Toxic day

Or, it sure feels that way.

I am very upset over the death of William N. Grigg. He is irreplaceable and was just a really good man.

Then, on top of that, I found out someone I care about has a (step)daughter who is becoming a cop- and while I tried to be nice in my response to the news, I probably wasn't. And the response I got back wasn't any better. They are "proud". You know how that situation looks to me. Such a tragedy and a wasted life. And you'd think people would know better.

So, yes, I am heartsick.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Are "you" what you do?

Is a person only what they do, or is there more to it than that?

You are born with certain unchangeable attributes. What you choose to spend your life doing is not one of those. It is probably a blank slate-- or close to it. What you choose to do is a choice.

What you do you can stop doing at any time. And if what you were doing was wrong, you can attempt to make it right with those you have wronged by your actions.

But, if you continue to do something which violates others, and you refuse to face that what you are doing is wrong-- and never stop or try to make amends-- then that choice is also on you. It's not "you" exactly, but you are tying your identity to those actions.

You may still be more than what you do, but how far will that go toward absolving you?

If a person commits rapes, and is truthfully identified as a rapist, does that define him? Can he still be a wonderful person, otherwise, even if he continues to rape? What if he believes he has good reasons or somehow believes he is doing the right things? What if some people agree with him? How many have to find no fault in his actions before he's a good person? Can he be a popular rapist and a good person?

Or what about someone being a good serial murderer? Is it possible?

If the answer is "no", then there can be no such thing as a "good cop", either.

Missed his calling- as a cop he would have lived longer

-

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

(Steemit link)

The situation report

You and I live in the real world. A world filled to overflowing with statism. This is just as much our reality as is the fact that the world we live in is full of disease and natural disasters.

Almost everyone around us thinks it's OK to steal and attack- and a few people even believe those things are OK when they aren't done in the name of governing.

You may as well find ways to navigate around this reality, and use it to your advantage when you can-- without joining the archation circus, of course.

Sure, we can do what we can to try to eliminate these bad things, or find ways to limit the damage they do, but they probably aren't going to stop being a problem in our lifetime. And they shouldn't prevent you from doing the right thing and prospering. Yes, it would be easier in a world without statism, but things worth doing are worth doing even when they aren't easy.

We are better and stronger and smarter than they are. We can do it.

Statism allowed free rein

-

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

(Steemit link)

Don't fight politics with politics

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 8, 2017)

Why has everything become political? It's a tragedy.

Politics drives people apart. It makes people miserable, angry, and sad. Politics makes people believe crazy things and gets them to defend the indefensible. It turns regular people into bullies and scapegoats. Politics distracts people from doing productive things and keeps them too occupied to do pleasant things.

I understand. It is said that even if you don't have an interest in politics, politics is interested in you. The same could be said of a mosquito.

It's a shame that politics, and those addicted to it, can't leave anyone unmolested. The hunger to control what other people do, even when they aren't harming anyone else's life, liberty, or property, is one of the most vile traits ever found in humans, yet is a most common failing.

I view politics as an attempt to live among people you don't like. When you like someone, politics isn't mistaken for a proper way to interact. You just get along, compromise, or agree to disagree-- and move on. With people you don't like, whom you feel a need to use politics against, you skip the civilized behavior and move straight to asking someone to use violence on your behalf against them. The more people you dislike, the more political you become.

Maybe you believe others should finance things you feel are important, but they won't do it voluntarily. Send in the guns of the State to force them to contribute, or suffer the consequences.

Perhaps they do things you don't like, but which don't actually "pick your pocket or break your leg", to use Thomas Jefferson's phrase-- so self defense isn't an option. Send in the guns of government to force them to live as you would prefer, or suffer the consequences.

This is as wrong as attacking them in person, although it has somehow become more socially acceptable.

When someone starts using politics against you-- and there's no other way to use politics than against someone-- it's only natural to be tempted to strike back. Natural, but there's got to be a better way than to fire "laws" back and forth in some never-ending "Hatfield versus McCoy" feud.

The next time someone you don't like does something you disagree with, or tries to use politics against you, why not try to deal with the situation in a mature way-- non-politically. Give it a shot and see if you can be the better person.

-

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

(Steemit link)

An extraordinarily evil "citizen"

Look at the magazine cover below:

What information can you glean about the people who publish it?

