Definitions based on feelings

Every word seems to have at least two opposing definitions. A definition preferred by those who love it, and one preferred by those who hate it.

See: Anarchy.

See: Socialism.

I'm not saying both definitions aren't 100% accurate- they may be. Just that, depending on how you feel about a subject, you will choose to use the "official" definition you prefer.

And, as long as you inform people which definition you are using, I have no problem with that.

.

Bullies employ sleight of hand tricks

Bullies employ sleight of hand tricks

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 3, 2015)

If you enjoy watching people flailing around over different ways to control each other, the past couple of weeks has probably been entertaining for you.

I'm talking about the conflicting reactions coming from Terribly Sincere People over a spate of recent events. It would be comedy gold if people didn't take these silly things so seriously and then use them against each other.

On one hand, you have people who hate a flag which flew for a few brief years over some slave states, continuing to worship a flag which flew over slave states before, during, and after the controversial flag became, quite literally, history. This triumphant federal flag continues to fly over expanded slavery even today.

People conveniently refuse to notice Lincoln didn't free one single slave, anywhere. Instead he enslaved everyone more or less equally. Regardless of which version of the story you believe, the Confederate States ended a relationship which was never supposed to be a "'til death" pact (the union would never have formed in the first place if it were) and were viciously told "No, you can't leave". This echoes an abusive spouse beating the one who tries to get out of the marriage, violently forcing them to stay.

Then, speaking of marriage, you have people celebrating being allowed to seek government permission to marry, when government never legitimately had the power to regulate marriage in the first place. The proper course would have been to recognize that fact and ditch the whole marriage license scam, rather than expanding it to include more people. Yes, I understand it is nice to not have bullies able to use "law" as their excuse for violating you, but the root problem is the bullies and their "laws", not the fact that their "laws" didn't cover everyone.

And you still have people working diligently to divide people of different "races", based on an evil murderer's acts which were supposedly inspired by the aforementioned Confederate flag, so we'll see each other as enemies instead of seeing who the real enemy is.

Bullies who want to tell you how you are allowed to live love when you focus on trivial things they choose for you to think about instead of seeing what really matters. If they can get you to hate other people based upon their symbols, their genes, or who they love, they can get you to ignore the fact if you exercise your Rightful Liberty, then, according to their rules, you are a criminal. Like a stage magician they get your attention with sparklies, then like a pickpocket, they steal your life, liberty, and all of your property.

.

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.

.

Has the orgy pit been scraped and buttered?

Because the orgy is coming.

You might call it "the election", but what it is is an orgy of socialism. People are allowed to choose who will claim ownership of their life, liberty, and property. Liberty and freedom aren't even on the ballot.

And, yet, most people are excited about it, fighting over which "floater" is the best choice to run your life.

You life doesn't need to be run by anyone but you.

Sure, no matter what you choose to do about this orgy, some floater is going to be declared "the winner" for every contest. But do you really want to get your hands dirty picking the floater? How can you choose a favorite deadly disease? Who's your favorite slave master?

There is one socialist getting a lot of attention for admitting he is a socialist. The rest may deny it, but they are socialists, too. They all believe "society" is entitled to your property- they just may bicker over which segment of "society" deserves it more.

Well, this orgy holds nothing that appeals to me, so I'll sit it out. Enjoy the buttery slipping and sliding, though.
_

Still looking for feedback.

.

Latest issue of SI

I know a lot of people who would probably like a gift subscription- or would be offended by one. I forget which...

Click for embiggenization

Articles include :

"Voting: Do it Harder"

"The Pledge of Allegiance- Does it Make You Cry, Too?"

"How Government Invented Roads"

"Count the Ways Laws Keep You Alive"

"Government's Greatest Gift- The Internet- and Regulating it"

and 

"Utopia is Just One More Law Away".

.

Dealing with strong willed, stupid childish people

Statists are like strong willed children. Pat them on the head, wink at them and their stubborn insistence on clinging to their insane notions, and then go your own way, leaving them to do the same. As long as they don't try to stop you.

Unfortunately, they are also like somewhat stupid children.

