Monday, November 07, 2016
Evil "energy vampires"
Presidential candidates and sitting politicians are a perfect analog for those "energy beings" from the classic Star Trek series- you know the ones.
The ones who feed- vampire-like- off of negative emotions and aggressive energy.
The only way to make those entities go away, or starve to death, is to stop feeding them. Stop giving them what they need to survive. Notice what they are, and how they are using you, and refuse to be used one more day.
I can't make you, of course.
But, it sure would be a nicer world if you'd laugh at them and make them scuttle away and leave everyone alone.
They are NOT legitimate. They don't deserve your respect. They are not "leaders", but seek to be rulers. They are parasites and vermin. Treat them as such. They have earned it.
(See also this video)
The ones who feed- vampire-like- off of negative emotions and aggressive energy.
The only way to make those entities go away, or starve to death, is to stop feeding them. Stop giving them what they need to survive. Notice what they are, and how they are using you, and refuse to be used one more day.
I can't make you, of course.
But, it sure would be a nicer world if you'd laugh at them and make them scuttle away and leave everyone alone.
They are NOT legitimate. They don't deserve your respect. They are not "leaders", but seek to be rulers. They are parasites and vermin. Treat them as such. They have earned it.
(See also this video)
My anti-v*ting guide
Cold, hard logic would suggest that you refuse to keep playing a rigged game against professional cheaters. But if you are going to v*te anyway, here are a couple of thoughts I have for you.
NEVER Hillary Clinton. Just not ever. No way, José. Years ago I had a friend who was friends with the Clintons and he told me to NEVER trust her. His advice in every area was always excellent. He never lied to me or steered me wrong. And, believe it or not, I just googled him and he's apparently still alive.
NEVER William Weld. I'm agnostic about Gary Johnson, but William Weld is a non-negotiable toxic lump of dog crap. He's not simply not a libertarian, he is actively and enthusiastically ANTI-libertarian. He illustrates "anti-liberty bigot" as accurately as Hillary herself. To v*te for the LP candidate this time is like continuing to eat at a restaurant that serves you a giant cockroach in your meal, and refuses to apologize for it. You simply can't reward that sort of behavior, and your v*te IS a reward. Just don't- I plead with you.
You are going to do what you do. Think long and hard about it first.
NEVER Hillary Clinton. Just not ever. No way, José. Years ago I had a friend who was friends with the Clintons and he told me to NEVER trust her. His advice in every area was always excellent. He never lied to me or steered me wrong. And, believe it or not, I just googled him and he's apparently still alive.
NEVER William Weld. I'm agnostic about Gary Johnson, but William Weld is a non-negotiable toxic lump of dog crap. He's not simply not a libertarian, he is actively and enthusiastically ANTI-libertarian. He illustrates "anti-liberty bigot" as accurately as Hillary herself. To v*te for the LP candidate this time is like continuing to eat at a restaurant that serves you a giant cockroach in your meal, and refuses to apologize for it. You simply can't reward that sort of behavior, and your v*te IS a reward. Just don't- I plead with you.
You are going to do what you do. Think long and hard about it first.
Sunday, November 06, 2016
Being good is right, even if illegal
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 5, 2016 - from now until whenever, my CNJ columns will appear in the Wednesday paper.)
Dare to be a good person (my chosen headline)
What is a good person, and why bother trying to be one? I define a good person as someone who doesn't intentionally harm innocent people or their property, makes it right when they harm someone by accident, and who does their best, whenever possible, to help those who need it.
I can even be talked into scratching the part about helping others as long as no intentional harm is committed against the innocent. Mind your own business and don't hurt anyone and you are most of the way there. I wish I could honestly say I always live up to my own standards.
Most people act fairly good the majority of the time. Why? Well, why do you, personally, act good? Do you behave yourself only because you are afraid you'll be punished if you don't? In that case, you aren't good, but only pretending. Being good when you are afraid of consequences is empty. If a person refrains from attacking and stealing only because someone-- whether human or supernatural-- might punish them, they aren't a good person.
But there is even more to it. Doing something just because the law says it's OK, or even required, is not good. Obeying the law has nothing whatsoever to do with being a good person; often quite the opposite. Some of the best people are outlaws, and some of the worst are bad specifically due to their support for legislation which intentionally or incidentally harms the innocent. Such as ObamaCare, or the barbaric War on Politically Incorrect Drugs-- the 21st Century version of Prohibition which they didn't even bother to make quasi-lawful this time by amending the Constitution.
Allowing laws to stop you from doing the right thing is also not good.
How many people neglect to defend themselves or come to the aid of others because they are afraid of the legal trouble they could get in? How many fail to consistently carry the proper defensive tools just because government pretends to have the authority to regulate them?
How many people comply with legislation and taxes which destroy their ability to provide for themselves or help others financially? Opening a business is good; interfering with the free market is bad. Every business which never opens due to all the government fees, taxes, licenses, and red tape is a lost opportunity for good.
