Minarchy

Minarchy is the idea that humans need, and can maintain, a minimal State. A "night watchman" state. But it rejects that "minimal" can mean "none". If there's more than zero, that amount can be minimized further, which means it is not "minimal".

Minarchists love to call anarchy "Utopian". That's rich coming from followers of the most Utopian idea ever!

Government will never allow itself to be limited. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

Every attempt to limit government has failed.

The Constitution may have been the final proof of the futility of that desire. It failed, and those who don't want to admit it failed will blame you and me for its failure. As if we could somehow, by some time-traveling magic, stop a failure that occurred well over a hundred years before we were born. It failed almost before the ink was dry.

Don't accept the blame for something that isn't your fault.

Those who advocate for a "night watchman state" seem to be unaware of how states work.

To be an effective night watchman, that state needs to steal. It needs to spy. It needs to determine for you what rights you have, and which rights it is allowed to ignore. It needs the power to punish and to carry out revenge. For this, it demands a monopoly on force. Once it has these powers, there's nothing anyone can do to stop it from growing out of control and seeking more power over more parts of your life.

Minarchy is statism-lite, but it is still statism. Maybe, in very early stages, it is "libertarian-leaning", but it loses this tilt almost immediately, becoming ever more statist as time goes on. Libertarians who then continue to argue in favor of minarchy lose all claims to libertarianism. Anyone pointing this out angers them and makes them lash out at the consistent libertarians- the anarchists.

As someone pointed out to me, "Any society capable of maintaining a minarchy doesn't need one."

What I don't understand in all such cases is, if you believe that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor, why get so angry at having this pointed out?... unless you feel guilty and know you're wrong.

-

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

If not, that’s OK.

Statanism- The Definition

Statanism- A dogmatic, virulent form of statism which has become even more of a religion of domination and aggression than is typical of the backward ideology.

Not simply the belief in governing others as a legitimate human endeavor, but enthusiasm at the prospect of that state hurting or killing (sacrificing to the god of the State) those whom the Statanist doesn't like for their political or personal views. A political lust for blood.

To be Statanic is to take on the qualities and beliefs of Statanism. 

Don't act Statanic, but embrace liberty.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

Self-defense

Is it self-defense or is it not?

If you are where you have a right to be...

And you are doing what you have a right to be doing...

Then you can ethically use self-defense against anyone who uses (or credibly threatens to use) force against you. They are initiating force. They are archating.

If you are not where you have a right to be, OR you are doing something you have no right to be doing, then anyone you are violating has the right to use self-defense against you. No matter what your excuse is or who you are. No matter how popular your actions may be.

If I go into my neighbor's house- their undisputed private property- and I threaten to beat them up for smoking Cannabis (even though the regional governments all say it's "illegal" for them to do so), they have the right to shoot me. That would be self-defense on their part.

I can't threaten them with harm, then shoot them and claim "self-defense" if they try to run. Not even if they shove me out of the way. Not even if they intentionally hit me with their car, or shoot me, in an attempt to get away from my aggression. I'm the one in the wrong here, whatever the outcome. 

Legislation doesn't confer rights. Legislation can't change wrong into right; it can't negate a human right. Government policies do not determine rights. Government "jobs" or badges don't grant "extra rights".They can't. Rights don't work that way.

I would hope this clears things up. I suspect that depends on how poisoned by politics the recipient's brain is.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

Civil war coming?

Is America heading for civil war? "Civil War 2.0"?

No. Not just no, but it would be impossible to have a second civil war.

That's because America has never yet had a civil war. Regardless of what your government-approved history course told you.

There was a revolution, following secession, in 1776; war between America and Great Britain— two separate countries.

Then in the 1860s, again following secession, there was a war between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America— two separate countries. Countries that Lincoln and other thugs wanted to force into unification.

A true civil war is when two factions are using military force and fighting for control of one government, and that hasn’t happened here. 

Any "normal" election is closer to a civil war than any war between separate countries is-- all that's lacking is the shooting, which I could see happening; you already have two opposing factions fighting for control of one government.

The situation between the Texas government and the US federal government won’t become a civil war. Even if it broke up the “united” States. 

Texas isn’t likely to try to take over and control the US federal government. I’m not sure what you’d call it if the feds tried to take over and control the Texas government, but it wouldn’t meet the criteria to be a civil war, nor would it cause one. Secession isn’t a civil war, nor can it result in one. 