They are scared, so they dream up fantastical scenarios of horror. They don't understand your reality-based reassurances, so they get angry. They don't understand the words you use, so they assign their own meaning to the words to reinforce their fears and superstitions. They throw tantrums because they don't understand and they don't want to listen to those who know better.

I suppose this means I should have a lot of patience with them- being like strong willed, stupid children and all. And I think I usually do.

But, beyond patience, what might actually get through to them? To insert a germ of reality into their brains, where it might eventually grow?

What approach would work best with someone like that? Other than simply killing them all, I mean.

.

Decisions, decisions...

I'm trying to decide whether to continue paying to keep KentForLiberty.com online.

The quarterly bill is due the middle of this month, and this month has a lot of extra expenses I need money for. I'll need to decide before the bill comes due*.

I have reproduced all the pages here at the blog, so they wouldn't exactly be lost, but all the links to pages on the website which I have put different places over the years would be dead- including those in all the blog posts here. Plus, the link to this blog would revert back to what it was before it was "blog.kentforliberty.com", which would cause more trouble and confusion.

I average just under 100 visits per day at KentForLiberty.com.

Is it worth keeping online? I don't really know.

Weigh in with your thoughts.

*The cost has been covered- thank you. So it will stay online for at least another 6 months. But, I would still like any thoughts as to whether the website is worth it.

.

Nip it in the bud, or look where it leads

I've been watching the show "Hell on Wheels" on Netflix. It's pretty violent, but mostly enjoyable- although there are several nasty characters I want to see die horribly.

Anyway, an episode I watched recently really got my hackles up. In it a very small group of "government" shows up and kills (hangs) a guy for shooting a card cheat.

This government is outnumbered, no one present (other than them) believes the guy deserves what they are doing to him, but everyone just stands by and lets them get away with it. The "execution" could have been stopped if even one person had the courage or principles to stop it.

Sure, it's fiction, but it illustrates the problem pretty accurately: The Tiny Dot ruling everyone else.

I just think that if every time some bullies moved in and said "We are government- you are now going to obey us" they had been shot (speared, knifed, clubbed, eaten, pushed over a cliff, etc.) for their act of aggression (make no mistake, attempting to establish a government IS an act of aggression), this cancer now eating away at civilization would never have gotten a toehold.

It's now too late to nip it in the bud, and that's going to cause a lot of trouble in the future.

.

Self trust

I have seen many pathetic excuses for anti-gun "laws" and attitudes, but one of the most pitiful is the "I don't trust myself" excuse.

I've known people who said they "shouldn't be allowed" to drive or carry a gun, because they get too angry and would hurt someone.

Seems like in this case, it isn't the car or gun that is the problem- it is the anger issues and the lack of self control to avoid aggressively acting out on that anger. It's also pretty clear to me that if a person can't be trusted, the tool they possess doesn't matter. If a person can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted with a car, or a hammer, or a job, or around kids, or... well, they can't be trusted- period.

However, what I have usually found is that when one of those "untrustworthy" people actually starts carrying a gun, the self control takes root and starts to grow. Expect nothing, and that's what you'll usually get. Expect responsibility, and it has a chance to develop. The hothead either learns to control it, or they end up in "legal trouble" or dead. With dead being the preferable outcome in that case.

I'm sure not everyone would develop self control and responsibility, though. Maybe even in those hopeless cases it would be good for those people to arm themselves and let the problem solve itself. Darwinization works- it's just that, unfortunately, the irresponsible among us do sometimes take some decent people with them. Which is why I learned to avoid certain people.

.

"Soft statists" and the irredeemable statists

I have nothing but contempt for "government" and those who support it.

Well, that's not quite true.

I have a lot of pity for most "soft statists"- the people who are just statists because no one has ever expected more of them. The ones who are what they are because it's the "culture" they grew up in, and no one ever pointed out to them how inconsistent and hypocritical it is. And how it doesn't work because it can't work- new "laws" are clear evidence of this. They can be reached, with opportunity,  time, and patience.

I also have pity for elderly statists who can't seem to change a lifetime of indoctrination at this late date. They can't be reached, and do a lot of damage, but their time is running out.

