Government ‘help’ solves nothing

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 23, 2016- I honestly believe this is one of the worst CNJ columns I have ever written, and for that, I apologize.)

If you want something done, do it without forcing your will on anyone else, and without forcing others to pay for what you want. Good ideas don't require force.

After the recent SpaceX rocket explosion, I saw someone arguing that this was why space exploration should be left to governments, thus financed with taxation. After all, the apparent cause of the blast was something NASA solved fifty years ago.

While this may be true, you'll also notice tax-financed space exploration stagnated decades ago. Long before commercial rockets became a reality.

If you want space exploration to get anywhere, you need people trying new things and taking new risks; innovating, not just copying solutions found long ago.

Even when government does innovate it's as likely to make things worse as to make them better.

Government got involved and started regulating and de facto rationing health care over a century ago. This increased the cost of health care, which caused some to demand government "do something". Government did, and now we have ObamaCare regulating and rationing health care even further. When people start feeling the failure, some will scream for government to do even more, and the situation will accelerate toward a total collapse.

This belief, that government should get involved anytime someone sees a problem, creates even bigger problems; ones more meddling can't solve.

Government, if it is to exist at all, must stay within its limits. If it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution as something government is allowed to do, then it is a crime for government to do it, regardless of how many believe it's a good idea. A more permissive view would still limit government to protecting the life, liberty, and property of those who consent to its control. Government meddling does none of those.

Government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with space exploration, health care, education, travel, or even something as simple as pets.

When people decided government needed to "do something" about pets we ended up with animal control ordinances and animal shelters. For government extremists it wasn't good enough to let private individuals approach the problem-- if there was a problem. Force was used, and this coercive system is failing again.

Governments don't understand economics. When you raise the price of anything, especially if you charge for mandatory features people may not want, you reduce the demand for it. Yet they seem surprised at the decrease in the number of adoptions.

There are always consequences for letting government meddle. Government breaks everything it touches.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


.

Cops and politicians- parasites?

Are cops and politicians really parasites? After all, they do "give back" in exchange for what they take. That makes some people disagree with the assertion that they are parasites.

But what they give back is harmful and unwanted (at least I don't want it). They give back rules and aggression in exchange for the liberty and property they take. Is that a good trade? Hardly.

I can't steal $100 from you, then give you a Twinkie (or a bruise on your head) and call it even. Consent has to be part of the equation. It's the most important part. Without consent, any act is a violation.

The cops and politicians could even give back more than they take, but when there is no consent in the taking, they are a parasite.

It's not OK for me to take your pizza and give you my car, if you don't agree to the trade. Maybe you have no use for a car, and are starving to death. I can't claim you should be happy with the trade, so you should just shut up. Or, I can't without looking like a thug. And this is what cops and politicians do. It is what they are.

Without consent, their taking- even if they imagine they give something up in return- is theft. They are parasites on society, because they are parasites on some individuals. Maybe not on you, but they are parasites feeding on me without my consent, and one person is enough to prove the claim.

Cops and politicians ARE parasites.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.

(Steemit link)

It's your right, but is it a good idea?

Just because it isn't a good idea to exercise a right, does that mean you don't have the right to do it? No.

This usually comes up with regards to "bearing arms". You have the right to carry a full-auto AK-47 openly down the streets of NYC, and into a courthouse. And you would be murdered by government employees for doing so. I would argue this makes it not a good idea. But it is still within your rights.

This follows along with the right to commit suicide. Usually, I think suicide is not a good idea. But you have that right and no one can take it from you. And, I am sure other examples could be found everywhere, if one looked.

It's not always smart to do everything you have an absolute human right to do. Not in every situation.

Why do people get confused over this?

Know what you have a right to do.
Stay within those rights.
Weigh the costs.
Be aware of circumstances.
Be smart.
Accept responsibility for your actions.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Those who "believe in obeying the law"

A while back the newspaper editor posted a link to the story about how more people were caged for "marijuana offenses" than for all violent crimes combined.

Of course, some copsuckers had to pipe up to tell us why we should just obey the opinions of evil people ("laws").

It is a very good illustration of the sick mindset of statists. It's actually an argument in favor of Anonymous' "Kill 'em all" comments, even though I hate to admit it, and I won't do that even if I could.

