't need a nasty gov employee telling lies about me making threats I didn't make.
But I was getting angry.
First, a little backstory. This is a small town. No stoplights and no home mail delivery. If you are to get your mail, you must go to the post office to pick it up. The post office insists that every piece of mail have your P.O. Box number in the address. If not, they threaten to send it back. Many companies say they can't send things to a post office box for "security" reasons. Thus we have a problem. If I get it at all, and unless UPS or Fedex drop it off on my porch, it will come through my P.O. box, no matter how much those companies don't like it.
We have the additional problem that sometimes UPS drops off our packages at the post office for them to deliver. And if UPS doesn't put the box number in the address, the Post Office will snap. On us, not on UPS.
For years, the post office has nagged local residents about telling everyone who sends us mail to put the PO box number on the mail. We do, but it often doesn't work. Often, even if I put the number in my address, the sender will drop that part. I can't control that.
I also pick up the mail for 3 households, meaning it isn't in my control what others do with their addresses.
Which brings us to Thursday.
My parents had a slip in their box saying they had mail to pick up at the counter-- 4 packages. I took the slip to the counter, gave it to the woman, and told her the box number I was picking up the packages for.
She got them off the shelf and as she carried them to the counter she started complaining because the packages only had the street address on them. I said I was sorry. She asked if I knew how long it took her to look up the box numbers? (I guess she's unable to use a computer database.) She said she has other things to do and looking up addresses takes time she could be using for other things.
I said I was sorry, but this was my parents' mail, and that I have also had trouble with businesses that won't put the box number in the address. I said I do keep trying, though.
She stepped it up a notch. She said "Everyone else manages"-- which I know isn't true because I've talked to, and overheard, many people having the same issue. I was trying to stay civil and said I understand, but sometimes companies don't listen, and that a lot of times, no matter how many times I've added a box number to my address, it doesn't get added on the address label. She just got ruder.
She started lecturing me on how to write the address so that companies will include the box number.
I already do this-- I write it like 123 Street St., Box 321-- because I've noticed that if you include "PO" anywhere on that line, it will often get left off. Or outright rejected. So she told me you can also list your name like John Smith 321, because "you can use anything for a name".
The trouble is, my parents' packages were medication, and the insurance company sent it to the name on their records. You can't just add numbers and expect them to be left in place... if you can figure out how to add them in the first place.
She was getting more hyper about it, and I noticed her apprentice/helper had stepped out to watch the interaction.
Through it all, I kept saying I understood her problem, but that I have no control over what address format companies use, especially not for mail sent to my parents. That I do my best, but it doesn't always work.
She just got ruder and ruder. Kept telling me that if mail doesn't have the box number on it, it will just sit on the shelf for 20 days and then she'll send it back. I said "Go ahead." I was done with her rude attitude. I was starting to shake a little due to adrenaline, and I'm betting she could hear it in my voice.
My thought was that this is her JOB, and if she doesn't want to do her JOB maybe she should find a different one. I didn't voice this opinion, but I was thinking it rather loudly.
As I walked out the door, she said "Have a nice day", but with contempt in her voice.
Government employees can be the absolute worst, because there are no consequences.
When I got to my parents' house with the mail I told them what happened, so they called the online pharmacy to have the box number added to the address. They supposedly added it to my dad's address, but said it was already part of my mom's address (but it wasn't on the label). They claimed they will make sure it's part of the shipping address from now on.
We'll see.
And if not, we'll see if postal cow changes her attitude next time. I think I have a package coming in the next few days. That will be a joy.
I filed a complaint. too. This sort of thing has gone on too long. So, if I get SWATted...
Thursday, May 16, 2024
Statists don't understand
Statists don't understand economics or inflation.
They don't understand how (and why) cops cause crime.
They don't understand rights.
They don't understand legislation.
They don't understand how foreign meddling creates enemies.
They don't understand anything they want to regulate or ban.|
They don't understand simple language.
They don't understand human nature.
They don't understand history.
They don't understand the difference between the state and society.
They don't understand why free speech matters, or what it is.
They don't understand ethics or morality.