Why be good? Because it works, and is always the right thing to do, even when it's illegal.
.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
Dare to be a good person (my chosen headline)
What is a good person, and why bother trying to be one? I define a good person as someone who doesn't intentionally harm innocent people or their property, makes it right when they harm someone by accident, and who does their best, whenever possible, to help those who need it.
I can even be talked into scratching the part about helping others as long as no intentional harm is committed against the innocent. Mind your own business and don't hurt anyone and you are most of the way there. I wish I could honestly say I always live up to my own standards.
Most people act fairly good the majority of the time. Why? Well, why do you, personally, act good? Do you behave yourself only because you are afraid you'll be punished if you don't? In that case, you aren't good, but only pretending. Being good when you are afraid of consequences is empty. If a person refrains from attacking and stealing only because someone-- whether human or supernatural-- might punish them, they aren't a good person.
But there is even more to it. Doing something just because the law says it's OK, or even required, is not good. Obeying the law has nothing whatsoever to do with being a good person; often quite the opposite. Some of the best people are outlaws, and some of the worst are bad specifically due to their support for legislation which intentionally or incidentally harms the innocent. Such as ObamaCare, or the barbaric War on Politically Incorrect Drugs-- the 21st Century version of Prohibition which they didn't even bother to make quasi-lawful this time by amending the Constitution.
Allowing laws to stop you from doing the right thing is also not good.
How many people neglect to defend themselves or come to the aid of others because they are afraid of the legal trouble they could get in? How many fail to consistently carry the proper defensive tools just because government pretends to have the authority to regulate them?
How many people comply with legislation and taxes which destroy their ability to provide for themselves or help others financially? Opening a business is good; interfering with the free market is bad. Every business which never opens due to all the government fees, taxes, licenses, and red tape is a lost opportunity for good.
Why be good? Because it works, and is always the right thing to do, even when it's illegal.
.
-
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.
The only thing you don't have a right to do
The list of things you have a right to do is an infinite list.
You have an absolute human right to smoke pot, carry a gun, be fat, act silly, trade with others, be a racist, believe in a "flat Earth", drive a car, say offensive things, have sexist thoughts, speak your mind, wear a hat, travel, learn, have mutually consensual sex, read, own and modify a home, pick your nose, or uncountable other acts.
Really there's only one thing you don't have a right to do: to archate.
As long as the thing listed above is done without archation, you have a right to do it.
Archation comes in many guises. The mugger and the IRS employee are archating. The cop and the little parasite "playing" the "knock out game" are archating. The burglar and the game warden are archating.
Archation is the opposite of anarchy. It is the use of the political means, rather than the economic means. While not limited to those calling themselves "government" it is behaving as a State acts; using aggression or violating private property. If you add archation to anything you otherwise have a right to do, you don't have a right to do it. Not that way.
And, if you try to prevent people from doing anything they have a right to do, you have become the bad guy. It is no different to use a "law" than to use a gun- if you are archating, your method is irrelevant.
You have no right to govern other people. To attempt to do so is an act of archation. Your victim has the right to defend himself (and others) from you. If you don't like that reality, stop being a thug.
You have an absolute human right to smoke pot, carry a gun, be fat, act silly, trade with others, be a racist, believe in a "flat Earth", drive a car, say offensive things, have sexist thoughts, speak your mind, wear a hat, travel, learn, have mutually consensual sex, read, own and modify a home, pick your nose, or uncountable other acts.
Really there's only one thing you don't have a right to do: to archate.
As long as the thing listed above is done without archation, you have a right to do it.
Archation comes in many guises. The mugger and the IRS employee are archating. The cop and the little parasite "playing" the "knock out game" are archating. The burglar and the game warden are archating.
Archation is the opposite of anarchy. It is the use of the political means, rather than the economic means. While not limited to those calling themselves "government" it is behaving as a State acts; using aggression or violating private property. If you add archation to anything you otherwise have a right to do, you don't have a right to do it. Not that way.
And, if you try to prevent people from doing anything they have a right to do, you have become the bad guy. It is no different to use a "law" than to use a gun- if you are archating, your method is irrelevant.
You have no right to govern other people. To attempt to do so is an act of archation. Your victim has the right to defend himself (and others) from you. If you don't like that reality, stop being a thug.
Saturday, November 05, 2016
Let people be wrong
If you believe in liberty, I believe that must include giving other people the freedom to be wrong. To do the wrong things. To do things they have no right to do sometimes. Things that embarrass you.
I think that includes not demanding that they not v*te, not hold a government job, stay off welfare, or whatever.
Even if they are family members.
Liberty is never controlling.
Tell them where you stand, why you think they are wrong to do what they are doing. Then step aside.
Yes, you have the right to defend yourself, but you are not always required to do so. Weigh each situation. Are they directly archating?