My contempt is reserved for those who have been shown the nature of statism and still won't reject the evil. They've been shown a better way and still refuse to grow up. Those who look for any objection they can muster to keep stealing and committing acts of enforcement- or asking others to commit those acts of their behalf. And, yes, I realize a lot of it is grounded in cowardice- due to them being afraid to take responsibility for their own life. Or imagining horrible outcomes of Rightful Liberty while glossing over horrible outcomes of statism which are occurring all around them right now- no speculation required.

So, contempt and pity for statists. Pity for those never given the chance to reject statism, and contempt for those who have been shown better and still refuse to grow up.

.

Not in best interest to be disarmed

Not in best interest to be disarmed

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 26, 2015)

Once again a group of disarmed people has fallen victim to a murderer. Peaceful, friendly people attending church, while convinced by "authority" to be sitting ducks, welcomed the murderer into their midst and were gunned down. Words can't convey how evil that premeditated act was.

The blood dancing monsters of the various "gun control" groups, more honestly referred to as "mass murder cheerleaders"- and governments- have blamed the people who didn't commit the murder, and sought to violate the innocent for the hideous acts of a thug. The president lies by claiming this doesn't happen in other countries to convince people to demand to be disarmed.

The truth is an attack can come anywhere at any time. Even where you feel safe. Those attacks are more likely to be attempted- and to succeed- in places where people have been forbidden from carrying guns.

Yes, that's right. Every single "no guns" sign you see, such as at the mall here, is going to be completely ignored by anyone whose mind is made up to murder. If obeyed at all, it will only be obeyed by people who have no murderous intent. People who are already plotting to break the supreme law and commit murder won't hesitate breaking a rule forbidding guns on premises. Even if there are metal detectors at the door, the bad guy will just go in shooting rather than waiting until he is inside.

A "no guns" sign or policy only weeds out the people who might stand between a mass murder and his targets. Instead of enhancing safety, it sacrifices it on the altar of appearances. A "no guns" sign is a warning that your life doesn't matter at all to the property owners.

Anti-gun mouthpieces blame the guns. Racists blame race problems. The superstitious blame a flag. Some even blame the victims for not ignoring the rule and arming themselves anyway. The observant notice the medications the vast majority of mass murderers have been prescribed. Too few blame the murderer.

I am glad to see some people responding to this latest attack by promising if something like this is attempted again, they will shoot back. Maybe they remember Luke 22:36-- "[H]e that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Today's sword is the personal firearm. It's terrible it took this attack to inspire them to take responsibility for their own safety, but better late than never.

No one ever disarms you with your best interests in mind. Anyone wanting to disarm you, under any pretext, is your mortal enemy. If you cooperate you are only offering yourself as a sacrifice to their scheme.

.

"Mandatory" is the deal-breaker

A while back I signed an online petition against mandatory vaccinations.

I am not "anti-vaccines"; I am anti-mandatory vaccines. And just about anything else, too.

Well, today, the "White House" staff sent a response to all the petition's signatories.

Here it is (feel free to skim- I did):

A Response to Your Petition on Vaccines

Thank you for signing this We the People petition on mandatory vaccines.

The evidence about vaccines' safety and benefits is both strong and consistent -- but don't just take our word for it. We reached out to the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy -- the Nation's Doctor -- who wanted to respond to you personally on this issue.

Here's what he had to say:

 

We all want our children to be safe and healthy, and nothing is more important than that -- and the United States currently has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in its history.

When it comes to laws regarding vaccines, there are two important things to keep in mind.

First, states and localities determine these kinds of vaccine requirements and exemption policies. Right now, all states require children to be vaccinated against certain communicable diseases as a condition of school attendance, and there are some employers, such as health care facilities and day cares, that require vaccination to protect their employees as well as their customers (for example, hospitalized patients, people living in long-term health care facilities, and infants attending day care).

Second, the science is quite clear that vaccines are vital to our fight to quell and eventually eliminate highly contagious diseases. Vaccines undergo rigorous scientific study and testing for both safety and efficacy before they are approved for use. Following licensure and use among the U.S. population, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration continue to monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Over the years, billions of people have received vaccines, which have, in turn, saved hundreds of millions of lives in the United States and around the world. For example, prior to the development of the measles vaccine, many children died in the United States as a result of measles and many more were hospitalized each year. After the introduction of the measles vaccine, the number of infections and deaths dropped precipitously.

