Angering the minarchists

The people who seem to hate me the most aren't the standard diehard statists, but those who call themselves "libertarian" and hold me up as an example of what a libertarian shouldn't be. Or isn't.

Then, they'll try to insult me by calling me an "anarchist".

They're shooting blanks.

If their idea of "libertarian" means keeping a minimal state around ("minarchy"; the wildest Utopian notion ever) so it can violate life, liberty, and property they don't personally like, count me out. 

They don't really trust liberty, but fear some aspects of it, which they want government to control (violate) for them. They want to distinguish themselves from anyone who isn't saddled with their hangups. So they'll insist libertarians can't be anarchists and anarchists aren't libertarian. Many of them will say that if you're not on board with the Libertarian Party, you're not a libertarian.

Just like the awful person I know who once told people who asked about me, "I don't believe like him", I'm glad they've distanced themselves from me. They're doing me a favor. Thank you!

-

Thank you for reading.
What do you think? Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Relationship rules

I originally got this idea from the LP of Louisiana, and then I modified it a little. 

I used to print it out, fold it up, give it a little pocket wear and tear, and then casually drop it in public places. I don't know if anyone ever picked a copy up and read it, or what effect it had if they did. But I found it funny to think about. Maybe I'll start doing that again. Anyway, here's the note...

Our Relationship Rules: 

* You will not make money without telling me. 

* If you trade, you can only do so with my permission. 

* You will not own anything I don't approve of, or I'll lock you in a cage. 
* You will pay me a large percentage of your income, or get locked in a cage.

* If you do not pay me whatever I demand, you will get locked in a cage. 

* I will take your money as I see fit and spend it as I want. My friends will get a cut. 

* You will not leave my property without my permission. 

* If you attempt to leave my property after getting my permission, I will grope you while bystanders watch before I decide if I'll allow you to go. 

* If you want friends to come over from another place, they must get my permission first. I will grope them. If they are someone I don't approve of, I may put them in the cage or send them back home without letting them see you. 

* You will let me listen in on your phone calls, texts, emails, or any other communications. You will let me bug your computer and watch you and listen to you through its camera and microphone, even if you're not using it. 

* I will monitor your every movement by tracking your cell phone. 

* I will ask you to publicly show your approval of me from time to time. If you don't, my friends will visit you at home and confront you in public, demanding you make this show of loyalty. If you don't do so to my satisfaction, I may put you in the cage.

* If you try to defend yourself from my henchmen, they will kill you- or put you in the cage if you survive.

* If you resist being locked in the cage, I will kill you.

* I will change these rules in my favor whenever I feel like it, and there's nothing you can do but beg me not to. 

* If you complain about any of the above, it's a sign you don't love me, and I may lock you in the cage to teach you to respect me. 

Your loving companion,
The Federal Government of the United States of America

Here are the state-level rules and the local rules.

-

Thank you for reading.
Toss a few million dollars my way- I won't tell.

Foam weapons, plastic beads, and "Ron Swanson libertarians"

I used to be involved in "buckskinning"; recreating the pre-1840 mountain man Rocky Mountain fur trade era. I still hold it dear.

One big principle in that hobby- at least while in camp- is "no plastic" and nothing that is obviously anachronistic for that time period. Even things like cameras/phones and necessary medical equipment are supposed to be kept hidden or disguised in a period-correct manner. You couldn't wear a naugahyde fringed jacket and microfiber suede pants and expect to get any respect in camp.

That's why my eyeglasses were always an antique style. Plus, I just prefer the look and feel of the old stuff.

When I moved here, there were no local buckshinning groups. I'm much too broke to travel anymore, so I can't get to their rendezvous, and my tipi is damaged, plus my lodgepoles were stolen years ago.

So, I was looking for another hobby. 

I dabbled in the local SCA group a few years ago, and I had high hopes. It didn't work out. It just felt too fake for my tastes. Their focus wasn't on living, but fighting. And they used fake swords and plastic armor. I tried to get into it, but it just wasn't for me. 