You are also not required to let someone violate you. Again, weight the situation. Maybe you simply need to get away from certain people. Or to put your foot down if they want to make you go along with them. To say "you may not violate me" isn't controlling anyone- although I have heard people make that claim with a straight face.
Letting people be wrong is probably one of the hardest things I ever do. And one of the most essential, when dealing with statists.
Let people be wrong. Don't hide the consequences from them- let them see the connection between their poor choices and the results. Maybe, if they mention it later, suggest a better way. You don't know who it may get through to.
I think that includes not demanding that they not v*te, not hold a government job, stay off welfare, or whatever.
Even if they are family members.
Liberty is never controlling.
Tell them where you stand, why you think they are wrong to do what they are doing. Then step aside.
Yes, you have the right to defend yourself, but you are not always required to do so. Weigh each situation. Are they directly archating?
You are also not required to let someone violate you. Again, weight the situation. Maybe you simply need to get away from certain people. Or to put your foot down if they want to make you go along with them. To say "you may not violate me" isn't controlling anyone- although I have heard people make that claim with a straight face.
Letting people be wrong is probably one of the hardest things I ever do. And one of the most essential, when dealing with statists.
Let people be wrong. Don't hide the consequences from them- let them see the connection between their poor choices and the results. Maybe, if they mention it later, suggest a better way. You don't know who it may get through to.
Friday, November 04, 2016
Set it and forget it? Nope.
One of the sillier arguments against self responsibility (also known as anarchism) is "If you get rid of government, someone will just start another one. Humans always have and always will."
So we should never do anything that's not permanent? Like eat, bathe, or anything? If a battery would have to be recharged, there's no point in even using a device?
Yes, the tree of liberty needs to be periodically watered with the blood of statists. And your toilet needs to occasionally be flushed. It's just reality.
Almost everything in life needs to be repeated. Nothing is permanent. Even statism requires periodic elections, appointments, rituals, and the replacement of employees who finally become good government employees by getting embalmed or cremated.
If you want a permanent fix which can be done once, then ignored forever, you aren't mature enough to be responsible for yourself.
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
So we should never do anything that's not permanent? Like eat, bathe, or anything? If a battery would have to be recharged, there's no point in even using a device?
Yes, the tree of liberty needs to be periodically watered with the blood of statists. And your toilet needs to occasionally be flushed. It's just reality.
Almost everything in life needs to be repeated. Nothing is permanent. Even statism requires periodic elections, appointments, rituals, and the replacement of employees who finally become good government employees by getting embalmed or cremated.
If you want a permanent fix which can be done once, then ignored forever, you aren't mature enough to be responsible for yourself.
-
(If you do such things, please go "thumbs up" this on Steemit)
(If you do such things, please go "thumbs up" this on Steemit)
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Thursday, November 03, 2016
The religious ritual of v*ting
The only reason I can see for a liberty-leaning statist to v*te for Gary Johnson is as an attempt to break the hold of the DemoCRAPublicans. He's no libertarian and his running mate William Weld is an authoritarian monster and anti-liberty bigot right up there with Donallary Clump (and actually much worse than one half of that twisted statist chimera).
But since it's all a superstitious ritual anyway, even that's a weak justification. Politics matters only to the extent you let it matter.
I will admit this, though- the v*ters are right about one thing. V*ting in and of itself is not an act of aggression.
Demanding that I go along with the results of your v*te, however, IS an act of aggression. If you would impose the results of your election on me by force, you are an aggressor. A thug. A bully.
You wouldn't want to be a thug, would you? Then have your election and leave me alone. I do not consent.
So, v*te, but keep it classy and non-aggressive. Remember that it's nothing but a religious ritual, and the results don't apply to those who aren't believers in your religion of Statism. You can't demand that atheists tithe or go to confession, and we laugh at your threats to excommunicate us. Nor do we fear your Anarchist Hell, knowing it is really much preferable to your Statist Paradise. Your religion doesn't have any hold on us.
I will not abandon my home just because the mafia moved in. So keep your "If you don't like it, move to Somalia" comments to yourself, or I'll suggest that if you love authoritarian government so much, perhaps you'd be happier in North Korea or Venezuela.
V*te if it makes you feel as though you've accomplished something, but keep your filthy government off my life. Thanks.
But since it's all a superstitious ritual anyway, even that's a weak justification. Politics matters only to the extent you let it matter.
I will admit this, though- the v*ters are right about one thing. V*ting in and of itself is not an act of aggression.
Demanding that I go along with the results of your v*te, however, IS an act of aggression. If you would impose the results of your election on me by force, you are an aggressor. A thug. A bully.
You wouldn't want to be a thug, would you? Then have your election and leave me alone. I do not consent.
So, v*te, but keep it classy and non-aggressive. Remember that it's nothing but a religious ritual, and the results don't apply to those who aren't believers in your religion of Statism. You can't demand that atheists tithe or go to confession, and we laugh at your threats to excommunicate us. Nor do we fear your Anarchist Hell, knowing it is really much preferable to your Statist Paradise. Your religion doesn't have any hold on us.
