Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Saturday, August 26, 2017
"Consent of the governed"?
Using statists' own reasoning, I doubt there can be any such thing as "consent of the governed".
What is the "age of consent" for being governed? Why wouldn't the statists insist on such with something as important as giving someone else total control over your body/life, liberty, and property? Governing someone has much more potential for grievous harm than mere sexual activity. Yet, they impose their own idea of an "age of consent" for that, and neglect making one up for being governed. They even insist on governing infants! What perverts they are!
Age and the ability to legitimately consent may have a loose correlation, but age doesn't magically mean someone is or is not able to give consent. For anything.
Rather than the number of years a person has lived, consent rests on the ability to understand what you are considering consenting to, and the emotional maturity to handle its consequences.
If there were going to be such a thing as "age of consent" where being governed is concerned, it would need to be about 150 years old. Governing anyone under that age would be Statutory Tyranny.
In fact, I would argue that consenting to be governed it is a sign you lack the understanding or emotional maturity to actually consent. It is self-disproving.
Of course, some people go out of their way begging to be governed. This shows they are mentally or emotionally too frail to consent to be governed. They are mental or emotional invalids, to be pitied and not trusted with important things.
I don't consent to be governed.
Statists might imagine that since I don't kill everyone who tries to govern me, this implies consent.
That's silly, and just how silly it is can be shown by imagining another non-consensual situation.
Unless you kill the rapist who is raping you, you obviously consent. Right? Or, you could choose an alternate rapist if you don't want to be raped by the one who is currently violating you. That you don't do either one implies consent. At least, when applied to governing.
Friday, August 25, 2017
Gang members attract groupies
One day recently, at an event at the park, I was watching people gathering around a cop. Several seemed to be jostling for his attention. I couldn't help but wonder what the attraction is.
Then I remembered someone I know who idolizes the Mafia, and it clicked: Gang members attract groupies. Suddenly I started thinking of other examples of the same phenomenon.
Many people are attracted to those they see as "dangerous". Some of these groupies are "harmless" people (perhaps cowards) who hunger for an association with someone who has more of an edge. Someone who can help them feel less harmless by association.
Others are in denial that they idolize bad guys, and they want plausible deniability, so they gather around those who are dangerous, but are seen as somehow "legitimate", too. Someone who can kill with impunity, but only "those who deserve it". Anyone cops murder is generally considered, by the cop groupies at least, to have deserved it somehow. Cops are their natural aphrodisiac.
-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Feel "protected"?
Living near an air farce base, I see a lot of military aircraft flying overhead. Usually big old prop-driven dinosaurs, but recently a couple of fighter jets zipped over the house.
It made me wonder if there's anyone still gullible enough to feel "protected" by this sight.
Probably the same people who breathe a sigh of relief when a cop pulls onto the highway behind them-- knowing they can now relax, since the cop will be selflessly watching out for their safety.
Labels:
cops,
DemoCRAPublicans,
government,
society,
taxation,
terrorism,
tyranny deniers
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Hire a professional, or not?
You and I are constantly told we should "leave it to the professionals". We are presumed too incompetent to do it ourselves, and are told we need to pay someone to do it for us, so we don't get hurt.
Except... there is one profession that if we choose to hire a professional practitioner, we could be "arrested". In this case, we are told we must only use amateurs and shouldn't hire a professional.
Where can you find this inconsistent government position? Prostitution.
And don't say it has to do with protecting "family values". Compulsory government schooling is as anti-family values as you can get, and they have no problem promoting this.
Monday, August 21, 2017
Partial solar eclipse August 21, 2017
![]() |
| Crescent sun reflected on my shed. |
![]() |
| Crescent sun reflected on the house. |
![]() |
| Crescent sun reflected on a stop sign. |
![]() |
| Peeking through a hole in the clouds. |
![]() |
| Crescent sunbeams coming through leaves onto my patio. |
![]() |
| Crescent sunbeams through holes in a canna leaf. |
![]() |
| Crescent sunbeams through a colander. |
![]() |
| I eclipsed the eclipse with my fingertip, trying to show how odd the clouds looked- probably due to the strange shadow effects of a partial eclipse.. It didn't work that well. |
The videos were made by recording the eclipse's reflection in a puddle in my yard. Yes, there are actual puddles of water in my yard! That's almost as rare as an eclipse!
I spent more time just observing it in every way I could think of. Pics and videos were almost afterthoughts. I do enjoy this sort of thing.
-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Police lead to police states
You can't have a police state without police. And, if you allow government to have police, you're probably going to find yourself in a police state sooner or later.