They don't understand physics or science in general, or how science works.
They don't understand democracy.
They don't understand how children learn or what inspires them.
They don't understand liberty.
They don't understand much of anything that matters when people live around other people.
They don't understand why people chafe under their control.
They don't understand government.
This list isn't close to comprehensive. The list of things statists don't understand, but think they should be in charge of anyway, is staggering.
And, despite this monumental lack of understanding they've built their entire government-supremacist edifice upon, I'm expected to let them run my life?
I don't think so.
I'm better off taking care of myself. And so are you.
I understand that you're better off making your own mistakes.
Wednesday, May 15, 2024
Cops are ethically required to die to avoid violating rights
The more information that comes out about that cop who murdered the guy who came to his door holding a gun, the worse it shows the cop to be.
Everything about that incident is horrible.
The cop was a coward (what a shock) and killed someone who wasn't even a threat to him. Even if the guy had been a threat, a cop is ethically required to die to avoid violating someone's rights. Don't like it? That's easy: Don't be a cop.
The cop knocked and hid from the peephole. Multiple times, He didn't adequately announce himself-- but even if he had it wouldn't have made a difference because in that case, it's either a badged thug or a freelance thug at your door, and both will murder you. It's a no-win situation for the good guy.
Then, worst of all, the badged parasite briefly caught a glimpse of someone doing something they had a right to be doing, in a place they had a right to be, and he shot that person to death because he was afraid.
That cop needs to be exposed.
He needs to be stripped of his position, blocked from ever collecting another cent of "tax" money or having any position of power over anyone, and any pension he might have collected needs to be given to the grieving survivors his cowardly act left behind. At a minimum.
Also, something about boiling tar and dirty feathers comes to mind, although that might be vengeful and I'm opposed to revenge,,. so...
There are no words to describe how utterly worthless that cop is. As well as all who are like him.
The same is true for those working tirelessly to lick the jackboots of cowardly, murderous legislation enforcers by making the case that seeing anyone who isn't a cop with a gun merits immediate death.
Cops are scum, and copsuckers are lower than scum.
Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Analyzing the world around us
I can't look at anything without analyzing it. I can look at and enjoy beautiful sights, but I am going to also analyze what I'm looking at. I may not always analyze it correctly-- that's a separate issue-- but my brain is going to be working on it. It seems to serve me fairly well.
To me, understanding something is part of the beauty of it. I realize not everyone has the same experience. I've even found some people who have the opposite reaction.
For a couple of years now, my daughter has been wanting us to watch the TV series Young Sheldon together. A couple of days ago we finally got around to starting it. We weren't too far into the first episode when she said "Dad, that's you!"
Presumably, without taking into account his math skills.
Yes, I do see some similarities. Even some that are less than flattering. I can't argue that my mind isn't analytical, though.
It's why I'm not going to buy the justifications for the state that others want so hard to believe. In my analysis, the justifications don't hold up.
It's why I'm not going to excuse a cop who goes to the wrong door and then murders the person who answers the door holding a gun.
It's why I don't automatically believe "climate change" is a crisis.
It's why I wasn't susceptible to COVID fearmongering.
It's why I think elections are always rigged, and it matters less than some might believe.
It's why I don't care where someone was born, only what they do.
It's why, many years ago, I gave serious consideration to the argument that "we" would be better off if guns were banned, and then utterly rejected that position in its entirety.
Since I can't look at the world without analyzing everything anyway, I might as well use it in a way that seems useful to me and gives some context to what's going on. If it also gets me closer to understanding reality, that's a bonus.
Monday, May 13, 2024
Fighting crime with crime?
The solution to crime isn’t more crime. It’s not more government, which is a criminal organization. It’s not more legislation, more stringent enforcement, more cops, harsher punishment. Raising "taxes" can't solve crime. All those things are crime in the real sense.
Those things aren't going to make things better for the non-criminals among us.
I understand the concept of fighting fire with fire. This isn't that.
This is "fighting fire" by burning all the firetrucks, dumping all the water into the ocean, and throwing all the firefighters down a well where they can't be of any use, while hiring more arsonists and nihilists and expecting them to make things better.