I will not abandon my home just because the mafia moved in. So keep your "If you don't like it, move to Somalia" comments to yourself, or I'll suggest that if you love authoritarian government so much, perhaps you'd be happier in North Korea or Venezuela.
V*te if it makes you feel as though you've accomplished something, but keep your filthy government off my life. Thanks.
Wednesday, November 02, 2016
Tuesday, November 01, 2016
Don't misidentify things
Once, in a high school zoology class, the teacher set out a bunch of preserved samples for us to classify. It was for a quiz or a test. We were to study them, and then be able to identify them on a test the next day.
I noticed that a flounder was mislabeled as a "skate" or "ray"- a completely different type of fish.
I pointed this out to the teacher.
He said that since he only had that one specimen as an (incorrect) example of "Chondrichthyes" I needed to pretend that's what it was for the test.
I told him he was teaching the students something that was wrong- misleading them. Giving them bad information. He insisted that it didn't matter, and I needed to just go along.
I refused. I kept saying "but it isn't what the label says it is!"
He had a bit of an outburst and said I was beating a dead horse.
I dropped the matter, but didn't ignore the lie.
I don't remember the outcome, other than I refused to call it something it wasn't just to satisfy him. Did he mark my answer as "wrong"? Or, did he give me credit for the unwanted right answer?
I'm still the same way. I won't misidentify something just to make a liar more comfortable. And they still don't like it.
I noticed that a flounder was mislabeled as a "skate" or "ray"- a completely different type of fish.
I pointed this out to the teacher.
He said that since he only had that one specimen as an (incorrect) example of "Chondrichthyes" I needed to pretend that's what it was for the test.
I told him he was teaching the students something that was wrong- misleading them. Giving them bad information. He insisted that it didn't matter, and I needed to just go along.
I refused. I kept saying "but it isn't what the label says it is!"
He had a bit of an outburst and said I was beating a dead horse.
I dropped the matter, but didn't ignore the lie.
I don't remember the outcome, other than I refused to call it something it wasn't just to satisfy him. Did he mark my answer as "wrong"? Or, did he give me credit for the unwanted right answer?
I'm still the same way. I won't misidentify something just to make a liar more comfortable. And they still don't like it.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Taking Teddy Bears
There is a situation someone was sharing on Facebook that made me really angry.
A friend's daughter had a stuffed toy rabbit she'd had and loved since she was a baby- maybe since she was born. She is now 13 years old and still loves and sleeps with the toy.
And someone stole it, just to hurt her.
If that's not evil, then nothing is.
Her dad believes he knows who stole the toy, but can't prove it. Without proof he can't go kicking in doors and choking suspects- because he isn't a bad guy.
You might think a 13 year-old ought not be that attached to a toy. I might agree in principle- but I have to admit I can completely empathize with her. She wasn't hurting anyone. Whether she "should" be that attached to a toy isn't the point- she was, and someone violated her property and hurt her. On purpose.
That infuriates me.
I know there are others who are just as attached to other things- or even myths they mistake for things- that are harmful. Like The State.
If what they love so much didn't directly violate other people, I would say you need to leave them alone and let them keep their figurative teddy bear. The problem is, with the State, their teddy bear only continues to be as long as it is fed the blood of innocents.
These are the people who- as long as they can't stay out of the lives of the rest of us- need to have their beloved thing ripped from their hands and destroyed. Not innocent 13 year-old girls whose beloved possession isn't harming anyone.
A friend's daughter had a stuffed toy rabbit she'd had and loved since she was a baby- maybe since she was born. She is now 13 years old and still loves and sleeps with the toy.
And someone stole it, just to hurt her.
If that's not evil, then nothing is.
Her dad believes he knows who stole the toy, but can't prove it. Without proof he can't go kicking in doors and choking suspects- because he isn't a bad guy.
You might think a 13 year-old ought not be that attached to a toy. I might agree in principle- but I have to admit I can completely empathize with her. She wasn't hurting anyone. Whether she "should" be that attached to a toy isn't the point- she was, and someone violated her property and hurt her. On purpose.
That infuriates me.
I know there are others who are just as attached to other things- or even myths they mistake for things- that are harmful. Like The State.
If what they love so much didn't directly violate other people, I would say you need to leave them alone and let them keep their figurative teddy bear. The problem is, with the State, their teddy bear only continues to be as long as it is fed the blood of innocents.
These are the people who- as long as they can't stay out of the lives of the rest of us- need to have their beloved thing ripped from their hands and destroyed. Not innocent 13 year-old girls whose beloved possession isn't harming anyone.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Presidential debates have no value
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 30, 2016- Please note, my CNJ columns have moved to Wednesdays. The paper made some cuts, and dropped some opinion columns, but I survived the cut.)