If the current situation causes war, it can’t— by definition— be a civil war. Unless you torture, stretch, and twist the definition of "civil war" so that it can include the American "Civil War", which would be a dishonest and political thing to do. Even if a dictionary does it.

-

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

The Market

"The market" means voluntary trade without coercion. 

It is an example of spontaneous order through the action of independent individuals. An emergent property.

Government "laws" make a market impossible-- although you can still create a sort of quasi-market through the Black (or Gray) Market.

I don't usually say "free market" anymore because if it's not free, it's not the market.

.

Yes, it is bigotry

Good people are caught between the rare evil losers who commit mass murder and the-- unfortunately-- all too common anti-gun bigots who want to help the evil losers by making sure no one can effectively fight back.

The whiny anti-gun bigot who didn't want to face his bigotry posted this definition of "bigotry" to prove he isn't a bigot:

So I answered, "Anti-gun bigots suffer an obstinate AND unreasonable attachment/belief to the opinion that guns are evil (and that legislation against gun owners will fight crime).
'In particular' doesn't mean 'exclusively', but anti-gun bigots are particularly bigoted against gun owners."

I'm still waiting for a response as of writing this.

-

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

I really, truly appreciate it!

Has the definition of "vaccine" changed?

It has certainly expanded. Which is to be expected as new technology is developed.

The current Merriam-Webster definition of "vaccine" is too long to take a screenshot of every detail and example. The screenshot at the top of this post is just the highlights, cropped.

I have a few physical dictionaries, too, so I consulted them as well.

First is the 1994 Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition (I think you can click on the pictures to make them bigger):

Next is from the 1979 Webster's New World Dictionary:

And finally, from the 1951 Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (sorry it's a little blurry):

One change that seems significant to me is that the newer definition doesn't mention "immunity", but "immune response". That's a fairly big difference.

Immunity, in those dictionaries, newer to older, is defined like this:

But "immune response", which doesn't appear in the older dictionaries, is defined this way:

So, yes, the definition of "vaccine" has been changed in ways that reflect advances in medicine, but also in ways that weaken the usefulness of things that would now be defined as vaccines to the benefit of pharmaceutical companies. 

You are free to draw your own conclusions from this information.

Some people say words don't matter and shouldn't be part of the argument-- but when you use the whole definition rather than the shorthand of using the word, they don't like that, either. I always wonder why.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

"But the dictionary says..."

If you want to understand why I don't automatically accept the dictionary definition of words, here's a new example.

The definition of "anti-vaxxer" was changed in the Merrian-Webster dictionary to include "opposes...regulations mandating vaccination". Combined with how the definition of "vaccine" was itself recently changed (at least by government) so it could include the Covid shots, this should break anyone's loyalty to "dictionary definitions".

Check out what I said about "mandatory vaccines" back in 2015, and see whether my opinion has changed since that time.

I have never been an anti-vaxxer. Not by my own definition nor by the definition that used to appear in dictionaries. But by this new definition...?

As I point out in my own Liberty Dictionary, dictionaries don't tell you what words really mean, but how they are used. 

Any dictionary that is authoritarian/government-supremacist in its bias is going to define words to be more useful to what "authorities" want you to think. That's why the dictionary definition of "anarchy" is so bad. Why the dictionary definitions of "freedom" and "liberty" are so incomplete or misleading. "The dictionary" doesn't exist-- every dictionary is going to slant things according to the authors' biases.

I'm not suggesting we go all Humpty-Dumpty, but that we realize the authors of dictionaries are also prone to do just that. They aren't immune.

Check the dictionary definition, then weigh it against what you know to be true. You may find they don't agree.

-- H/T to JP

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Government-supremacist

A government-supremacist is an extreme statist. Not just someone who acts as though they believe governing others to be a legitimate human endeavor but someone whose behavior demonstrates the assumption that political government is superior to and naturally above society and the individuals in a society.

In fact, by their words, they apparently almost always conflate the State and society, even though those are opposites.

The government-supremacist uses phrases like "our/my president", "our government", "our military", and advocates that everything should be decided and controlled in some way by the State. They seem to believe government should always have a say and a plan. There is probably no aspect of life a government-supremacist would believe is always off-limits to government intervention or oversight.

A government-supremacist never expresses real doubt as to the legitimacy of the State even if questioning whether it sometimes goes too far in specific instances.