First, it is published by "Focus on the Family". I consider this group to be a political cult within Christianity, due to decades of familiarity with them, but that's obviously just my opinion.

Notice they use the political term "citizen" as the name of the publication. This indicates their focus is probably political in nature. The group would change its name to "Focus on the Politics" if they were interested in being honest. If...

The "political means" is the unethical way of interacting with others-- the means used by muggers, politicians, rapists, cops, and other bad guys-- as opposed to the only other option for interacting with others: the economic means. If you can't get what you want by mutual consent, where both participants gain, you force them-- at gunpoint, if that's what it takes-- to do what you want, with "laws" and enforcer gangs, so that there's a winner and a loser.

Being political also goes against just about everything taught by Jesus, but it would be inconsiderate to point this out to them.

"Citizen" is also a term used to indicate slave status under the State. Strange position for this "religious" group to take and promote, since this puts the State in the place of God.

It is interesting to me that a "religious" group would embrace unethical behavior so completely that they would name their publication "citizen". This is why I differentiate between "moral" and "ethical". They are behaving "morally" according to the "principles" of their group, just like the suicide bombers of other religions are doing, while being completely unethical, as illustrated by the cover story.

And, let's look at that cover story.

They obviously believe that "vices" should be crimes, and should be enforced as all "laws" ultimately are. They are claiming it is a "bad idea" to stop killing people and destroying their lives with "laws" based on lies. Lies about a plant. Lies about who should have the power to control each person's body. They believe a state refusing to stop molesting people is a good thing. Sick!

What if someone turned the tables on them and outlawed something they value?

Their twisted position in support of prohibition makes me wonder what their position on ending (other forms of) slavery would have been. Actually, I don't really wonder- I think it's pretty clear. They would have been celebrating any state which refused to get rid of "laws" legalizing chattel slavery. They would want slaves to obey the "law"-- to be "good", obedient slaves-- and be punished or killed if they didn't. They would want fugitive slave "laws" enforced, and would support the agents who enforced those "laws". If they object and claim that they wouldn't support that position with regard to slavery, then why the inconsistency? Why the hypocrisy?

The real "bad idea" here is giving people the political opportunity to meddle in the lives of others, and punish them when they don't cooperate with their own violation. No good group would condone such evil.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Killing aggressors

The only ethical "death penalty" is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything else is revenge.

This doesn't mean you are unethical if you don't kill the attacker, no more than that you are unethical if you do. Your choice.

The burden lies on the person who chose to archate, not on the person who had to react.

I only question the use of "should"

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Police" is not a "race", it's a gang

Recently there have been more and more attempts to make awareness of the scumwad nature of cops somehow comparable to racism, or automatic hatred of people with tattoos. Yes, really.

The story goes that you can't judge a person by the color of their skin, the tattoos they wear, or the uniform they put on. It's a lie. And, it seems very racist and insulting, too.

No one wakes up one morning and decides what color skin they'll have. And even if they did, skin color means nothing about the content of the person's character.

Sure, tattoos are chosen, not inborn, but again, they mean nothing about how the person wearing them will act. Aggressors could have tattoos of bunnies and unicorns, and the best person you know could have a tattoo of a gang symbol, wormy skulls, or Bernie Sanders' face. 

Police, though, wake up each and every day and make the choice to enforce harmful and arbitrary "laws" against people in exchange for money stolen from their victims. It's not about the cop as a person, it is about the aggression and theft they commit as a condition of keeping the "job". But, the fact a person would choose to do that shows something very important about their character.

Yes, sometimes cops do good things. So do other gangsters. It doesn't excuse the existence of the "job" in either case.

Cops are not a "race" or an expression of personal taste- they are an aggressive gang. The worst and most dangerous aggressive gang in America. Being aware of this fact doesn't make you a bad person, so don't feel guilty.

I understand some people are afraid and believe cops will protect them... you can't fix cowardice or stupidity.

Not a race; a gang

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Diversity"

Diversity.

Voluntary diversity is a good thing.

Forced "diversity" is disastrous.

Forced anything is.

Forced "charity" is theft. Forced "safety" is slavery.

Recognizing the disastrous nature of forced diversity isn't justification for government "borders", though, because forced division is just as harmful as forced diversity. Government's involvement can turn any idea into garbage.