Presidential debates are trivial entertainment (my chosen headline)
Is there value in time spent watching two liars trying to out-lie each other?
A lot of people seem to believe so. They watch presidential debates, and pretend they matter.
People have been fooled into believing "it's a two-party system" and a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote, and the debates confirm this belief. So, they continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, ignoring the fact that there are multiple evils to choose from.
Therefore, one of those two debating liars will soon be declared the president-elect of the tax-farm called "The United States". This winner will be using employees who will try to force you to behave in certain ways, and using your stolen property (stolen through "taxation") against you.
So you watch the debates.
It isn't necessary.
You want to know what to expect from the next president, right? I can give you a preview of what to expect right now.
The declared winner will build upon the misdeeds of his or her predecessors in the office. Even those things they criticized while campaigning. It's easier to condemn actions before you have the power to get away with committing them. I'm sure the new president's intentions will be pure, though. They always claim so.
All campaign promises will be ignored, but it will be explained that the promises aren't being broken; you aren't smart enough to see the Big Picture. As soon as a new president is let in on all the government secrets kept by the unelected people actually in power, it becomes clear why the indiscreet promises must be forgotten. It probably concerns the superstition called "National Security".
There's still hope. While no president is anywhere near as decent as his supporters want you to believe, neither is any president as bad as his opposition claims. Presidents are simply the gunk which floats to the top of the political soup, to be scooped up and held aloft as someone more noble than the rest of humanity.
Contrary to claims I have seen, presidents are unfit to imitate. If you believe a president-- any president-- should be a role model for children, you should probably put down the bong. Or pick one up. Because whatever you're doing isn't working.
As long as you are entertained by presidential debates, and don't take them too seriously, have fun watching. I have more important things to do, such as alphabetizing my cereals and sorting my cats' whiskers by length.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
Presidential debates are trivial entertainment (my chosen headline)
Is there value in time spent watching two liars trying to out-lie each other?
A lot of people seem to believe so. They watch presidential debates, and pretend they matter.
People have been fooled into believing "it's a two-party system" and a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote, and the debates confirm this belief. So, they continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, ignoring the fact that there are multiple evils to choose from.
Therefore, one of those two debating liars will soon be declared the president-elect of the tax-farm called "The United States". This winner will be using employees who will try to force you to behave in certain ways, and using your stolen property (stolen through "taxation") against you.
So you watch the debates.
It isn't necessary.
You want to know what to expect from the next president, right? I can give you a preview of what to expect right now.
The declared winner will build upon the misdeeds of his or her predecessors in the office. Even those things they criticized while campaigning. It's easier to condemn actions before you have the power to get away with committing them. I'm sure the new president's intentions will be pure, though. They always claim so.
All campaign promises will be ignored, but it will be explained that the promises aren't being broken; you aren't smart enough to see the Big Picture. As soon as a new president is let in on all the government secrets kept by the unelected people actually in power, it becomes clear why the indiscreet promises must be forgotten. It probably concerns the superstition called "National Security".
There's still hope. While no president is anywhere near as decent as his supporters want you to believe, neither is any president as bad as his opposition claims. Presidents are simply the gunk which floats to the top of the political soup, to be scooped up and held aloft as someone more noble than the rest of humanity.
Contrary to claims I have seen, presidents are unfit to imitate. If you believe a president-- any president-- should be a role model for children, you should probably put down the bong. Or pick one up. Because whatever you're doing isn't working.
As long as you are entertained by presidential debates, and don't take them too seriously, have fun watching. I have more important things to do, such as alphabetizing my cereals and sorting my cats' whiskers by length.
-
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.
Here's your "stupid" sign
Around town I see a couple of signs that warn me to not spend money with certain businesses.
No. I won't support dangerous gangs. I don't support those who violate peaceful people, no matter what their justification might be. And I don't support those who do. It's a pathetic quisling act to go out of your way to announce your support of scum.
I will not be spending any money at any business that advertises their support for gang activities. Policing is NOT about a person; it is about a set of aggressive, thieving behaviors. Behaviors no decent person would ever commit or condone.
It's a good thing that those who love rapists, murderers, thieves, and other molesters (with badges) let me know that they support the bad guys, so I can choose not to spend my precious dollars with them. If only all thug-lovers were so open about it.
But, I'm sure they are rewarded by copsuckers far beyond the loss of my piddling purchases. It's what "polite society" does. "Polite society" worships the parasites that feed on it.
"Support the Blue. We do"
"Support law enforcement"
No. I won't support dangerous gangs. I don't support those who violate peaceful people, no matter what their justification might be. And I don't support those who do. It's a pathetic quisling act to go out of your way to announce your support of scum.
I will not be spending any money at any business that advertises their support for gang activities. Policing is NOT about a person; it is about a set of aggressive, thieving behaviors. Behaviors no decent person would ever commit or condone.