It's insanity.
The real solution to crime is liberty. It always has been and always will be. No matter how many career criminals claim otherwise.
Sunday, May 12, 2024
Gun (owner) rights foundational to liberty
Saturday, May 11, 2024
Don't fall for government provocation
Just say "No" to government efficiency
“There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” ~ Peter Drucker
Friday, May 10, 2024
In which I fail as a detective
This is a little morbid, but someone (not me) wanted to go to the park to see where those women were murdered last week. So that became Wednesday's field trip.
I followed the directions to the crime scene (from the public reports), knowing that people aren't generally great at compass directions and that sometimes "authorities" intentionally give incorrect information to misdirect people coming to gawk at a crime scene. (People like me, I suppose.)
The information from the cops said it happened 100 yards north of the pond closest to the entrance. It said the bodies were found beside a minivan.
At the scene, I saw there was no way a minivan could have been north of that pond-- or even sort of north-- unless it was airlifted in. So, incorrect information. But which information is incorrect? Location? Or the presence of the minivan? Was it even this pond? There are 2 other ponds in the park (near roads), but they are considerably farther from the entrance.
Working on the shakey assumption the pond indicated is the right pond, I scanned the area.
About 100 yards directly west of that pond, right beside the road, where cars regularly park (I've parked there in the past), there was a strange spot in the dirt. The surface looked artificially "weathered". Completely different from any other surface conditions anywhere around, and different from any natural surface conditions I have ever seen in my extensive time outdoors.
A spot maybe 6 feet across looked scoured. Like high-pressure air-- coming from one direction-- had been used to blast away the top inch or two of dirt. It almost looked like pressurized water had been directed at the surface, but there was no run-off in the area beyond, where you would expect to see such a thing if water had been used. And there has been no rain here in the past week or three. Alternatively, the marks could have been made by a horizontally spinning brush like a vacuum cleaner brush.
I tried to search for information on how an outdoor dirt crime scene is cleaned of blood (probably not the best thing to search for-- Hi, NSA. For future reference, I don't murder people). I wasn't able to find any useful information before I stopped looking.
Do any of you know if either of these methods is used to clear away the dirt under and around a crime scene as a standard practice? I keep trying to think of any other explanation for the marks I saw in the dirt and I'm drawing a blank. This spot may have nothing to do with the crime, anyway. Maybe there's another reason someone scoured the ground in that spot. But why?
I have strained my eyes looking at the one photo (possibly from a drone) taken of the cops on the scene after the bodies were discovered and nothing adds up. It doesn't appear they are in the right location. Things are obviously not as reported. It may not have even been at this particular pond. After all, government lies.
Also, I have never once had first-hand knowledge of an event which made the news that was, in my opinion, reported accurately. So there's that.
If you're interested, here's an update on the guy who was caught with the child taken from the scene.
Thursday, May 09, 2024
Bag or Sack?
My opinion of Donald Trump is that he is an authoritarian, militaristic, anti-science, copsucking, tax-addicted, nationalistic, anti-gun bag of crap.
My opinion of Joe Biden is that he is an authoritarian, militaristic, anti-science, child-molesting, tax-addicted, racist, anti-gun sack of crap.
And people tell me I must choose between a sack or a bag? No, I don't.
And I would never support anti-gun Robert F. Kennedy Jr., either.
Every v*te hurts.
Wednesday, May 08, 2024
Limit your exposure
Exposure to statists and their insane notions can be bad for your mental health.
If those notions are put into action, they can kill you.
They think they are terribly enlightened. "Adult". Pragmatic. What they are is a disease of society. The more statists, the sicker the society. At some critical mass of statism, society ceases to be. All you're left with at that point is politics. The ideology of the stupid and/or evil.
Yes, I allowed myself to be exposed to too much statism over the past few minutes, and I'm feeling the ill effects. Time for an infusion of liberty.
Tuesday, May 07, 2024
Statism relies on ignore-ance
I'm sure you've seen it many times.