Anything government touches turns to crap. Good thing government won't touch liberty with a 10-foot pole!

Diversify or else, feline!

-

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

(Steemit link)

Statists are so boring

I'm getting less and less interested in responding to statist's objections.

Their objections are boring. Mostly because their objections never change. Recycled endlessly by people who don't know their "new" objection has been addressed (and obliterated) over and over again-- over the centuries.

They don't care, because they won't hear. Or, perhaps they can't hear because they don't care.

If I respond, they'll not be moved, but will only dredge up another old, moldy objection-- seeing it as fresh and clever. And it won't be.

Sure, it's possible that a silent observer will see the interaction and come to a new realization as to how inconsistent and hypocritical- and delusional- the statist positions invariably are. So that's why I haven't totally stopped responding to these type of comments. But, especially on FB, I pause and consider whether a response would be useful, and more and more I realize it wouldn't be. So I just skip over it.

Statists bore me with their inability to think critically and outside their imaginary box. They lack originality. But they can sure type lots of words!

-

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

(Steemit link)

Understand instead of judging?

I constantly get scolded, and I'll bet you probably do, too.

We shouldn't be so judgmental.
Just accept that some people have perfectly legitimate reasons for being rapists, kidnappers. Nazis, communists, cops, murderers, or other archators.
They feel they are doing the right thing.
Just try to understand where they are coming from.
Don't be so arrogant as to believe your way-- to reject the violation of life, liberty, or property of others-- is somehow better than theirs.
They have different experiences, and different values, after all.
You should just listen to them to see their perspective. Then you'll understand that they aren't wrong; just different.

Right?

Understand them enough?

-

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

(Steemit link)

Law becoming justification for violation

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 1, 2017)

You might be shocked to learn how little regard I have for the law. Or, maybe you wouldn't. This doesn't mean I approve of harming others, their property, or their rights; quite the opposite. It just means I recognize the law for what it is. Instead of being protective, the law has become the most common excuse used to violate people. Laws, and the State which imposes them, are the opposite of civilization; they are anti-social.

As Lao Tzu observed over 2500 years ago "The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become".

America is there. Maybe not so poor, economically-- although so much poorer than we could be otherwise-- but poor in spirit.

There are only two kinds of law: the unnecessary and the harmful-- it could be argued they are the same. Laws prohibiting murder or theft are unnecessary; such laws are irrelevant to your right to defend yourself and others from the acts in question. And any law which restricts your human right to live as you see fit, as long as you don't violate others, is actively harmful. More and more, laws are the justification for violations; exempting certain people from consequences of being the violator, as long as they are acting on behalf of the law.

The disconnect between legal and right has gotten so large it is finally being noticed by ordinary people.

To say "There ought to be a law" is to plunge another knife into the chest of society. To support the laws which already exist is to twist one of those knives a little more.

It's also dangerous. The more tightly controlled any system becomes, the greater the likelihood of catastrophic collapse from unexpected events-- no room is left for adapting. If modern America isn't yet to the point where everything not forbidden is mandatory, you can see it from here. Where does this leave people room to learn to make right choices? It doesn't. Too many people think "Is it legal?" instead of "Is it right?", from a lifetime of training.

If every decision is already made for you by a law, it's easy to believe that's what you should do. No thought required. Ethics and morals become obstacles.

If forced to live in a wheelchair, your leg muscles will waste away. If propped up by multitudes of laws, your moral sense and your ethical radar will waste away in exactly the same manner. I prescribe some exercise, instead.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Spreading love and humanity

Love and humanity and worthy goals. I believe you should make an effort to spread them far and wide. Even toward people who mean you (and others) harm.

To a point.

In spite of what some might believe, defending innocent people from aggressors- however you do it- is also an act of love and humanity.

Sure, you can show compassion and forgiveness to aggressors. And that can be an act of love and humanity. But, how much more loving and humane is it to defend the innocent from those who have made the choice to violate them?

How loving and humane is it to watch someone be violated, and refuse to act because that wouldn't be a loving and humane response to the aggressor? Not very.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated... even though by asking, or apparently by including this message, I show myself to be a failure and a loser! Thank you, anyway.

(Steemit link)

A little money rant

It shouldn't get to me, but it does. It's completely my fault; I let it.

When I interrupt the blog to ask for money, I already feel bad enough. I hate doing it.