In any discussion of politics, government, legislation, or society, government-supremacists have the lowest possible amount of credibility. Their opinions can be dismissed-- other than taking note of them as a warning of what they'd allow government to do to society... and to you.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Corporation- the definition

Corporations-- a Frankenstein's monster created by stitching together political government and businesses.

Corporations are the key feature of the economic system corporatism; also known as fascism, a "public/private partnership", or "crony capitalism".

Corporatism is not capitalism* and the two systems can't coexist. Where political government exists, capitalism can't.

Corporatism uses government and its legislation to manipulate and destroy the market; to prop up government-sanctioned monopolies (the only kind that can exist for long) and to prevent competition. Government uses corporations to finance rights violations and to manipulate the people, but with plausible deniability. Corporations are government and government is corporations.

Calls to raise "taxes" on corporations are a sign of economic ignorance.

-

*Capitalism is the market-- business regulated by "the invisible hand"; the aggregate actions of every individual choice. It has everything to do with society and nothing to do with the State.

-



Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Democracy-- the definition

Democracy, when applied to political government, is mob rule.
Democracy is "Might (through superior numbers) makes right".

It is not something to be praised, fetishized, or imposed on others. It is not a good thing. It is as unethical when used to govern others as any other form of political government. At its heart, democracy is no different from any other form of political government.

To say, as I have heard some claim, that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" is to lie.

All democracy becomes tyranny, and all republics soon devolve into democracy.

It mght be more honest to call democracy "horde-ocracy".

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Legal" or "Lawful"

Ah. Counting on magic words to save you.

Recently I saw someone make a desperate appeal to their perception of a difference between "legal" and "lawful". They were attempting to make a "founding father" look like something other than the nasty old statist he was, by their tortured interpretation of something he had said about "lawful authority".

The fellow trying to justify the dead statist's words was trying to claim that "lawful" meant "in accordance with natural law", as opposed to "legal", which meant only that someone made up some legislation and called it a law.

Not that there can be any political "authority" in accordance with natural law, but whatever.

Still, I was willing to consider his point, so I looked up the two words in question.

legal-- permitted by law; lawful; of or relating to law; connected with the law or its administration.
appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law.

Oops. That "lawful" in there is terribly inconvenient. But, moving right along...

lawful-- allowed or permitted by law; not contrary to law; legitimate; appointed or recognized by law; acting or living according to the law.

Trying to read any meaningful difference into those definitions is an impossible task.

However, I'm sympathetic. I know dictionaries are often wrong; relying on incorrect (but popular and common) usage for their definitions. Look how often they conflate "anarchy" with "chaos" for example.

So, when there's good reason to stray from a bad dictionary definition, I support that move completely.

But, to try to find a good definition for a word so that you can feel good about an old, dead statist is probably pointless if liberty is something you value.

-

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

Violence

"Violence"- when I use the word I am referring to the ethically neutral use of physical force, typically targeted against an individual or individuals.

As opposed to aggression, which is the use of violence against a person who isn't currently violating life, liberty, or property, nor credibly threatening to do so. Aggression is the initiation of force (or the initiation of violence).

Self-defense or defense of property can be violent but isn't aggressive since the other party "started it" by initiating force or violating property rights.

Violence can be good or bad; aggression is something you have no right to commit. Aggression is a facet of archation.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Atelatheist- incomplete atheist

New word for you to consider-- Atelatheist (atel-atheist)

From atelo- (incomplete, imperfect), and atheist [a- (without) + theos (god)]
Someone who claims to be, or believes themselves to be, an atheist, but who still holds at least one superstitious belief in a godlike thing, religion, or organization. i.e. government.

It means the same thing as "monotheist" but approaches it from the other direction.

Examples: almost every outspoken "atheist" in the "public sphere" today.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The (free) market and Capitalism

I don't usually write "free market" anymore, just "the market", because if it's not free, it's not the market.

"The market" just means voluntary trade without coercion. Government "laws" make a market impossible-- although you can still create a mostly-"free" market through the Black (or Gray) Market.

"Capitalism" is simply the market plus the act of re-investing some of the profits ("capital") back into the market. A true capitalism is impossible under a government (due to the impossibility of a real market coexisting with government), although approximations can exist.

It is possible to have a non-capitalist market if you make no profit, or put none of your profits back into the business (and don't use that money to start another business, either). This will probably be a short-lived dead end, though.