While the vast majority of people in the United States get vaccinated, there are some communities where vaccination rates are low, and this can increase the risk for vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks. If we continue to see growing pockets of people who are not vaccinated, measles and other contagious diseases will regain a foothold in our country and spread.

Many of the most contagious illnesses can be prevented thanks to vaccines -- and as a result, one of the most important things people can do to protect themselves and their children is to get vaccinated.

It's also important to note that not vaccinating your children doesn't just affect your own kids. It affects your neighbors, your children's classmates, family members -- your community. Some people cannot get immunized for medical reasons (for example, due to an allergic reaction or compromised immune system), a small percentage of people won't develop immunity even though they receive a vaccine, and babies are too young for certain vaccines. These children and adults rely on the rest of us to be vaccinated in order to protect them from exposure to life-threatening illnesses. The recent death due to measles of a Washington state woman with a suppressed immune system illustrates the importance of immunizing as many people as possible to provide a high level of community protection against measles.

We encourage all parents to talk to their doctor or health care professional about vaccinating their children. There are cases in which some specific children will have a medical reason to delay or not get certain vaccines, and your doctor will be able to help guide you in these matters.

We all have a role to play. Vaccinations are one of the great triumphs of science and public policy, and we should make their benefits available to everyone.

As the Surgeon General makes clear, "Vaccines are safe and effective ways to prevent disease and death. They are necessary. They save lives."

And as the President himself said earlier this year, "There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren't reasons to not."

If you're concerned about your health, the science is clear: Vaccinate yourself and your children.

For more information about vaccination, please visit www.vaccines.gov.

Well, isn't that special.

Against my better judgment, I replied (not that I believe it will be read):

So basically no one on your side is smart enough to figure out that the issue isn't vaccines, it's MANDATORY vaccines.

I would be opposed to mandatory food.

No one has the right (and certainly not the "authority" since "authority" is nothing but a superstition) to control the body of another. It's really sad that someone you call "The Nation's Doctor" isn't smart enough to understand that. No thank you- I'll find my own doctor. One who puts healthcare over politics.

Edit- Later:

Hello,

Due to the high volume of messages received at this address, the White House is unable to process the email you just sent.

To contact the White House, please visit:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Thank you.

So, you set up an email address, it gets "too much" email, so you ignore it all. Nice. Idiots.

.

Here, have a tiny slice of "liberty"

Liberty doesn't work very well in a piecemeal fashion.

You can't end the foolishness of borders until you end the foolishness of "entitlements".
And anti-gun bigotry.
And "laws" which violate the right of association.
And rules which violate private property rights- which include "anti-immigration laws".

This isn't an excuse to avoid Rightful Liberty- it is a call to abolish all statism immediately, rather than in baby steps. Because baby steps don't work well- as lingering statism always gets in the way, and seems to verify the statist claim that Liberty can't work.

It's like all the other things that don't work well when sliced up. For example, let me get out a bandsaw and slice 4 inches off the left side of my laptop to give to a needy kid, so he can have some computer. You and I both know, in that case, neither of us would have any computer.

That's why, unfortunately for the "pragmatists", liberty is always all or nothing.

.

Bad guys should suffer

People who do evil things- initiate force or violate private property- deserve to suffer. Right then. Sometimes they suffer at the hands of State employees. I am not opposed to that necessarily, as long as it isn't delayed, but happens during the attack, bringing it to an end.

I see depending on tax junkies to bring consequences as unnecessary and a poor substitute for justice.

When a murderer is on trial or in prison, he is probably suffering somewhat. And that is OK. But there are so many better ways- ways which don't also make the innocent suffer through the commission of "law" enforcement or theft/"taxation".
Ways where you don't end up punishing the wrong guy for something someone else did.
Ways which can't be used against political prisoners.
Ways where the collection of evildoers known as The State don't come out ahead, regardless of the verdict.

If the suffering is due to punishment- especially after testimony of government employees, in a government church (courtroom), in front of a government employee, awaiting imprisonment in a government cage (including those so-called "private prisons") then, while I agree bad guys should suffer, I can't get behind that method.