There's nothing wrong with it, and if I hadn't been involved in buckskinning first, I might have fit in better.

It's the same feeling I get when I run across a "Ron Swanson libertarian"- someone's idea of what a libertarian might be, played by an actor, to seem libertarian to people who don’t understand the concept of being libertarian. 

I like the"Ron Swanson" character. He's funny, and I agree with him a lot of the time. On other things, he's just not libertarian (even if it's still funny).

Like a lot of the "libertarians" I see online. Some are just "conservatives" who prefer a little more liberty/less government in specific areas, and some are Leftists who lean a little bit toward liberty in some areas. But they seem to be wearing plastic armor and carrying foam weapons. They are giving a performance for an audience.

They may be sincere, and they are probably better than those who don't even make an effort, but they just feel too fake for my tastes. I rarely call them out, because I'd rather not alienate them. My hope is that they'll keep growing if given a chance. I also wonder how they'll ever have that chance if no one points out how off-course they are.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

The Projection Party

The Democratic Party is everything they've been accusing everyone else (not just Republicans) of being, for not agreeing 100% with their most extreme views. I can't even begin to list how many times they (and other Leftists) have done it to me.

"Whoever fights monsters should take care that in the process he does not become a monster" ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Someone didn't "take care".

There's one party that promotes and depends on racism, and it's the Democrats.

There's one party that insists on being sexist, while saying sex is less important than "gender", and that it is all a social construct, and it's the Democrats.

There's one party that engages in more fascism and downright Nazi tactics, and it's the Democrats.

There's one party that can't abide the slightest criticism or disagreement, and it's the Democrats.

There's one party that encourages and celebrates the murder of people with different opinions, and it's the Democrats. It's the party of lies, hate, and murder.

There are plenty of positions where the Republican Party is equally as bad, but Democrats don't get extra points for not being worse than Republicans on those. 

But, to hate people for belonging to such a party is the same as hating someone for being a Moonie or in that Tom Cruise cult. They are a victim. They're brainwashed, and it short-circuited (or destroyed) their rational brain.

I'm sure there must be some areas where the Republicans are worse than the Democrats. Support for police and the military, and opposing property rights, are examples I immediately think of, but then I realize Democrats are still right with them in those areas, they just express it in slightly different ways.

There’s no excuse to be a Democrat anymore. Libertarians support all the good things the Democrats support (or used to support), without supporting the evil the Democrats support.

The same goes for Republicans.
And no, this isn't an endorsement of the Libertarian Party- except in those cases when they are actually libertarian.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Statists fear being left alone

 

For years, I've seen the meme "Libertarians - Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone". I think it's smart, true, and funny.

But... I've seen statists complain about it. Turns out a lot of them don't want to be "left alone". They are fearful and feel weak. Being left alone feels like abandonment to them. It feels like being ignored.

Yeah, that's pathetic cowardice, but it's how they are. It's why they are statists.

They are willing to trade almost anything to hold onto the feeling that someone is protecting them, no matter how ridiculous this feeling is. No matter how much evidence accumulates to show that government is the biggest danger they face. Being left alone is their nightmare.

It's too bad they can't compromise and have a government that coddles them and leaves me alone. But, no, all the "compromise" goes in one direction only: me giving up what I want and them giving up nothing.

I would rephrase the meme to say "Libertarians- diligently plotting to take over the World and respect your rights."

The only issue is that statists try so hard to not understand what rights are. They either want things that aren't rights to be rights, or they want rights to be reduced to mere privileges.

Still, the offer is there, and it's real. I want their rights to be respected, and if they want to be slaves, who am I to stop them? I draw the line at my right to not be enslaved for their convenience and feelings.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Crazy police-state fans

Welcome to Crazy Time.

Is it just me, or is the current mood the worst I've seen in a long time? I'm not enjoying it. Not at all. I'm not in a great mood right now anyway, for all sorts of reasons, and this isn't helping.