Capitalism is not about "hierarchies", although there is nothing wrong with voluntary hierarchies.

It has nothing to do with exploitation, even though exploitation can happen in any arrangement.

Anarchy isn't anti-capitalist, unless "capitalism" is misidentified and defined incorrectly. Socialism dishonestly posing as "anarchism" is anti-capitalism because socialism is anti-property rights, and you can't have a market if you aren't allowed to own and use property.

Here's an excellent essay about barter, trade, and capitalism and how it is all voluntary.


.

"Free riders"

For a large number of people, their concern over "free riders"-- people who get a benefit without obviously paying for it-- is what stands between them and accepting Rightful Liberty. And that is a shame.

A common objection I have seen is that in a free society, where one would contract voluntarily with a private fire department, if your neighbor's house catches fire and your fire contractor fights it in order to save your house from damage, the neighbor has benefited from your contract without paying anything. Your neighbor is a "free rider".

True, as far as it goes.

I suppose you could have a stipulation that your fire department is not to fight fires consuming your neighbors' houses, if they have not also contracted for service, so as not to contribute to their "free-riderhood". The fire department could just sit at your house, hosing it down so the fire doesn't spread to your property. As long as the contract was agreeable to you and your fire department, you could have just about any conditions put in you like.

Alternately, if your house catches fire and your fire department puts it out, your neighbor has again benefited, since his house is less likely to be damaged now. Perhaps you prefer that in this case, your fire company set fire to the neighbor's house in order to allow nature to take its course? I really hope no one would want that.

The "free rider" problem is greatly exaggerated. If people get together to build a bridge, and don't charge a toll for crossing it, does that mean an out-of-town visitor is a "free rider" if he crosses the bridge?

How would you know? He may be crossing the bridge to trade with a business owner who helped pay for the bridge; someone he wouldn't have been able to trade with had the bridge not been built. So is the business owner being cheated since he paid to help build the bridge and the visitor did not? What if this person who crosses the bridge decides to trade with a business owner who also didn't contribute to the construction of the bridge? Does this business owner never trade with the other businesses around him who contributed to the bridge? How did he get the money that he spends in these other stores? Is there no value in keeping his store open for the other people in town?

If you choose to pay for police or "national defense", are those who refuse getting a benefit for nothing? That depends if you ignore the fact that under current conditions, "national defense" endangers us all, and police are bullies and scum. Me, I'd prefer to just get rid of ALL anti-weapon "laws" and let the cost of being a thug rise back to where it belongs.

If people see a benefit in something, they will probably be willing to foot the bill. In a free society, bridges and roads and fire departments would undoubtedly be cheaper and better, since no bureaucracy is eating up the funds and producing nothing but more bureaucracy. There is no reason to whip out coercion to deal with this. A true parasite will suffer the consequences of his decisions regardless whether there is a "government" of any sort to punish him or not.

Besides, everyone will be the "free rider" at times. There is no avoiding it. I think this is only a problem if you look at the situation selfishly or from a "but that's not fair" perspective. Just accept that the times someone else is getting a "free ride" on your dime are paybacks for the times you get the same benefit. It all comes out even in the end, so don't keep a ledger trying to nit-pick every offense. Even if someone seems to come out ahead, are you really willing to give up a little of your liberty to make sure everyone pays in every instance? I'm not.

Not paying "taxes" for roads; using them anyway

-

PS: Also check out this article which has another, much more detailed take on this: Small-Town Anarchy

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Updated from here

Archate

Archate (ark-ate)

verb

to initiate force; to use violence against someone who isn't being violent; to start the fight; to throw the first punch; to attack without a credible imminent threat of being attacked;
also, to violate the private property of another, to steal, rob, "tax"; to malevolently trespass; to force others to use their property in a particular way, or to prevent them from using their property as they wish, even though it would violate no other person or property; to bully or govern.

From "arch(ós)" leader, king, ruler , and "-ate", the exercise of such a function

Forms- Archate, archation, archator: one who archates.

This is the meaning of "tread on", as in "Don't tread on me" (or anyone!).

I am an anarchist. I do not archate, nor do I support those who do.

"No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to archate, nor to advocate or delegate archation."