Anyway, here is a sampling of the comments from one of the law lovers regarding Cannabis prohibition:

"Last I knew it's still against the law."

Like running away from the slave plantation? If you let "law" dictate your ethics or morals, you have none.

"Not going to argue the point. You don't drive down main st. At 90 mph or steal from Wal Mart. Legalization is only a few years away but they can't wait. It's just a misdemeanor and unless they're carrying weight no jail time. I just believe in obeying the law."

Driving down Main St. at 90 MPH might be wrong if there are other people present, and if you present a credible threat to them or their property. But there is nothing inherently wrong with it just because someone made up an arbitrary "speed limit"

Stealing from a store is a violation of property rights. That makes it wrong. It would still be wrong even if legislation said it was OK- as with "taxation", for example.

So, you think slaves should just have waited until the "laws" were changed, and they were wrong when they tried to escape? If you believe in obeying the "law", without qualification, you are a fool and a moral cripple. Good people can't "just believe in obeying the law", but delusional State worshipers can. And do.

"My point is we don't get to chose which laws we will obey or disobey. I'm sure you didn't negotiate with your kids or your parents on their rules."

Actually, you do get to choose which "laws" to obey, just like the BadgeScum choose which "laws" to enforce against whom. If a "law" mandates you to do the wrong thing, or prohibits you doing the right thing, and you have ethics and principles, you will not obey that "law"- at least as long as you can break the "law" without being shot or kidnapped right now. I choose which "laws" to obey all the time.

And most people (well, smart people anyway) did negotiate with their parents regarding the rules. And they may even get some of the arbitrary or harmful rules eliminated through negotiation. I would rather my daughter be able to think for herself, and make a good argument against bad rules, than just be obedient. And I let her know that. Does it make parenting harder? Yep. Too bad for me- it will turn her into a much better person than demanding obedience ever could. Obedience is for slaves.

"It all has to do with sociopathic behavior. I don't need to play by the rules so when I go downhill it's somebody else fault. Play by society's rules. If your tailight is out. Get it fixed!"

When the rules are harmful, only sociopaths enforce them, and only cowards willingly obey them. If you go downhill, either because you "broke the rules" or for any other reason, it's your own fault. Ask for help, and if you haven't been a jerk, help may be offered.

Society is NOT the same as government. Government's rules are often very different from society's rules. Society's rules have evolved over time, government's rules have been dreamed up by insane bullies and imposed by force. Often, government's rules oppose society's rules, to the detriment of society.

Yes, if your tail light is broken, get it fixed. You'll probably be safer, and I would appreciate your courtesy. I'll even let you know if I see it broken without using that as an excuse to steal from you, waylay you, or violate your privacy. Only a really nasty bully would see a broken tail light and use it as a pretext for those violations. And, yes, cops are just that sort of nasty bullies.

And there you have it. This is why "we can't have nice things". Because evil idiots like this guy believe they are the "voice of reason" when they advocate unreasonable things. When they excuse the inexcusable.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

Bad words!

Here's something I end up telling my 9 year-old daughter frequently: There are no such things as "bad words"; there are only words that upset some people when they are spoken.

Or written.

And, yet, words which represent true evil aren't usually included in that list by most people.

Words like "government", "police", "laws", "State", "arrest", "vote", and things of that nature are actually much worse than the words most people get upset over  and call "profanity" or "obscenity". They represent the mainstream acceptance of truly evil acts. Acts of archation.

I apologize for the foul language used above. You'll live. 

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.


(Steemit link)

"Never discuss politics or religion"

Here's a secret: I don't like discussing politics or religion with people face to face, in real life.

It makes me very uncomfortable. Almost to the point of panic. Especially when it comes at me out of nowhere.  I am almost never the one to bring up such subjects in real life. I just don't do it.

Yet, so many people want to discuss these things with me. They know I have an opinion- and generally even know what it is. But they don't want to learn- they just want to hear me talk about it so they can disagree.

Sometimes I just refuse to talk about it. Sometimes I'm caught off-guard and start talking before I realize what has happened. Then the "fight or flight" kicks in as soon as I realize where the conversation has gone. Probably not a good thing at all.