So many people I agree with on just about everything else have jumped into the statist quicksand over "immigration". 

If they just had an issue with government importing people (human trafficking), or with those vandalizing private property and committing other archation, we could agree. But, nope. They've gone full "our borders" communist.

If I think there's hope in getting the person to realize what they're supporting, I may say something. Mostly, I don't try to point out their hypocrisy. It would mess up our alliance on other things after the current hysteria fades. 

I hope it fades quickly, because this insanity isn't good for anyone.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Don't like it? Don't ban it, just don't buy it

Banning lab-grown meat* isn't a win for liberty or for the market. 

A Libertarian Party county organization (whatever they are called) pointed this out, saying if you don't want to eat it, don't eat it.

Then, some statist control-freaks decided this was a time to pile on and mock the LP and the principle upon which it is built.

In doing so, they exposed themselves for what they are and demonstrated that they aren't as smart as they believe themselves to be.

Winning elections doesn't show that someone is correct.

Avoiding having principles so you can "win" elections doesn't make you a winner.

Having a clever insult label ("Losertarian") you can always fall back on when you have no point doesn't make you clever.

Appealing to socialism and collectivism is a statist's ploy.

Nonsense like this from "conservatives" is why I can never be a conservative. They are just as authoritarian and socialistic as their opposition on the statist Left, just less honest about it.

I don't believe in banning anything. I believe in speaking out, ridiculing, boycotting, shunning... and there are things I support people's right to use self-defensive violence to prevent happening to themselves or another victim. But banning through legislation is a bad way to do anything.

-

*I am completely open to trying lab-grown meat. Even though I don't believe in "animal rights", I don't want animals to suffer unnecessarily. Industrialized killing facilities horrify me. Shooting something in the wild is usually much more humane. Since not all meat can be obtained that way, I'm in favor of looking for other options. If lab-grown meat is safe and tastes good, I would eat it. I wouldn't force my choice on you, though.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

The election will be a mess

If Trump "wins" the election I will be unhappy and I will assume there was some cheating.

If Harris "wins" the election I will be unhappy and I will know there was massive cheating on a scale to hand her the office.

If Oliver "wins" I would be somewhat relieved and I would know I had left my current reality and slipped into a better one, but one still dumb enough to allow rulers to govern others. There's room for improvement.

For me, there's no acceptable outcome from an election.

All elections are rigged because "None of the above; abolish the office" isn't the default on every ballot. 

I have no use for a president. I don't need to be governed and I don't need you to be governed to protect me, because I'm an adult, not a helpless child.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Politics will never increase liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 2, 2024)

If you are a good person who votes for Democratic or Republican candidates because you feel you must, even if you don't agree with the crazy positions the national party holds, I won't hold the party's flaws against you.

I also hope you don't confuse the Libertarian Party for libertarian people. They aren't the same thing at all.

Politics ruins everything it touches. The problem with political Libertarianism is that libertarianism and politics aren't compatible.

Politics is the use of "the political means"-- theft, fraud, coercion-- to force people to do what you want by controlling legislation and enforcement. Maximizing liberty by respecting all the rights of all the people all the time doesn't figure in anywhere. Instead of the political means, libertarianism encourages using "the economic means"-- voluntary interactions, trade, and free association-- to shape society.

A Libertarian Party trying to spread liberty with politics is like a Republican Party advocating an authoritarian police state or a Democratic Party keeping certain candidates out of debates or off the ballot; an embarrassment to its name and all it claims to stand for.

I understand feeling this is what you have to do because it's how others work for change. It won't work for libertarians because they have to disregard what they are to participate in politics. If they win by being un-libertarian, what was gained? It's hard to convince people you've got a good idea and a better way when you follow the same toxic path the others do.

I was once a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, but it has been years since they nominated a presidential candidate I could support.