Of course, since the Zero Aggression Principle (linked above) isn't a "thou shalt not" to be applied to others, but is instead a promise from me to you, letting you know what to expect in dealings with me, you are free to archate, but you are stepping outside what you have a right to do if you choose to do so, and in that case anyone has the right to defend themselves from you. No job or position can give you the right to archate, because such a right doesn't exist and therefore can not be delegated to anyone.

-

A big "thank you!" to those of you who support this blog, with your visits, shares, or money. If you get any value from my writing, consider a subscription or a one-time donation to keep this blog going. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during the ten years this blog has existed, and believe I have more to contribute, help me keep writing without the added difficulty of having a boss to offend.

Citizen

Dictionary.com defines "citizen" as someone who "owes allegiance to its [sic] government and is entitled to its protection". 

It sounds more like a description of slavery. Let's check that out: 

"Slave"- someone who "owes allegiance to its master and is entitled to his protection". 

That sure sounds like what they are describing. 

The reality is "citizen" is just a fancy word for "slave".

"Owe allegiance"? You owe government-- and obviously when they use the word "government" they mean State-- nothing but contempt, regardless of which government you refer to.

The only thing you can be "entitled" to from any government is to be left alone. To not be violated in life, liberty, or property. It's the same thing everyone owes you. 

Government can't protect anyone, "citizen"/slave or not.

.

Don't be a Naxi

Naxi- A 21st Century authoritarian, police state apologist. Highly nationalistic. A fan of cops and the military, seeing them as incapable of doing wrong (other than a few obvious and inconvenient "bad apples").

Xenophobic; suspicious of "them", whoever they may be.

Loves government institutions as long as they are being run by those they want running them, and are doing what the individual Naxi believes they should be doing.

Drawn to government "jobs", and blindly supportive of them even when not employed by government.

Can often be identified by their mating calls, which include: "If you hate government, move to Somalia", "Love it or leave it", "Taxation is the price we pay for civilization".

Not to be confused in any way with "Nazi", because that might trigger those who misuse Godwin's Law in a way which protects the bad guys from valid comparison.

.

Socialism

Frequently when I mention socialism in a negative way, someone will complain. Recently, I said something about socialism, equating it with statism, whether it was the pope, Bernie Sanders, Democrats, Republicans, or some other type of statist promoting it.

Specifically:

Democrats, Republicans, and anyone else who believes "society" is a thing superior to the individual is a socialist. 

If you believe in "laws", "national borders", "public schools", "taxes", "gun control", marriage licensing, drivers licenses, or any other nonsense which violates Rightful Liberty, you are a socialist of some sort. 

Statism equals socialism. And it is slavery by another name.

Someone objected. I was accused of "rewriting the dictionary". He also said:

"Socialism has a particular definition that fits specific criteria. Not all statism is socialism."

OK... let's work this out.

Socialism's "particular definition":

noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

 I see nothing in that definition which would go against what I said. "Communities" can not own property just by virtue of it being in their area. To own property you either need to buy it from the rightful owner, be gifted with it, or homestead it. Sure, if a "community" joins together, voluntarily, to buy property- and no one is forced to participate against their will- you would have non-aggressive socialism. But that's not the reality of how it comes about.

Instead, socialists believe they are entitled to control your property whether you agree or not. That control might come in the form of outright theft of your property- especially if it is seen as a "means of production". It often manifests as "taxation". Or it might come in the form of sneakier theft, such as "regulations" which control how you choose to use your property (including your body and life). It might come in the form of licenses which limit what you are permitted to do with your life, liberty, or property- sometimes based upon the flimsy excuse of "public property access". Like roads.

When you choose to opt out, you are attacked. Robbed, molested, kidnapped, and maybe even murdered.

Now, let's look at the claim that "not all statism is socialism".

Every form of statism takes private property from the individual owners, exactly as I laid out above. It's simply what statists do. There couldn't be statism without socialism, even if there could hypothetically be socialism of a voluntary sort. Statism gives the stolen property (stolen by "taxation", regulation, red tape, or whatever) to The State, which is claimed to be "the community as a whole" in just about all cases of "gentle statism". The more brutal forms of statism don't even try to claim government is the people.

All statism is socialism, but not all socialism is necessarily statist in nature. Just most of it, and all of it when it isn't by unanimous consent.

Socialism sucks, but as long as you do it voluntarily, without forcing anyone to participate, and have no penalties for opting out, go right ahead. I'll still choose Liberty.

.