If there were going to be a good, honest discussion, it would be one thing. But it's not. It's always an attempt to trip me up (doesn't happen); to fling questions at me in rapid succession so I don't have a chance to answer one before 2 more have been tossed out (almost always), or find the areas where I have no simple answers (happens a lot).

In those type of "discussions", there can be no communication.

Yes, these are topics of critical importance. The quality of life- sometimes life itself- depends on getting the answers right. Carefully and thoughtfully. But, people are going to believe what they believe. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind under those circumstances.

I suppose it's the danger of being known as outspoken and opinionated.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

Government is slavery

It was near the beginning of my online life that I realized I am an abolitionist. Slavery is the ultimate anti-liberty. While no person can actually own another, the pretense that they can has been the justification for all sorts of evil throughout human history.

Most people don't seem to realize that slavery is still a big problem- and not just the kind that comes to mind when they think of the word "slavery"- but forms of slavery they they may not recognize and may even support.

Government- The State- is slavery in every sense of the word.

If you are forbidden to do what you have a right to do, you are being enslaved. If someone claims to have a right to tell you where you can live, what you are allowed to put into your bloodstream, how to use your property, can take your property from you against your will, and says they can forbid your right to own and to carry tools, they are trying to enslave you. If they kidnap and cage you for doing what you have a right to do, the slavery has gone from the abstract to the concrete.

How much you allow them to succeed is up to you.

In one sense, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

On the other hand, you must pick your battles. You are no good to anyone if you are dead.

And I can't make that choice for you. No one can. Because you are not a slave, no matter how many want to enslave you, as long as you take responsibility for your own choices.

As long as you do that, I am proud of you.

Be pro-liberty. Be an abolitionist. Be the anti-slave.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

Liberty, anarchy go hand in hand

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 16, 2016)

 Libertarians advocate best government (my chosen headline)

What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

Libertarians advocate liberty. Specifically, maximum liberty and minimum government, because the two are inversely related. The more of one you have, the less you have of the other.  What's the minimum level of government you can impose on others?

"That government is best which governs least" wrote Henry David Thoreau. The best government is zero government.

In the Tao Te Ching, written around 2,600 years ago, Lao Tzu observed "When the government is quite unobtrusive, people are indeed pure. When the government is quite prying, people are indeed conniving." Unfortunately that's what it takes to survive being governed. Government breeds distrust and dishonesty.

There can't be "too much liberty" because liberty, being the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate others, is self-regulating. If an act violates someone, it's not liberty.

Anarchy isn't about chaos, "Mad Max", or "kill or be killed". Those popular misconceptions come from people taught in schools controlled by the state, which has an interest in promoting fear and ignorance concerning a lack of government.

Anarchy isn't a rejection of rules, but of people who rule. You govern yourself, without imposing control on anyone else. The buck stops with you. You are responsible for your own choices; there is no one else to blame.

Anarchy isn't about throwing bombs and growing bushy beards. It isn't against free enterprise. It most certainly isn't socialism or communism- although those groups sometimes misuse the label for propaganda.

Libertarians who don't eventually become anarchists fail to mature. They are ignoring inconsistencies in order to avoid discomfort. They seem to be trying to justify the government functions they support by pretending those aren't based on theft and aggression.

Anyone who carefully considers what liberty means, without making excuses, will eventually see there can be no such thing as a good government, and that evil is never necessary. He may not want to call himself an anarchist, but labels are only words. What matters is what you do, not what you call yourself.

As long as you don't use violence against the non-violent, you respect the property of others, and don't make excuses for people who refuse to follow these non-negotiable rules of society, you are on the right side.

Besides, hasn't this presidential election shown you the folly in seeking political answers to anything?

So, what's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About six months. Or so the joke goes.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.



.

Do you have the right to defend yourself violently?

If you don't have the right to defend your life, liberty, and property, with violence, from ALL who threaten or violate them, government employees included, you have no rights at all.

Yet, there are those who seriously say you have no right to use violence against aggressors, because doing so violates their right to life.

Those who make that claim are wrong.