It's a good thing that those who love rapists, murderers, thieves, and other molesters (with badges) let me know that they support the bad guys, so I can choose not to spend my precious dollars with them. If only all thug-lovers were so open about it.
But, I'm sure they are rewarded by copsuckers far beyond the loss of my piddling purchases. It's what "polite society" does. "Polite society" worships the parasites that feed on it.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Should be embarrassed, but not smart enough to realize it
"All taxes are theft and should be abolished? That means police, firefighters, the entire justice system, the military, all public infrastructure like roads and bridges, etc. should be funded through private donations? All those generous, philanthropic Americans out there would just graciously donate money to these groups even without a tax deduction (since there would be nothing to deduct from)? That sounds like the apocalypse, and would go over like a lead balloon. But at least the 'taxes steal our money' argument would disappear because there would be no Treasury or U.S. Mint to print the money we use. There will be no Federal Reserve either, so who's going to set interest rates, people on Wall Street? The SEC? Haha! Within a decade we'll be back in the Middle Ages trading chickens for grain. Sounds awesome. And don't tell me we could just privatize the Department of Treasury since that idea is so inherently flawed that the premise itself is illogical."
This is the so-called "thinking" of a statist. Posted without shame and free of irony on social media.
The flaws in his premises are so obvious they don't even seem worth pointing out. Feel free to do so anyway, in the comments. And they are numerous. Every scenario he apparently fears is based on an utter misunderstanding of how reality works, and what the bullies of "government" do.
I'll address just one of his delusions: money.
Money requires no government. If people want it, they will create it- without a "Federal Reserve" or a "Treasury Department" making bad money and ordering them to use it. And people WILL want money for most trades. I guarantee it.
Interest rates don't need to be "set" by anyone- they'll find their balance. Interest rates are like any other price. The market will find a price range, depending on many factors. If the "people on Wall Street" decided on an interest rate that was not in line with the market for money, anyone anywhere could compete with them, and beat them. It takes a government to protect a monopoly.
It should encourage you to know this is what we are up against. This is how the brighter-than-average statist on the street thinks. It is also how most of those who work for government think. And this is why they will go extinct. Sure, right now they have the drop on us. They have more guns and an open season on us. That situation won't last. I don't know when it will end, but it will end.
Bide your time. Prepare. Learn. Think. Educate. Speak up in private conversations and anywhere you believe it might have an impact. There is a change in the wind, and I can smell something new.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Always move toward liberty
(Previously posted to Patreon)
You can debate whether someone's chosen path toward liberty is smart or effective, but as long as the path they follow is truly toward more liberty, I'm in support of them. And it doesn't depend on the reaction of anti-liberty bigots- you can't live your life for them.
I would say, that as far as any particular method goes, I'm an agnostic. Even if I am unconvinced, let me see it actually work, and I'll get on board (or at least keep my doubts to myself). Until then I'll try to not be too critical, but I may be very skeptical. Being skeptical isn't the same as being negative. Or, if I realize a path I formerly supported leads the wrong direction, away from liberty and toward more theft and aggression, I may try to point that out, but I can't force anyone to change course.
I saw this happen with Bitcoin. I really didn't understand the hostility some people had against it. Sure, it might not work, but it sure looked like an attempt to go in the right direction. Let the experiment run and produce some data before flinging mud at it.
Wikileaks, too. I never see it as moving in the wrong direction to expose information the anti-liberty bigots don't want known. That it endangers some of their employees just raises the cost of being a tool of the State- and that's a good thing.
Maybe the same is true of v*ting. I doubt it, based on hundreds of years of pretty clear evidence, but some people keep trying to make it work. I am skeptical it ever can, and have laid out my reasons I won't be participating, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Just show me instead of calling me names. Convince this agnostic.
Keeping and bearing arms is the same. I am completely in favor of open carry. I have done it a lot- but not here. The bullies here are of the opinion that they can make up rules forbidding it, and they are happy to murder those who ignore any of their rules. And I don't have enough who would defy along with me. I would be the nail sticking up- even more than I already am. I cheer for open carry activists. Yes, it may scare some cowardly statists to see a gun. It may "drive people to the other side". But cowardly statists aren't going to be on the side of liberty anyway- if you coddle them it just makes them feel their opinions are as valid as anyone else's... and they aren't. Open carry is a move in the direction of more liberty- even if the cowards want to push back. Maybe in the long run it won't work, but no one can know that for sure. And open carrying is part of liberty. Pretending that someone shouldn't exercise their liberty because it will offend anti-liberty bigots isn't moving toward liberty.
The same could be said of my blog. It may not "work" and bring about more liberty to anyone, but at least I don't think anyone could seriously suggest it is moving in the wrong direction- away from Rightful Liberty.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. But, make sure you are always going in the right direction- it's the only thing that really matters.
You can debate whether someone's chosen path toward liberty is smart or effective, but as long as the path they follow is truly toward more liberty, I'm in support of them. And it doesn't depend on the reaction of anti-liberty bigots- you can't live your life for them.