A statist will ask what they believe is a gotcha question. The question is then answered fully, rationally, and completely, but instead of actually seeing the answer, the statist refuses to acknowledge an answer was given. At this point they either go into an endless time loop, asking the same question that has already been answered over and over again, repeating "why won't you answer the question?", or they'll pivot to something else they believe is a gotcha question. Studiously ignoring the answer that was provided in response to the original question.
Ignore-ance is willful ignorance. Carefully maintained by closing off reality when it is shown to them.
It's not something you'll cut through. It's something to pity. The good thing is, it's basically an admission that the statist understands-- on a subconscious level-- that they are wrong; on the loser side.
Without ignore-ance statism wouldn't last a day. Expect to see more of it as statism crumbles.
Monday, May 06, 2024
How could this have been prevented?
Friday afternoon, the bodies of two women were found in a park I like to visit. One had been shot, the other's cause of death hasn't been released. A 5-year-old girl with serious injuries was found with them. Differing reports say the child might have been shot, beaten, or hit with a car. (They are now saying she was shot.) Also, her 10-month-old half-sister is missing. I'm hoping her body isn't in the nearby pond.
It might be unfair, but in cases like this, my first thought is always that they were probably involved in some activity, or with some individual, that led to this tragic outcome.
So far, in no local case I'm aware of, has this assumption proved to be wrong.
No, I'm not blaming the victims. I'm facing reality. They didn't deserve this, but their own choices might have played a part in it. In fact, it is almost guaranteed.
There have been times in my life when I knew I was around someone who wasn't good for me to be around, or when I found myself in social situations I knew could be dangerous for me. I usually got out of there quickly. Usually.
You can do a lot to increase your safety by staying away from certain people and situations. It's no guarantee, but it gives you better odds.
It might have also helped had the women been adequately armed (which includes knowing how to use the arms). It certainly couldn't have made things worse for them, considering the outcome, regardless of the standard claims of anti-gun bigots.
The best way to use your keys for defense is to drive far away from bad people and dangerous situations. If that fails, you need a gun.
-
UPDATE: The baby has been found and taken to the hospital to be checked out, and a suspect is in custody.
Sunday, May 05, 2024
Don't let others' weaknesses control you
Everyone has weaknesses and faults. This includes you and me. We need to acknowledge our weaknesses and work on doing better. Your life will also be easier and you'll be a better person if you're tolerant of the weaknesses and faults of others. Up to a point...read the rest...
Saturday, May 04, 2024
Blind loyalty not a trait I admire
Friday, May 03, 2024
The extreme confidence of the clueless
I’m less self-assured while carrying a gun than some people I know are when they imagine they’ll use their keys to defeat multiple attackers.
Why is this?
It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where the less competent someone is in a specific domain, the more they overestimate their abilities in that domain.
With some topics, it's just embarrassing (or should be), but in the domain of self-defense, it could be deadly. But there's no way to suggest this to the people I'm talking about-- they WILL NOT listen. Their self-assurance knows no limits.
I understand that having the proper tools is no guarantee.
That intentionally not having proper tools because you feel overconfident is handicapping yourself.
Some people do this because they don't like guns and don't want to admit they might need one.
Others, because they imagine themselves to be ninjas with superhuman abilities who would never need something as crude as a gun to defend themselves from mere human thugs. Too many Marvel movies, perhaps.
It frustrates and worries me.
Even defense with a gun requires training.
To defend yourself with a less effective tool requires much more training. Intensive training.
The most confident people I’ve met “don’t need a gun”, and yet have no idea how to defend themselves with any tool. They think they know what to do from movies and television, or the fantasies created in their own minds. Bad guys will obviously back down in the face of their determination.
I wish there were a cure other than harsh reality.
-
Link to Voluntaryist- the comic series, from whence comes the illustration at the top of the post.
Thursday, May 02, 2024
When criminals die "in the act"
I don’t consider it a tragedy when criminals are killed in the act of archation. It’s probably the best outcome possible, under the circumstances. I'm including those legislation enforcers in North Carolina who were killed while committing the heinous crime of enforcing anti-gun legislation.