The tactic of nominating Republicans who'll hide their authoritarian positions during the campaign, or knee-jerk anti-Republicans who'll go overboard in the opposite direction as a reaction to previous candidates, doesn't advance liberty.

Libertarians have told the other parties for years that if they want us to vote for them, they are going to have to earn it rather than threaten us into it. They never seem terribly interested in earning libertarian support. The same goes double for the Libertarian Party.

I understand that under the current circumstances it appears libertarians would need to be un-libertarian to change society, but this isn't going to work.

If politics is a game you enjoy, go ahead. Just realize- politics of any kind is doomed to never increase liberty in any meaningful way.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

V*ting for candidates isn't a good idea

It's a good thing I don't v*te. I was never very good at it. And I still wouldn't be. 

For one thing, I just can't get past that "no one has a right to govern another" thing.

My observation is that no one is good at v*ting, but some people imagine they are. Or they feel they have to, anyway, and hope for the best.

Hope for the best... But, in the case of some-- or most-- candidates, which version of them do you believe is the real one? 

In the past, they would say one thing to one group and another thing to a different group, and there wasn't too much danger that anyone would catch the discrepancy. They were more free to lie to court the v*ters by saying what their audience at the time wanted to hear.

Video seems like it would have put an end to that, but it didn't. For instance, I don't believe for one nanosecond that Trump has become a respecter of the natural human right to own and to carry weapons without government permission or oversight, even though he seems to be trying to make this claim. I think he's lying when he suggests he is in favor of "gun rights".

Today, in addition to historical-style pandering to whichever group is listening at the moment, they can also say things as part of their official platform that seem opposed to things they have posted on "social" media in the past. Which version is their real self, reflecting their actual opinions? You'll never be sure.

Maybe the "social" media posts were their past opinion, but they've changed their mind. If that's the case, might they change again once given power? Or was it just a lie all along? It's not worth the risk.

Even if giving someone the power to govern others was legitimate, you could never be sure what someone would do with that power. 

You don't need anyone to run your life or to run society. And neither does anyone else-- even if they don't want the responsibility to run their own life. Too bad. You own you and it's your responsibility anyway, even if there is some clown called "The President" lording his power over your life.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Liberty dangerous, but essential to life

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 28, 2024)

Like Thomas Jefferson, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

I also know there can be no such thing as "too much liberty" since liberty-- freedom tempered with responsibility-- is self-regulating. Jefferson knew this, too, since he was smarter than me, but he may have been trying to get his point across to someone less aware.

There are also people who are scared of liberty.

Liberty is messy. It’s not as tightly structured as authoritarianism. Liberty is water; authoritarianism is a  crystal of potassium cyanide. Both can be dangerous, but only one is essential for life.

I'm a libertarian; I recognize that no human being has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation..What does this mean?

"Initiate force" means to throw the first punch; to attack someone who isn't harming your life, liberty, or property. Nor does anyone have the right to hire someone, such as a politician or a legislation enforcer, to do this on their behalf. This is 'delegating" the initiation of force.

This is what "libertarian" means when stripped of all the political frippery.  It's an easy concept; even most children get it.

It is also a promise of what to expect from me. In the unlikely event I violate my principles and throw the first punch in the absence of a credible threat, it's with the realization that I am doing something I have no right to do; something wrong. I would owe restitution.

I have difficulty imagining such a situation, but I suppose anything is possible.

My view comes down to this: I believe in maximum liberty. Since there is no "but" qualifying my stance, this means I am also an anarchist. I do not believe in the legitimacy of any form of government which is imposed on anyone. You have a right to govern yourself, but no one else. Not as an individual, not as part of the majority, and not by delegating someone else. You can't establish or support a government without initiating force.

This puts me at odds with political Libertarians who have a big "But". I've heard from plenty of them about this exact issue. They can do what they want, but they have more in common with Democrats and Republicans than with me.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

Is "useful" elusive?

What is something I could do that would be useful? 

Not just useful for myself, but for liberty. For you.