.

Disregard for others

Total disregard for others irritates me.

I am not talking about "offending" others, but doing things that are likely to be harmful. Often intentionally.

• Walking in front of moving cars because seeing the fear on a driver's face amuses you- as I have heard teens discussing doing for "fun". 

• Breaking glass bottles where you know kids play. 

• Scattering gravel, intentionally, on a concrete surface knowing it is likely to make people slip and fall.

And that applies also to actual drunk driving (not what enforcers generally find and punish as "drunk driving", but real drunk driving).

Things done because you either simply don't care what happens to other people- maybe you tell yourself they deserve it- or because you enjoy knowing people will be hurt.

Some people use folks like these as reasons they say a free society can never work. Yet, if a police state prevented this, why is it happening?

Nothing will ever make a perfect world. The innocent will always need to be defended. Bad guys will always need to be defended against. Property will always be violated. But why support a "system" where these abuses are institutionalized rather than seen for what they are?

Support for the state is also total disregard for others. It's like dumping garbage in people's living rooms on a massive scale. More damaging than any of the examples I gave above.

Polluting my life and the lives of those around me with your filthy, aggressive bullies wearing their silly State costumes, is a horrible way to behave toward others.

.

Disgusting cowards

I get really disappointed by the disingenuousness of people.

They'll say they "respect" libertarian ideas- and then show they don't even slightly "get it".

They'll confuse the Libertarian Party for libertarians, or- horrors- mistake "Constitutionalism" for libertarianism. Even worse than that are those who equate libertarian for "conservative", rather than realizing they are opposites- just as "liberal/progressive" is also the polar opposite of libertarian.

They'll claim they like libertarian ideas, but then hide from the truth of those ideas. They want a watered down version they can feel safe with. One that doesn't touch their beloved slavery and theft, and one that doesn't point out that their heroes are parasitic vermin. One that doesn't upset the status quo.

In other words, they "like" a "libertarianism" which rejects libertarianism.

They'll complain endlessly about the consequences that happen directly because of belief in "authority" and of rejecting the only possible ethical life- living in Rightful Liberty (while missing the fact that this is why what they complain about occurs)- but are too scared to actually do anything meaningful about it.

Those people make me sick.

.

Cure cowardice- don't coddle it

A while back, on a Facebook post about "gun laws", someone was going off against "open carry"- saying all mass murderers "open carried" immediately before their murder spree, so it's not unreasonable for people to be fearful when seeing someone open carrying. So, open carry, according to this commenter, is "terrorizing".

Balderdash.

I am sorry some people are cowards, but why should I live my life for their comfort?

The guy got angry over my attitude and wrote "Yes Kent my three daughters are 'cowards.' How dare them or my wife get scared at people walking around in public with AR-15s. What a stupid comment"

Sorry- or not- but it's true. If his daughters or wife are scared by armed people, they are cowards. Instead of coddling (and probably feeding) their cowardice, he should do the responsible thing and encourage them to overcome their fears with knowledge and preparation.

This guy would probably not fear the people most likely to attack his loved ones while open carrying. And that's just insane.

.

Polishing a bully

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Are you sad when a rapist is killed by his intended victim? Or when a known murderer dies in a car wreck? How about when a burglar dies while stealing? No?

Then why be sad when self-important bullies and thieves who happen to wear badges or other state costumes suffer the same fate?

I have a suspicion it's the uniform. By "uniform" I am including all the trappings- the "idiot rug" haircut, badge, clothing, and attitude of entitlement. Including the "aura" of "authority" that is carefully manufactured by those who use the uniformed tools against you.

I have come to believe you could take any random bully or thief off the street- without changing his behavior in any way- give him an idiot rug, dress him in a neat uniform complete with metal trinkets and possibly ribbons, convince him he is entitled to automatic respect and obedience, and people would fall all over themselves worshiping him. And hating those who point out exactly what he really is.

Government schooling is probably largely responsible- it removes critical thinking ability from most kids and replaces it with magical thinking of a type that equates "uniform" with "OMG! He's gorgeous" or "Look at how dignified he is. He served!"