And, no, it isn't that aggressors "give up" their right to not have violence used against them when they choose to archate- it's that they had no right to do so, and by choosing to do so they violated you, and you have the right to defend yourself. With violence if necessary. They made the choice; they can deal with the consequences.

So, yes, you have the absolute human right to defend yourself- with deadly force if necessary- against violators. Regardless of whether they work for the State or not, and regardless if those who work for the State are "just doing their job". If their "job" is a violation, they are no different from any other violator, and should expect to be treated any different. If they don't like that, they should quit and find an honest job.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

The value of liberty (PINNED)

... and of those working to promote it the best we know how.

Even though my subscriptions are down by $55 from last year, I have been scraping by. That is due to donations which often come in the nick of time. Mostly, it works. Which amazes me.

I love my donors.

I also love my subscribers.

I would really appreciate a few more of both. Or either.

I know these begging posts are annoying- they annoy me, too. I can't expect each reader to subscribe to the order of $100 per month, or many one-time donations that knock my socks off (and I don't expect either), but whatever you can do, if you consider this blog to be of value (and if you can afford it) is greatly appreciated.

Either way, know that I value each and every reader (yes, even you) whether you've ever subscribed or donated or not, and I hope you are getting something of worth each time you show up to read a post. Well, all the real posts, anyway. And I sincerely thank you.

Enjoy watching the train wreck called "politics", if you're into such things. Creepy clowns, indeed.

And if other liberty ideas are more important to you, I welcome your advice on topics you'd like me to explore from my perspective.

Have a great day!

.

From the Extraordinary Claims Department

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim, not with those who scoff at the claim..

Such as the claim that government employees should be allowed to kill people as long as it is called "capital punishment" or "war".

It doesn't matter that governments have been doing both-- and getting away with it-- for thousands of years and few have stood up to say it's wrong. It is still an extraordinary claim.

I can't accept this claim without extraordinary evidence in its favor. And I have yet to see any evidence, extraordinary or not. Lots of claims and emotions and name-calling; religious and statist claims, but nothing more. That won't cut it for me.

My thought on the issue of capital punishment remains the same-- it is murder motivated by revenge. It is a primitive, superstitious cleansing ritual. It taints everyone involved-- no one comes out the good guy. When you hand government the power to kill, there is nothing left to hand it. You have accepted total State domination. It is wrong. Just because you approve of some of the murders doesn't change it.

The ONLY ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge. I understand the lust for revenge in some cases, but I also know it's wrong.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.

I come not to praise democracy...

I'm always seeing these embarrassing videos praising democracy and telling people why they should v*te.

What a crock of male Bos taurus fecal matter.

Here's one example, and my response to it.

Video link

Sayu, you are badly off-course. Democracy isn't something to strengthen or promote. There is no good in it. It is mob rule. (As is a republic, which will always evolve into a democracy anyway. Before someone gets their constitutional panties in a wad. Both are just mob rule- "majority makes right" is wrong.)

Governing yourself is a good idea. Even necessary. Governing your neighbor? Well, that just makes you a thug- whether you do it personally, or v*te to have someone do it on your behalf.

Publicly praising democracy is the same as publicly praising other forms of theft, rape, kidnapping, and murder. Don't do it- and if you insist on doing it anyway, own it. Accept what you are praising and promoting. Understand why this makes you a bad guy. Understand that your condemnation of your critics is as empty as the protests of any other bully when people stand up and refuse to pretend you have some imaginary "right" to bully them.

Calling what politicians do "public service" is a lie. A nasty one which harms the innocent.

It doesn't matter what "race" or gender a politician is, or where it was born or hatched- NO ONE has the right to violate another using the excuse of governing.

A good politician (if such a thing were possible) wouldn't advocate for (or against) anyone based on "race" or gender or anything else, because all humans have equal and identical rights. It wouldn't matter who or what that politician is.

If you violate one person, you are violating everyone. If you leave everyone to live their life as they see fit (free of archation on their part), and free to defend their life, liberty, and property from those who violate them, it doesn't matter who you are. Just like it doesn't matter who you are if you violate others.

It doesn't matter who is governing- it matters that you allow governing to happen right in front of you. That's wrong.