But, then, when I do, some people want to make it worse. It has happened several times over the years. Does that make them feel better about themselves?

I visit many blogs every day.
Most of them have standing requests for donations, much like the tag I put at the end of most of my posts. So?
Sometimes they make special pleas when something comes up, as I sometimes do. I am free to donate or to ignore the request.
If I don't feel like donating, it still doesn't offend me that they ask. Why would it? No one is forcing me, or threatening me. If it's a case of that blog disappearing if not enough donations are received, and if that would matter to me, I'll donate. If not, I won't complain to them because they asked. This seems about as childish as it is possible to be. I have never stopped reading a blog because they asked for money- if I don't want to hear it, I ignore those posts and just read the ones that interest me.

Many times their requests are for thousands of dollars.
For example, here's a donation meter I copied from someone's blog (with the identity blocked out to save them the "embarrassment" of publicly asking for money):

I wish!     

I wonder if Mr. Anonymous goes to that blog and all the others and criticizes the requests. Or, is it just mine?

Notice both the amount asked for on that blog, and the amount received. Never have I asked for that amount, and never would I expect to receive anything that would even show up on that meter as more than a red puddle in the bottom.

No, I get along the best I can, and when I need to, I request a little extra. Often, none comes through. And that's OK. No one owes me ANYTHING.

It is completely up to the reader to decide if I am worth helping or not. And whatever the reader decides is the final word. I have never been offended that someone didn't subscribe (which I don't exactly consider charity) or donate (which I do). As always, if someone doesn't want to help, can't afford to help out, or has better things to do with his money, I DON'T WANT him to donate!

Is that really so unreasonable?

Maybe my little effort to contribute to the debate isn't worth what that of other writers and bloggers is. I can accept that. I'm small potatoes. Not at all important in the grand scheme of things. No one knows who I am, nor cares. I will never be a shaper of society's opinions. I am not a "mover and shaker", but just someone who expresses unpopular opinions in a tiny, insignificant eddy of the internet. I'm fine with that. It's not about how much work I put into it- it's about the value others see in it. I do many jobs where the value others see in my labor doesn't come close to the effort I put in. I suspect that's a universal thing. It's just life. I could choose to do something others would value more.

If it bothers you that I sometimes ask for money, I have to wonder why you would ever visit blogs at all. Or, again, is mine just so unworthy that the mere mention of the need for money is offensive, while others can do it and it's OK? If you notice it's a "bleg" and that annoys you, just move along. Read someone else's blog post. If it bothers you so much that it's not worth seeing what I say ever again, go in peace. It's fine.

So, yeah, I know I shouldn't let people like that get to me. But I'm human, and sometimes they do, especially when I feel like they are kicking me when I'm down.

-

No offensive bleg today

Alphabetical listing of every good State

.

My "beggar blog"

"Why donate to someone who can not take care of their own bills?Way I see it, your constant begging for money is not getting you much money.I just laugh every time I run across your beggar blog."

I admit it, my personal economic model is flawed. I do the work, put it out there for free, and hope people will see fit to pay me for it.

This doesn't work as well as I might hope.

But you are free to read without subscribing. I never ask anyone to donate or subscribe when they'd rather not, or if they can't afford to, or just have better things to do with their money.

So, to answer your question, Mr. Anonymous, don't. There is no "why" if you don't want to. Read without paying, there will be no consequences​ and no hard feelings​. I'm not like a theater owner who'll kick you out for sneaking in to see a movie without paying. You have my permission to be here, or not.

You can also skip the posts were I ask for donations, subscriptions, or gifts, if that makes you happier. No worries.

Glad my troubles​ amuse you. I guess that's another service I'm not forcing you to pay for.


.

S.O.S.

A bill has unexpectedly changed the due date, and so of course I will be hit with overdraft fees (if it's not already too late to avoid that), so... if you have been considering subscribing or contributing to KentForLiberty, this would be an excellent time from my perspective.

Please, and Thank you.

.

Supporting government "services"

It strikes me as strange when I am trying to take someone's side, yet they get upset because I don't agree with them hard enough.

This happened recently where a woman was saying there aren't more libertarian women because she feels looked-down upon because she doesn't home school, and she feels that this is because other libertarians see educating the children as "a woman's responsibility". This seems utterly bizarre to me, but OK.