Kinderprison equals 12-plus years of indoctrination to view them as "heroes" who are "necessary for freedom" and who are "keeping you safe"; it almost guarantees that outcome in the vast majority of people who go through the system.

I see their acts for what they are: the acts of a bully who feels entitled to your gratitude as he's violating your life, liberty, and property.

That's why I can't mourn when their chickens come home to roost.

Good riddance to bad trash!.

Rules, legitimate and otherwise

At mountainman rendezvous the one rule you can always count on is "Nothing visible in camp which wasn't invented until after 1840". The rule is so standard that it is often shortened to "Pre-1840 rules apply".

There is some leeway given for medical necessity. Modern glasses frames might be frowned upon, but no one is likely to rip them off your face and stomp them. A rendezvous is, after all, an armed society, and we all know how polite those are.

If a person is making an effort, people will not usually push the issue. Don't carry around beer in a can, but pour it into a tin cup... cover your camera with a bit of deer skin or a canvas bag... if you sleep on an air mattress, cover the thing with canvas, a wool blanket, or a buffalo robe if it can be seen through the open door of your shelter... leave the cigarettes in your lodge, smoke a clay pipe if you need to smoke... things like that. And, for goodness sake, no plastic!

Of course, some people are compelled to see what they can get away with. They'll bring something invented before 1840, but not seen in the mountains until decades later- just because it's technically permitted. Some people ignore the rules, even after being "reminded". Occasionally, the non-compliant will be kicked out of camp.

I like the rule. I know it exists before I decide to attend. If I am not willing to live by the rule, I can choose to stay home or go somewhere else.

I wouldn't impose this rule on society, saying that if you choose to stay, you must live by this rule- staying implies consent. Nor would I claim if I managed to impose the rule before you were born, being born here means you have implicitly agreed to the rule.

It's the same with other onerous rules that I didn't agree to.

This includes your Constitution, anti-gun "laws", prohibition, "taxes", etc.

I never agreed to those rules. Neither did most other people. They were imposed. They are said to apply from now on- or until the "authorities" change them. No leeway for necessity is usually given unless you are a member of "the club". Reminders are at the point of a gun.

This isn't civilized. It is the opposite of a society. Take your rules and ... well, you know the rest.

.

The lie matters because of politics

The lie matters because of politics

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 19, 2015)

The rather disturbed president of the Spokane, Washington, NAACP chapter is exposed as a liar by her parents, and it makes national news and causes an uproar.

Why does her lie matter to anyone outside her club? Race only matters to racists. Worse lies are told every day by people using those lies to harm innocent people they don’t even know.

Judges, police, politicians, and bureaucrats lie in the course of the job, and people refuse to notice until it harms them, personally.

Judges lie when they instruct a jury to consider only the law and their instructions, rather than considering whether the law is a legitimate law or a power grab by the State.

Police lie and say they are all that stands between society and chaos, even while being caught on video planting evidence, shooting people in the back, kicking women in the face, and offering to forget infractions in exchange for sexual favors.

Politicians lie when they offer you a choice between different brands of slavery, but leave real liberty off the table. They lie when they make campaign promises and when they utter the words "crisis", "national security", or "for the children".

Bureaucrats lie when they make up rules and call them "laws" and say you are obligated to obey. They lie when they claim you need this or that permit or license.

All the above lie when they call themselves "public servants" while meaning to be your masters.

In light of all this lying, why is anyone making a big deal over a woman pretending to belong to a race she doesn't?

Because of politics. If you remove politics from the equation it wouldn't matter to anyone outside her personal sphere what she imagines herself to be. As it is, it only matters because silly racists have dreamed up "laws" to treat people differently based upon their "race".

The claim is that the "laws" remove the obstacles society has erected, but if you've been paying attention you know that isn't how it actually works. In the name of "social justice", anti-social injustice has been institutionalized, and for this reason an insignificant woman's racial fantasy seems to matter.

I don't claim her lie was innocent. The NAACP has the right to kick her out for her deception. Remove politics from the situation and, without the reward of special status the group seeks for themselves, there would probably have been no incentive for her to lie to them, and no one besides the club members she deceived would have ever heard her name. Then it would be very unlikely for her lie to harm anyone at all.

-

Support?
.