Wednesday, May 01, 2024
Another pro-slavery artist
A local "artist" makes fabric gun art as a way to advocate for "common sense gun laws" [sic].
Why advocate for something that already exists? How could he have missed "shall not be infringed"? Or even Natural Law that says you have a right to defend yourself and no one has a "right" to prevent you from doing so?
Anything else is just a dishonest and cutesy way to demand a return of slavery. What kind of horrible person-- or misguided victim of lies-- would demand that?
Tuesday, April 30, 2024
If rights don't exist, neither does "wrong"
If rights don’t matter, or if rights don’t exist, then nothing you do to others can be wrong. Wrong means it violates someone’s rights.
Some say it’s not about rights, it’s about power. The power to do things to others. They usually say this to justify government actions that clearly violate individual rights (such as governing).
But if this is true, it's true for freelance criminals as well.
If you justify government this way, why claim a rapist is doing anything wrong? How could anyone make that claim? If there are no rights to be violated, by what basis can anyone say he shouldn't do what he's doing? He has power and is using it— and I hope his intended victim has the power to stop him. Permanently.
Saying rights don't exist, or don't matter because they are just a mental construct, is dumb and is setting yourself up for a really bad end.
People who don’t “believe in” rights had better watch their backtrails. Those who believe them might act on the belief.
Monday, April 29, 2024
Not taking the smallest step
People just don’t think like I do. I’m not sure whether that’s good or bad.
My daughter was leaving the house. She had to run back in and blow her runny nose- I told her to put a bunch of Kleenexes in her pocket for later. She didn’t. I asked why she didn’t and she said she can just go to the restroom to blow her nose. Yes, but...
I don’t understand not wanting to be prepared.
Yet, she’s not the only one. All my life I’ve noticed that most people would rather wing it; take their chances. They'll avoid doing something simple, easy. and free to avert a problem just because they think they can deal with the problem later.
Maybe they can.
Often, however, they act surprised when this lack of preparedness causes trouble. Yet, they never apply this lesson to next time. Why? And why not listen when someone gives a suggestion that could avert problems and isn't even inconvenient? I really don't get it.
It's in the same category as "I don't like/don't wear hats". I see it as "I like causing problems for myself".
Sunday, April 28, 2024
If I were rich...
What would I do if I woke up tomorrow and discovered I had become rich? I've probably given this more thought than the "possibility" warrants.
But here's what I would do:
Pay off my medical bills.
Schedule my cataract surgery.
Buy my parents' house, put all the bills in my name, and let them stay there for the rest of their lives.
Have all the porch cats taken to the vet to be treated and spayed/neutered, then either placed in homes or released back where they live now (depending on their willingness to tolerate indoor life). Or, maybe build a sheltered facility where the more feral ones can live in safety without too much human interference.
Make donations to cat rescue groups and encourage, with bonus donations, some group to cover this area.
Send a couple of cases of premium ammo to a friend who just bought his first gun.
I have a short list of liberty advocates I would fund, and a few friends I would help.
Pay off my house.
Get a Cybertruck with the solar panel option.
Half-joking- I would never wear a pair of socks twice. I'd buy new socks, wear them once, then donate them to a homeless assistance group to wash and distribute as they see fit.
Sure, I would probably want to move into a better off-grid house, on acreage, which means I would need lots more ammo. I might (OK, would) buy more guns. But those things would have to wait until I take care of the things on the list.
What would you do?
FISA declaration a war on liberty
Saturday, April 27, 2024
Politics opposite of what I try to do
Reasons government is illegitimate
One of the many things I despise about government is that you and I are expected to abide by the arbitrary rules it makes up and enforces on us, but it refuses to be bound by the rules which apply to it.
This is a clear sign that a police state is what we are living in.
That’s simply not going to fly.
You and I have rights; government has none.
Friday, April 26, 2024
It's OK to be honest
Even if something is "just the way it is", and unlikely to change, it’s OK to point out when it’s wrong.
Admitting it’s wrong doesn’t obligate you to change it.
It doesn’t implicate you if you’re a victim.
If something is wrong, just say it. Don’t lie for the bad guy.