I said:

"Unschooling doesn't require a particular gendered parent to facilitate the unschooling. (Neither does traditional "homeschooling") Either/or... or both. Why would anyone demand it's the 'woman's place' to help the children gain an education? That's just dumb. I think kinderprison is a tragedy for the kids. Yet, my daughter's mom insists she attend (against her will), and my relatives (who are almost all involved in government schooling) back her up. Now my daughter has zero interest in learning anything- which she did before she was subjected to school. There will be consequences for my daughter's life. And I would very happily be the parent helping her to unschool- only partially because I see kinderprison as child abuse.
I know circumstances often make it seem impossible to save kids from 'public school'- and maybe it's almost impossible. But I really don't see it as aimed against women."

I probably could have worded some parts better and more clearly, but this was an off-the-cuff response where it seemed to me she was getting piled on by people making quasi-religious points about a woman's greatest privilege and highest calling and so forth. I honestly thought I was taking her side.

Her reply seemed to indicate she was angry with my comment because her kindergarten-age son loves school and does well in it.

Hmmm. OK.

Even if your kid loves "public" schools, and thrives under Prussian-style training, that doesn't justify the existence of a theft-funded, coercively imposed "system". And I'm sorry if that truth hurts your feelings. It's not about women versus men- although I'm sure some would like to see it that way.

Some people love having cops around. It's still unethical to hire them with stolen money and have them impose counterfeit "laws" on people. No amount of your appreciation, support, and flourishing can ever change that. Evil sometimes works very well, and some people love it. It's still wrong.

Some people thrive in criminal gangs. Some people find their apparent full potential as a burglar or as a kidnapper. They find self-worth and value in strange places. Some people do well in prison. Some people just love their Stockholm Syndrome.

Even if there is something I love, and feel I couldn't live without, I know it is never right- it simply can't be right- to use the political means to get it. Never. Not even if I love it and thrive with it as currently "provided" by government. I'm not so delicate that reality will offend me and make me feel picked-on.

I understand- there are government schools. My opposition to them isn't going to make them magically go away. My own daughter attends one. Even if she loved it, and was doing better in it than she would be doing without it (which I can't know without a "control"), it would be wrong of me to support government schools. That would be selfish. I also have no issue with people using government "services" they are forced to pay for whether they use them or not. I might prefer people shun them on principle to make them useless and unused, but that's not realistic.

If I am attacking the theft and coercion behind some things, don't take it as an attack on you for using those things- unless you start being nasty in defense of the status quo and making it about some tangent that buzzes your bonnet. In that case, since you identify so strongly with unethical acts, feel free to take it personally. And also in that case, feel free to suppose I wasn't taking your side in the first place.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Walter, Walter, Walter... sigh

Sometimes a person's blind hypocrisy pains me.

Walter Williams could be a genius... if he could just unfetter his mind from those bits of statism of which he approves.

In this piece he clearly explains what constitutes theft-- then he spoils the whole thing by making unwarranted exceptions to soothe his biases:

"To condemn legalized theft is not an argument against taxes to finance the constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government; we are all obligated to pay our share of those."

Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it, too!

Walter, sorry but theft is theft even if you like what the stolen money is spent on. To condemn theft is to realize there is no ethical difference between "legalized theft" and "illegal theft". Both are utterly unethical.

Just because the Constitution empowers theft in order to carry out certain functions doesn't make it OK. You are NOT "obligated" to help a tyrant control you, nor to help him finance it, just because someone once wrote up a rather weak "social contract" and claimed it would apply to you centuries later. Anyone who could possibly, under any imaginable circumstances, have been bound by that agreement has been dead for centuries. If you like the Constitution, invite people to sign it, individually, and live under it voluntarily. I won't sign.

You are partly right, Walter. Liberty isn't for wimps. But, apparently, it isn't a good fit for the ethically inconsistent, either.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Lessons to learn

A woman I never met in person died today. Yes, that happens all the time, but in this case I feel ... guilty.

She first sent me a "hello" on an obscure social media site the day my daughter died- just a couple of hours after I had found out. I did answer, but only to tell her the situation and that I'd have to get back to her later.

I did, and we chatted some here and there, and we even texted back and forth a little. She "friended" me on other social media sites and we kept in touch- not closely, but fairly regularly.

She was troubled, and I knew it.