I’d like to be more useful— as I’ve always wanted to be. I’m not sure that the ways I’ve tried to be useful have been as useful as I’d hoped.

Is my blogging still useful (assuming it ever was)? Does it seem like I have said everything I have to say (after nearly 17 ½ years) and I'm just repeating myself now? What do you think?

What could I do that would be useful?

I’m not going to promote any politician.
I’m not going to align with any political party.
I’m not going to express support for any government institution.
I’ll never support the police or the military in any way.
I’ll never pretend government is legitimate or good. Or necessary. Or that it protects us, or our liberty. That it is anything other than a criminal organization.

Like so many others do with such enthusiasm.

I don't see those things as useful but as actively harmful. It makes me cringe when I see many prominent social media libertarians (Libertarians) doing those things. 

Sure, you do you, but I see so much pro-government extremism from some of them-- many of whom have "libertarian" in their profile name-- that it makes me wonder how they can reconcile it. To me it looks like wanting a seat at the Big Table, some crumbs to snack on, and a pat on the head from people in positions of political power-- who they frequently pose with, smiling from ear to ear. Unironically!

I want to be more useful than that, but at least useful and not harmful.

Any suggestions?

-

Liberty is the greatest good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

Absent government, it wouldn't be an issue

This situation between the Texas government and the US government could get "interesting". Do both sides actually believe they are right, or have the Constitution on their side? Delusion.

It’s unfortunate that the “laws” in America are so bad that “immigration” is seen as a problem. Or even an issue at all.

It’s a sign that welfare needs to be done away with. That all criminalization of armed defense against property crimes needs to go away forever. That self-defense against attackers-- all attackers-- needs to be encouraged rather than punished. It's why it's utterly stupid to allow politics, democracy, and v*ting to have any power to violate individual rights and liberty.

These are the types of counterfeit rules that allow sick borderists to try to escalate the police state to “secure the border”. They can get away with pretending it's about defense when government is allowed to criminalize actual defense.

It’s right to protect society from criminals, but it’s wrong to do it the way they are trying to do it; by making America into an open-air prison camp. 

It’s inconceivable that some supposed libertarians are siding with borderist authoritarians to support and justify locking down the “border” instead of attacking the reason people see "border control" as essential and “immigration”* as a problem. Why don't they attack the root of the problem instead? I don't know.

But, I sympathize a little. They don't want "those people" moving into "their" country, but they also still want to keep a political government around for some reason. Tradition, or they can't imagine life without it, maybe? They can't even process the fact that government is forbidden to control "immigration" by the very document they worship when it supports things they want. Because yes, anything government isn't explicitly allowed to do by the Constitution is forbidden.

"Immigration" is not a problem except that government has been allowed to grow to the point where it makes it a problem for its own benefit and to increase its own power and "authority". Yes, "both sides" are doing it. Disgusting!

*Government importing people from other parts of the world is not "immigration", and is a separate issue. One caused, again, by government.

-

Liberty is the greater good!

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Also this or this

Politics is a cancer

It's clear I'm no fan of the political Right or Left. Whichever side is molesting me the most at the current moment gets the majority of my wrath. 

Recently that's mainly been the w0kesters of the Left, but not exclusively. The Right makes a noble effort to be the enemies of liberty, too-- they don't want to cede that ground to the Left too easily.

I'm not too thrilled with political Libertarians when they scold me for being too extreme; to tone it down so Libertarians can win elections. (They give me entirely too much credit.) I get this reaction most often from my newspaper columns.

The common thread in all of this is politics.

When people embrace politics and want to use this tactic to control others through legislation and social manipulation it pits them against everything I value. They don't realize they are the problem; not those who aren't following them off the cliff into the pit of authoritarianism.

-

If you want to support what I do, you will. If not, you won't.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

"The REAL libertarians"?

Classical liberalism is "libertarian, but".

Those who call themselves classical liberals like to claim they are "the real libertarians". Perhaps... 