You do get one thing right though: You admit that politics is about fear and taking things away from others. And yet, you want to promote more of this. Sayu, politics makes people stupid. Looks like you are suffering from exposure and you need to find a cure. Or, at least take that first step. You can't even know the meaning of liberty or freedom until you turn away from politics. I hope it's not too late for you.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

What are people worth?

In politics, one's worth is almost entirely subjective.

Sure, all humans have a baseline "worth" simply because they are humans. From that level ground, they either add to their worth during their lifetime by being kind, helpful, or productive, or they subtract from their worth by being aggressive, unpleasant, or parasitic.

Since politicians are some mix of both- with the unshakable reality of aggression and parasitism attached by definition to the poor choice of being a politician- they have to appear to lean heavily toward the positive human traits to break even. Very few manage it even for a short time. Think Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi as prime examples of those who gave up even trying to appear pleasant. Or even human.

Someone is not worth more due to being president, a congressvermin, or any other political position. In fact, by my estimation, the very best possible outcome for a politician's worth is that he'll be as worthwhile as any random person you might encounter on the street. That's just hypothetical, of course, since the reality is none have even approached that level.

But, for those blinded by the star-power of politicians, they imagine them to be of a higher class than the rest of us. "Worth more". It's a silly opinion, but it's what they believe. You aren't going to reason them out of their delusions.

Your worth is also subjective to a politician. What can they get from you and how can you be used? Beyond that, you are nothing to them, no matter how they act to your face.

-

(Steemit link for those of you who "do Steemit" and would like to help out without actually donating or subscribing.)

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.

When "Don't tread on me" just isn't enough

(Steemit link)

Prohibition dangerous as addiction

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 9, 2016)

Prohibition is drug abuse‏ (my chosen headline- I didn't even try to come up with something they'd use this week)

Drugs can make people crazy. For proof, just look what drugs have done to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.

His craziness apparently doesn't come from taking drugs, but from his murderous lust to prohibit them. Like so many prohibitionists in the US.

He's a perfect role model for supporters of the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Particularly for those who have the political power to continue to impose prohibition on society.

People who support prohibition are some of the most dangerous drug abusers out there. They abuse the excuse that some people will use drugs, some of those who use drugs will abuse them, some of those who abuse them will become addicted, and some of those who become addicted will be harmed to find justification for harming everyone; drug abuser or not. In fact, the drug war has been used as a model for the equally perverted war against gun owners. This chain of linked excuses can be used to violate any liberty you have.

Drug abuse is dumb, but prohibition is evil. Prohibition never has the effect its pushers claim, but instead adds crime and corrupt law enforcement to the list of harm the drugs may do, without preventing the harm done by drugs.

Most of the harm claimed to result from drug abuse-- legal trouble, loss of jobs and social standing--  can be traced more to the effects of prohibition than to the drugs themselves. And prohibitionists are OK with that-- anything to punish drug users. To prohibitionists, it's worth any collateral damage.

Those who advocate prohibition are effectively saying "Drugs are bad for you, and to prove it we will destroy your life, and maybe kill you, if we suspect you possess drugs". It's one of the craziest acts ever committed in the name of "for your own good".

Prohibitionists are on the wrong side of morality, and on the losing side of history. One day their crusade will look as backward and evil as the acts of those who supported the runaway slave acts. On that day those who enforce prohibition will be seen in the same light as those who captured and returned-- or killed-- runaway slaves in the name of "enforcing the law". In fact, growing numbers of us already see them this way.

Some of us also see them as absolutely crazy, like President Duterte, and hope they come to their senses before they do more damage.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


.

Rule yourself

There are those who prefer the idea of autarchy over anarchy. I believe they are basically the same thing- if you have no king, then you rule yourself... which means you are your own king.

Get your own crown

The only "problem" with the word "anarchy" is that bad guys have used the word to describe their non-anarchist acts, and other bad guys embraced and spread the misinformation. Not much you can do about that, besides use the word correctly when you use it.

Maybe the word "autarchy" has less baggage (not none), but if it started being talked about, it would gather baggage very quickly. I don't really see much point in abandoning a word you like to use due to baggage. But, whatever.