I would say, that as far as any particular method goes, I'm an agnostic. Even if I am unconvinced, let me see it actually work, and I'll get on board (or at least keep my doubts to myself). Until then I'll try to not be too critical, but I may be very skeptical. Being skeptical isn't the same as being negative. Or, if I realize a path I formerly supported leads the wrong direction, away from liberty and toward more theft and aggression, I may try to point that out, but I can't force anyone to change course.
I saw this happen with Bitcoin. I really didn't understand the hostility some people had against it. Sure, it might not work, but it sure looked like an attempt to go in the right direction. Let the experiment run and produce some data before flinging mud at it.
Wikileaks, too. I never see it as moving in the wrong direction to expose information the anti-liberty bigots don't want known. That it endangers some of their employees just raises the cost of being a tool of the State- and that's a good thing.
Maybe the same is true of v*ting. I doubt it, based on hundreds of years of pretty clear evidence, but some people keep trying to make it work. I am skeptical it ever can, and have laid out my reasons I won't be participating, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Just show me instead of calling me names. Convince this agnostic.
Keeping and bearing arms is the same. I am completely in favor of open carry. I have done it a lot- but not here. The bullies here are of the opinion that they can make up rules forbidding it, and they are happy to murder those who ignore any of their rules. And I don't have enough who would defy along with me. I would be the nail sticking up- even more than I already am. I cheer for open carry activists. Yes, it may scare some cowardly statists to see a gun. It may "drive people to the other side". But cowardly statists aren't going to be on the side of liberty anyway- if you coddle them it just makes them feel their opinions are as valid as anyone else's... and they aren't. Open carry is a move in the direction of more liberty- even if the cowards want to push back. Maybe in the long run it won't work, but no one can know that for sure. And open carrying is part of liberty. Pretending that someone shouldn't exercise their liberty because it will offend anti-liberty bigots isn't moving toward liberty.
The same could be said of my blog. It may not "work" and bring about more liberty to anyone, but at least I don't think anyone could seriously suggest it is moving in the wrong direction- away from Rightful Liberty.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. But, make sure you are always going in the right direction- it's the only thing that really matters.
Competition is good!
The boots I wear all the time were good boots. They were given to me for Christmas about 8 years ago, and I wear them every day. I have climbed all over rocky canyons, walked rough mountain trails, and even crossed many a parking lot (which, in my experience is harder on footwear than anything else) in them. They have scratches, but keep holding up for the most part.
When the soles and heels start wearing out, I just run to the boot repair place and get them fixed up and ready for more years and miles. The cost has been about $25 to $40 both times I've had them fixed. Not a bad deal at all, considering what a new pair would cost me.
But, things change.
My boot repair shop went out of business a while back.
Not to worry; I knew there were more places around.
Well, now it is time for another repair. I looked and found that there were still two boot repair places listed locally. I took that information and headed out with my boots.
Then I hit a snag. The first place seems to no longer exist, and the phone number is non-working. Oops. Well, there's still one place.
So, that's where I went.
Unfortunately, they no longer have any competition in the area. What cost me $40 at most just a couple of years ago will cost me $90 this time! (I have no idea how I'm going to pay for it, either!)
I'm hoping that a lack of competition doesn't also affect the quality of their work. I guess I'll find that out next week.
Competition has benefited me in the past, and now a lack of competition looks as though it's going to cost me. I suppose the boot repair place is happy they no longer have any competition.
Competition keeps prices down, and keeps quality (and customer satisfaction) up. Just look at what happens without it- it's like government when there's no competition. Yes, I realize I still have a choice, so it's not completely government-like. I can drive somewhere else and find someone who might repair my boots more cheaply, or I can just buy new footwear, or buy something for my feet from Goodwill (Salvation Army had better prices, but they closed the local store a couple of years ago), or I can make some moccs. There are always choices, even if I don't like any of them.
I plead to the market gods- please inspire someone to open a new boot repair shop in the area! I can't afford the situation as it now exists.
When the soles and heels start wearing out, I just run to the boot repair place and get them fixed up and ready for more years and miles. The cost has been about $25 to $40 both times I've had them fixed. Not a bad deal at all, considering what a new pair would cost me.
But, things change.
My boot repair shop went out of business a while back.
Not to worry; I knew there were more places around.
Well, now it is time for another repair. I looked and found that there were still two boot repair places listed locally. I took that information and headed out with my boots.
Then I hit a snag. The first place seems to no longer exist, and the phone number is non-working. Oops. Well, there's still one place.
So, that's where I went.
Unfortunately, they no longer have any competition in the area. What cost me $40 at most just a couple of years ago will cost me $90 this time! (I have no idea how I'm going to pay for it, either!)
I'm hoping that a lack of competition doesn't also affect the quality of their work. I guess I'll find that out next week.