They sure do have big Buts, though.

They like liberty, BUT they believe in a "night watchman" government to do the things they believe are "too important" to allow someone to do them correctly-- without theft and coercion.

If they think it's important, they want to have the least honest or capable among us responsible for it. And they want it done with theft and coercion.

They like to keep the state around for those functions states invariably reach for first when they want to rob, enslave, or murder the people under their power. Police, military, etc... the usual suspects.

Yet, they'll claim others who don't believe in this excessive state (which they'd claim is a "minimal state") are statist, but they themselves are the libertarians. Whatever, fellas.

Claim whatever makes you happy. 

I'll just say classical liberalism is much too statist for me. Every interaction I have with one of them on social media drives this fact home.

To see them attacking someone else as a statist-- while being so completely statist in what they advocate-- is funny stuff.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

Post-modern neo-statist gets confused

Throughout all of human history and prehistory, there have been individuals whose behavior we would now describe as "libertarian". Or Voluntaryist, abolitionist, or anarchist-- however you'd prefer to describe it.

But, I had a guy tell me that no one could have been libertarian before the word "libertarian" was coined. (I checked his bio and he promotes "post-libertarianism", which I suppose is neo-statism, with a dash of post-modernism.)

I asked him if dogs existed before the word "dog" was created. He argued (in a "no such thing as reality" post-modernist sort of way) that they did not. He demanded I "prove" dogs existed before the word "dog".  There's just so much wrong with that approach, including language differences and the fact I can't time-travel to the past.

But, besides his post-modern post-libertarian neo-statism, he wasn't even starting from a position of understanding the topic. No wonder he couldn't discuss the topic in a sensible way.

He kept trying to frame libertarianism as strictly a political movement rather than an ethical philosophy or way to live. This will always lead you astray.

-

Help me cover the expense of my colon surgery, if you can and if you want to.
Thank you!

Speaking for myself...

I realize I can't speak for others. Only for myself. So I don't usually try to sound like I'm speaking for anyone other than myself. My opinions are my own-- good, bad, or indifferent. 

I'm uncomfortable being put in a position where I'm expected to speak for any sort of collective, even if I assume they'd mostly agree with me. It's asking for trouble. I would probably turn down such an opportunity after giving it some consideration.

Even if I use the word "we", I mean "only those who agree with this". I'm not trying to put words in anyone else's mouth. It's not necessary for anyone to tell me they disagree-- although they are free to do so.

This follows my lack of belief in one person representing others-- especially as in representative political government. It's a ridiculous concept. It has no basis in reality whatsoever. 

If I were to wake up one morning to find I had somehow slipped into an alternate reality where I held a position of political power, I would only speak for myself. I would promote liberty-- probably by resigning as fast as humanly possible and heading for the mountains until I was forgotten. Unless I had the power to abolish branches of government, then I'd do that first. (Even though I know many people would be greatly offended by that.)

To hallucinate that one person can represent the interests of millions of others, who each have opposing values and concerns, is absurd. To base a coercive institution on this absurd hallucination is inexcusable.

But, of course, I'm only speaking for myself. I know political Libertarians imagine this is a good idea, if only "we" can elect the "right" people and pass the "right" legislation. Politics in self-defense and all that. It's a cute idea. I wonder if that has ever really worked out.

-

Help me cover the expense of the surgery, if you can and if you want to. Thank you!

Does this mean I'm old?

My Spirit Animal?

I was wondering recently why I'm feeling a bit angry at the world. Then I realized I'm not feeling angry. Not at all. I'm just sick of certain things-- politics, mostly.

Politics makes people stupid. 

A nationally influential Libertarian got snippy with me when I was supportive of throwing those oath-breaking anti-gun politicians in Tennessee (if I remember correctly) out of office. He had some "democracy" reason that he thought it was an awful, unlibertarian thing. He was wrong.

If you violate the terms of the agreement that allows you to hold an office, he believes you should be allowed to stay in power? I guess so. 