I've seen so many people reluctant to do this. They'll make excuses even while suffering.
I had someone doing this while talking to me a couple of days ago. Even fighting to defend something they clearly knew was wrong, just because "that's just how it is".
It's nuts!
Thursday, April 25, 2024
Government going too far
Do you ever wonder if government will ever go too far? Far enough that it loses the support of most of the (normally apathetic) public like it has lost mine (and presumably yours)?
I do.
I also wonder what "too far" would look like. What would it take?
And what response would it trigger?
I've seen apathetic people get riled up over one or more of the hoaxes perpetrated by the media in the last few years. But they don't usually stay riled up for long. I'm not sure if this is because the hoaxes don't pan out the way they are dramatized, or if it's just too much trouble to keep thinking about it.
What would it take-- either real or a hoax-- to get enough people angry enough to do something? Not to just v*te for "the other guy", but to do something useful? To either withdraw "consent" in a meaningful way or to yank the pedestal out from under Colossus?
I have no idea. But it could be interesting to watch.
Wednesday, April 24, 2024
Governing "a moral people" is unethical
Those who insist that the answer to everything is "morality" sort of amuse me.
Yes, if "moral" meant the same to everyone, that could fix a lot of problems. If everyone agrees on the baseline, then it's going to work even if some people break the rules.
But morality is situational ethics-- it depends on your culture, religion, and experiences. So no one even agrees what's moral-- which is why they'd rather appeal to morality than ethics, except when they use the word "ethics" when talking about "morality" (which I see a lot).
The Constitution only works to govern "a moral people", but governing others is unethical. You can't force an unethical system on people, then claim it fails because the people aren't moral enough. And, by "moral" I suppose you'd mean they don't agree with your cultural/religious notions of how everyone else is to be governed. Well, you can claim that, but you'd look dumb.
If your idea of "moral" is that everyone submit to political "authority" and pretend it's legitimate, then I absolutely reject your morality. I'll stick to being ethical instead.
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
Those who love Big Brother
Big, powerful government isn’t your friend. It's not your benefactor. It's incompatible with liberty.
It's evil.
It doesn’t make you safe. It enslaves you. It robs you. It may kill you.
It doesn't help you.
It does help political criminals-- both the regular politician-type and the Deep State parasites of the "intelligence" agencies (they are not on your side).
Wanting to fund such government is not ethical.
Wanting to further empower such government is monstrous.
Supporting such government in any way is horrible.
If you believe otherwise, you may be a government supremacist. Go in peace... but go. Maybe North Korea or China would suit you better.
Monday, April 22, 2024
Silliness: When the other shoe drops
Which will lose enough True Believers to fall out of favor first? Climate Crisis or government?
I'm betting on Climate Crisis losing its hold on people's minds first. Too many gullible people still cling to the backward cult of Statism.
I shake my head in disbelief whenever I hear someone "thinking past the sale" on AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change). They've largely overshot the target. Rather than discussing the possibility of climate change, they are trying to make everyone believe it's a proven crisis. Impending doom and disaster. And that's where they lost me.
Climate changes and will never stop changing. A static climate might not even be good. I am fully willing to consider that humans might be able to affect the planet's climate. Might.
But, I am not convinced that if it is real it would be a guaranteed net negative, that it could be stopped now, or that stopping it wouldn't be worse than adapting to it. Treating it like a disaster is jumping to conclusions-- conclusions that just happen to align with what the authoritarian control freaks want to do to you.
I am not stupid enough to believe that more government control is the right answer to any problem. Government-- the worst environmental disaster since at least the asteroid that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs; maybe ever!-- is going to save us all from climate change? Ha!
It's not a foregone conclusion that every bad weather event, every new disease, or every novel phenomenon is due to "climate change". But that's what they are trying to sell. It's just dumb.
Yes, belief in government is just as ridiculous, but it has deeper roots. Even people who are skeptical about the scams being sold by government are still likely to believe government is necessary. It's an absurd belief, but it's going to take time for enough of them to see it for what it is.
So, expect the Climate Change narrative to collapse in your lifetime. And rest assured that government will follow. It may just take a little longer.