Competition has benefited me in the past, and now a lack of competition looks as though it's going to cost me. I suppose the boot repair place is happy they no longer have any competition.
Competition keeps prices down, and keeps quality (and customer satisfaction) up. Just look at what happens without it- it's like government when there's no competition. Yes, I realize I still have a choice, so it's not completely government-like. I can drive somewhere else and find someone who might repair my boots more cheaply, or I can just buy new footwear, or buy something for my feet from Goodwill (Salvation Army had better prices, but they closed the local store a couple of years ago), or I can make some moccs. There are always choices, even if I don't like any of them.
I plead to the market gods- please inspire someone to open a new boot repair shop in the area! I can't afford the situation as it now exists.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
"You have no right to" vs "You shouldn't"
(A looser than usual transcript)
Saying "you shouldn't" is an expression of opinion.
Saying "you have no right to" can be an expression of fact.
Don't get the two mixed up.
For me, there's a short, straight line from "have no right to" to "you shouldn't". One naturally follows from the other in most cases. But, it's not necessary for that to be the case.
No human has the right to archate. To archate means to initiate force, or credibly threaten to do so, or to violate private property rights. Basically, to act like a government or other kind of bad guy. It's the opposite of what makes up anarchy.
The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) could be rephrased as the Zero Archation Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to archate against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate archation." This clears up any confusion as to whether property violations which involve no physical force are addressed by the ZAP. Whether or not they were in the past, they are now.
So, you have no right to archate, but does that mean you shouldn't? My opinion is that it usually does- but not always.
Yes, pushing a kid from in front of a bus is an initiation of force. You don't have a right to do it, but I think this is one of those cases where you should. If it were me, I'd take the chance and deal with any complaints from the kid later. I'd willingly submit to arbitration if the kid I saved believes I owe restitution for initiating force against him in this instance. Maybe I'd then present him with a bill for services rendered, just to even things out.
There may be other cases as well, and if you believe it's important to archate- to do something you have no right to do- in some instance, you ought to feel it's worth dealing with the consequences that come from your act.
So, yes, saying you have no right to do something can be a statement of fact, if you indeed have no right to do it, but translating that into you shouldn't do something is a less supportable position. It's merely an opinion. And not all opinions are equally valid.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Being nice to monsters
On one hand, I try to be nice and considerate to everyone. Whether in person, or online.
On the other hand, there are some kinds of stupidity and evil I just can't abide, and I can be pretty nasty when exposed to it. Especially when those espousing the stupidity and/or evil are nasty about it first. Statists wouldn't be statists if they didn't embrace stupidity and evil.
The moments I am most proud of are those when I don't respond in kind to the nasty, stupid, evil notions being promoted by statists. When I treat them with more respect, understanding, and kindness than they deserve. I don't always manage it-- I'm only human, and flawed-- but it is something I strive for.
My hope is that treating nasty, stupid, evil statist ideas as "worthy of consideration" will inspire the same consideration of civilized behavior from those promoting those statist ideas. When given serious, honest consideration, it is obvious that mutual consent is always superior-- ethically, morally, rationally, and pragmatically-- to coercion, theft, and aggression. People just need to be exposed to the idea.
Some percentage will still reject it-- it doesn't fit with their ideas of how "society" works, and they don't see how some things can be provided without forcing others to go along. They are wrong. Period. There is simply no excuse. But it's probably pointless to waste breath on them once they've expressed an unwillingness to be civilized. Some monsters enjoy being monstrous.
And, yet, I still want to be nice and considerate. Which means walking away and leaving them to their barbarism-- with the understanding that I may be forced to defend myself from them in the future.
-
On the other hand, there are some kinds of stupidity and evil I just can't abide, and I can be pretty nasty when exposed to it. Especially when those espousing the stupidity and/or evil are nasty about it first. Statists wouldn't be statists if they didn't embrace stupidity and evil.
The moments I am most proud of are those when I don't respond in kind to the nasty, stupid, evil notions being promoted by statists. When I treat them with more respect, understanding, and kindness than they deserve. I don't always manage it-- I'm only human, and flawed-- but it is something I strive for.
My hope is that treating nasty, stupid, evil statist ideas as "worthy of consideration" will inspire the same consideration of civilized behavior from those promoting those statist ideas. When given serious, honest consideration, it is obvious that mutual consent is always superior-- ethically, morally, rationally, and pragmatically-- to coercion, theft, and aggression. People just need to be exposed to the idea.
Some percentage will still reject it-- it doesn't fit with their ideas of how "society" works, and they don't see how some things can be provided without forcing others to go along. They are wrong. Period. There is simply no excuse. But it's probably pointless to waste breath on them once they've expressed an unwillingness to be civilized. Some monsters enjoy being monstrous.
And, yet, I still want to be nice and considerate. Which means walking away and leaving them to their barbarism-- with the understanding that I may be forced to defend myself from them in the future.
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)