None of that changes the basic fact: You are the rightful king of your own life- including of your liberty and property. No one else has a higher claim on it, and if they try to act as if they do, they are the bad guys. It doesn't matter if they call themselves "the police" or the mayor, or anything else. No one else has a legitimate claim on your life, liberty, or property unless it is due to a debt you took on. You can't take on a debt by being born in a particular place, or by a gang coming together to assign a debt to you.

Those who believe they can create a debt for you to owe, against your will, or without you archating, are liars. Don't fall for their lies.

If you let someone rule you, they are probably going to violate you in some way, and they will definitely have you violating someone on their behalf- even if it is just through your silence in the face of the evil they do to others.

Anarchist, Voluntaryist, abolitionist, autarchist, libertarian... whatever you call yourself doesn't really matter, as long as you don't archate, and don't support or excuse those who do. You are your own king. Be a good one.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.


(Steemit link)

What do I know?

I prefer to only blog about what I know.

That's fairly easy because that's what I find myself being passionate about; what I want to write about.

Of course, there's always a chance that in my passion I am wrong- and if I am I hope you'll straighten me out (but you have to convince me with reason rather than with emotions or superstitions).

But, really, what chance is there that theft and aggression are better things to incorporate into your life than mutually consensual, voluntary interactions- and self defense against those who refuse to reject theft and aggression?

The rest of the stuff I'll either not talk about, or I'll tell you what I think, while letting you know I am not sure about it. That's why you don't see some subjects that other blogs dwell on here.

I hope that works for you.

-

(Steemit link, for those who are on Steemit. I sure could use some upvotes...)

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.

Politics- bullying writ large

In the past I have referred to politics as an attempt to live among people you hate.

Now, I think I'd modify that somewhat and call it an attempt to force people you don't like or trust to do what you want, while avoiding seeing yourself as a bully.

But, if you use politics and v*ting (or anything else) to force your opinions on others, you are still a bully.

Yes, I realize "they" are doing the same to you. They are bullies, too.

I wish everyone would just leave me out of their childish, yet deadly, squabbles. Keep your filthy politics and evil government to yourself. Hands off my life and the lives of my kids.

Of course, this is easy for mature people to do, but almost impossible for DemoCRAPublicans to live with. For them, it's all about the politics. And that is really sad.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.


(Steemit link)

America to USA to ?? GIF

Judgmental, but not controlling

For all my faults, I am not a controlling person.

I notice that things others do, things which don't bother me in the slightest, drive some people nearly insane. I look and try to figure out what the exact problem is, but all I see is "they are doing something I don't like!!"

As long as a person isn't archating, I'm going to be pretty much OK with whatever they do. (If they are archating, then it's my business because violating anyone violates everyone.) Sure, I might recognize that what they are doing isn't something I would do, and I might even consider it disgusting or immoral, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it.

But in most cases I see, it's nothing even that serious.

Whether it's a neighbor who hasn't mowed in ages (I can be guilty of that myself), or who has a lot of (what I see as) junk in his yard, or a house with "too many cars", or "possibly illegal" Mexicans living a couple houses down. Whatever.

I really see no reason to start trying to tell them how to live.

It strikes me as strange when others think any of those things are their business, and I see it as wrong when they sic the State on them in order to have their opinions forced on others.  

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.


(Steemit link)

Trump's taxes, and everyone else's, too

I don't want Donald Trump to pay any taxes.

Nor do I want Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson to. I don't even want Bernie Frickin' Sanders to pay taxes.

I don't think churches should be taxed.

There is no such thing as "your taxes", no matter who you are.

For one thing, the word "tax" is a lie.

Taxation is theft, no matter who the target is, and I don't want a single, solitary cent going to fund government at any level. I'd rather my worst enemy keep all his money than to force him to give any of it to government.

If the money was collected dishonestly, give it back to the victims without giving a cut to The State. If giving it to the victims isn't possible, let him keep it. It's still better than letting the government get any of it.

Now, if anyone is so stupid as to want to send government his own money, I wouldn't stop him. Anyone can waste their money any way they want- even to the point of giving it to thugs who will hire bullies to try to molest me. I have the right to stop those bullies and those who sent them, obviously.

People who are in favor of taxes could easily send as much of their own money to the State as they want. But that's not what they really want. They want to force YOU and ME, at gunpoint, to send our money, too. That's evil.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)