Her son was in trouble with the "law" and in jail, and she would tell me about his hearings and how they went, and the pain it caused her. She told me about her past drug abuse. She had financial troubles worse than my own. She had some health problems, but she never really said much about it. She loved her dogs and talked about them a lot. Mostly, I just listened to whatever she wanted to talk about.

But it had been a couple of months since I had talked to her, because recently I've been a bit withdrawn and haven't really kept in touch with people like I should.

Then, today, her mother posted on her FB page that she had died. It was the first I had known that things were as bad as they had been. I went back and looked at things she had posted recently, and she had been begging for help, saying she was in so much pain she couldn't even get off the floor to go to the bathroom. Then her mother and others began posting that she was in the ICU. I saw nothing of all this until today's death announcement.

With as many "friends" as I have on FB, I rarely see any particular person's stuff on any regular basis. Not an excuse, just an explanation. Her death isn't really a personal loss for me, so I am certainly not looking for sympathy- save that for those who really knew her. It's just that things like this seem to affect me more now than they used to. I wish I had known how dire her situation had become. I might not have been able to do much, but... maybe. It still brings a pang of guilt that I didn't even know.

So, again, I am reminded to appreciate people while I can, and try to stay aware of their needs and situations. I wonder if I'll ever really learn the lesson.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Stories told to scare children

When I was a kid, my parents told me several times about kids my age who met with tragedy- while doing whatever it was they didn't want me to do. What a coincidence!

One was outside while her dad was mowing and got a segment of wire through the heart when the mower hit some wire hidden in the lawn. So I wasn't allowed to be outdoors while the yard was being mowed. (Until I got to the age where I was encouraged to be the one mowing.)

Another story involved a girl who got her head run over by a car at a gas station while the family car was being fueled. This explained why I was told to stay in the car at gas stations.

Yet another tale told of a girl drowning in a small creek at one of my favorite outdoor destinations. This one didn't keep me out of the vicinity of the creek, though. Some things- such as playing around the Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River- were more important to me than other things- such as wandering around gas stations.

Also, I was led to believe that the beautiful tiger salamanders I would occasionally encounter had venomous bites- deadly! This kept me from picking them up and bringing them into the house- I brought in "horny toads" instead.

Also, judging by the reaction of my parents, the garter snakes I found everywhere were the local equivalent of spitting cobras; their reaction led me to believe these reptiles were deadly to gaze upon and worse to touch- so I didn't start picking them up until I read for myself, and began to discover the nature of the tales I was being fed.

Did I say these stories were meant to scare children? I probably should have said they were intended to manipulate children. Me, in particular. And they worked for a time, but had unintended consequences.

When I discovered the gentle nature of tiger salamanders, and that the worst garter snakes could do was to slime you with foul-smelling goo, I began to question everything I had been told. Was it all just to manipulate my behavior; to make me more compliant?

Were the horror stories about the 3 tragically injured girls just as false? I'm still not sure about that- perhaps I should ask some day. But, if people would mislead me about some things, in order to get me to do what they wanted, would they lie about other things as well? You know the answer to that.

Well, statists tell tales meant to scare you and manipulate your behavior, too.

If there's no State forcing people to pay against their will, there would be no roads, libraries, parks, or education. You would be dead because warlords would have taken over and raped and murdered your whole family. Without the fear of punishment administered by government, it would be "kill or be killed" chaos. People are greedy, prone to theft and aggression, and only the superheroes in government "service" stand in their way. "Democracy [sic] is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." Anarchy is just like communism- it can't work in the real world... because, reasons.

Just like the stories told to scare children, the stories told to scare adults may have lessons embedded somewhere. Yes, people can be selfish and evil. The worst are drawn to government "jobs". Roads would have to be paid for- they aren't free. Sometimes, if a warlord sees an opportunity, and a docile population not inclined to defend themselves, they will take over. It's how government happens.

Yet, civilization is proof that people are better and smarter than the statists believe. Because, government is made up of the worst of the species, and it still usually manages to not immediately result in total global death. In fact, society and civilization manage to continue in spite of governments.

Don't let the fears and lies of pitiable cowards keep you from enjoying your liberated potential. You know how to live to reach it. Sure, listen to the scary tales of doom told by statists, then learn for yourself and prove their stories wrong. You have that power.

-

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

(Steemit link)