When I responded that I want every politician kicked out of office when they violate liberty (which would get rid of all of them), he was paternalistically dismissive. I wasn't playing his political con game, so I was irrelevant. Politics made that Libertarian stupid. I've seen more cringe-worthy tweets from him since then-- mixed in with some reasonable things, too, so he's not always wrong. Only when he mixes politics into his attempt at thinking.

Then there are all these people who see a problem, either real or imagined, and start calling for government to fix it with legislation. Or stricter enforcement of existing legislation.

So many issues, called out by so many political people. Ban this, mandate that, punish them. Wow, it's stupid.

This is political thinking and it always leads you astray. Legislation is never the right (or ethical) way to solve a problem. Be smarter.

No one has the right to use the political means against anyone. This imaginary "right" can't exist. And I'm sick of pretending doing so is legitimate, or even just holding my tongue in the face of such nonsense.

I get it: some people love politics. But it's not much different than loving to mix powerful unknown chemicals in a basement under a room full of children. Even if you say you're doing it in self-defense because someone else is doing the same to use against you. It's at least irresponsible, maybe worse. My patience for it all has worn very thin.

-

Help me cover the expense of the surgery. Help however you can. Thank you!

Libertarians aren't splitting vote

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 16, 2022)

After the election, I saw a few bitter Republicans on social media blaming the failure of Republican candidates to get elected-- the fizzled "red wave"-- on libertarians. It's a silly complaint.

Libertarian candidates don't take votes from Republicans any more than they take votes from Democrats. Most people who vote for Libertarians aren't going to vote for any of the other candidates no matter what.

If I were a voter and I only had a choice between a Republican and a Democrat-- and both advocated policies I couldn't tolerate-- I wouldn't pick the lesser of two evils. I would reject them both, even if there were no Libertarian candidate on the ballot. I would rather stay home than vote for someone I don't like or trust.

No candidate of any party has earned my trust. They all carve exceptions when it comes to protecting liberty from government depredation. Why would I waste effort voting for them? Just because they tell me their opponent will be even worse? Why should I believe them?

If Republicans want libertarians to vote for them, they are going to have to offer better candidates who stand up for liberty. No more of this "If you don't vote for us you're just helping Democrats win".

The same goes for Democrats who want libertarians to vote for their side.

If your candidate is pushing "gun control", drug prohibition, identity politics, a tighter "border", higher taxes on anyone, or more government in any way, I won't waste a vote on that candidate. I fell for this trick back when I was young and gullible, but never again.

If neither candidate is willing to resolutely and loudly reject anti-liberty positions, why would I vote for either one? I'll either vote for the Libertarian or I'll stay home.

Since I don't believe political government is legitimate in any way, no matter who is making the policies, staying home is what I do. You can vote for a new master every few years if it makes you happy, but I won't. Someone will assign a supposed master to me with or without my consent, but it doesn't obligate me to bow down or obey them.

Bad people have always done that sort of thing but I won't help them enslave me.

There's no reason to pretend such a system is inevitable or legitimate. You can't blame the failure of a system on those who see through it.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Political libertarianism

It seems to me that political libertarianism is a separate thing from libertarianism. There is obviously a lot of overlap, and there's a load of friction where that overlap occurs. Friction can be good or bad-- it can wear away rough spots that need to be removed. But the friction in this case seems mostly destructive.

What do I mean by "political libertarianism"? Political libertarianism is concerned with pragmatism, politics, government, v*ting, the LP (and party politics in general), and not "scaring the women and children" with harsh truths. It seems to hate something external to itself more than it loves liberty.

I've watched political libertarianism used to justify police, "borders", war, taxation, and many other statist problems.

I think all libertarians slip into political libertarianism sometimes-- it has happened to me-- but some choose to wallow in it. I don't think anything beyond a quick dip is healthy-- and I'm not sure how healthy even the quickest splash really is.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!