Unless you can find a real way to directly, and tightly, control (and "police") the police. (No one has ever managed to find that unicorn yet.)
Now, I suppose if you're a coward and you want to live in a police state, you're fine with that.
But if you don't want to live in a police state, but you still want cops around, for some incomprehensible reason, you are going to be disappointed. Eventually, if not sooner.
It's a path you are either choosing, or your family, friends, and neighbors are choosing for you. At least speak up in opposition.
Sunday, August 20, 2017
Get your own house in order first
(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 19, 2017. This one apparently never made it to the website, so here's your first chance to read it.)
Before making a big deal of someone else's actions, it's a good idea to look in the mirror. You might be surprised by what you see.
The national media is currently obsessed with trying to prove the Russian government meddled in the most recent US presidential election. This after using every resource at their disposal to influence the election by mocking, ridiculing, and painting one of the candidates as a clown, before labeling him the next Hitler.
The media elites didn't hide their preference. Theirs was such a heavy-handed effort to manipulate the voters that it likely caused blow-back, resulting in the defeat of their darling. It's almost as if they now realize their clumsy attempt to steer the election drove American voters away from the anointed candidate, and they're desperate to shift the blame. The national media, including the entertainment industry, are more responsible for the election results than the Russian government could ever dream of being. Unless...
To find evidence of Russian meddling, I suggest investigating whether the Russian government tricked national media outlets into making fools of themselves in the lead-up to the election, and laughingstocks ever since.
If it's wrong for someone else to do something, you shouldn't do it either, whether you are an individual, an industry, or a government.
The media might care about electoral honesty, but why would politicians? The US government spends much time, effort, and your money trying to direct foreign governments to be obedient outposts of the US. If they can't get the results they want by influencing elections, they can exercise the option to send in their military. They'll free the foreign population from the troublesome ruler they have, and install a ruler more agreeable to the US government's agenda. Always in the name of democracy and human decency, of course, no matter how many innocent lives must be sacrificed in the process. Meddling in elections is almost honorable by comparison.
The hypocrisy isn't limited to elections. The US government constantly threatens other governments who try to develop nuclear weapons, while stockpiling planet-scouring numbers of the things for themselves. I wonder who is more dangerous; the government wanting what other governments have, or the only government to have actually used nuclear weapons against the civilian population of another country. Twice.
Wrong is wrong, no matter who you are or what excuses you make. Be honest, get your own house in order, then notice whether you do the same thing you're criticizing others for doing.
-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
I could SURE use a few donations and new subscribers!
Before making a big deal of someone else's actions, it's a good idea to look in the mirror. You might be surprised by what you see.
The national media is currently obsessed with trying to prove the Russian government meddled in the most recent US presidential election. This after using every resource at their disposal to influence the election by mocking, ridiculing, and painting one of the candidates as a clown, before labeling him the next Hitler.
The media elites didn't hide their preference. Theirs was such a heavy-handed effort to manipulate the voters that it likely caused blow-back, resulting in the defeat of their darling. It's almost as if they now realize their clumsy attempt to steer the election drove American voters away from the anointed candidate, and they're desperate to shift the blame. The national media, including the entertainment industry, are more responsible for the election results than the Russian government could ever dream of being. Unless...
To find evidence of Russian meddling, I suggest investigating whether the Russian government tricked national media outlets into making fools of themselves in the lead-up to the election, and laughingstocks ever since.
If it's wrong for someone else to do something, you shouldn't do it either, whether you are an individual, an industry, or a government.
The media might care about electoral honesty, but why would politicians? The US government spends much time, effort, and your money trying to direct foreign governments to be obedient outposts of the US. If they can't get the results they want by influencing elections, they can exercise the option to send in their military. They'll free the foreign population from the troublesome ruler they have, and install a ruler more agreeable to the US government's agenda. Always in the name of democracy and human decency, of course, no matter how many innocent lives must be sacrificed in the process. Meddling in elections is almost honorable by comparison.
The hypocrisy isn't limited to elections. The US government constantly threatens other governments who try to develop nuclear weapons, while stockpiling planet-scouring numbers of the things for themselves. I wonder who is more dangerous; the government wanting what other governments have, or the only government to have actually used nuclear weapons against the civilian population of another country. Twice.
Wrong is wrong, no matter who you are or what excuses you make. Be honest, get your own house in order, then notice whether you do the same thing you're criticizing others for doing.
-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
I could SURE use a few donations and new subscribers!
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Instant or nothing?
I know a free society isn't going to be instant.
"Taxation" isn't going to be abolished today.
All anti-gun "laws" aren't going to be eliminated today.
Violations of life, liberty, and property, committed by organized gangs of archators who call themselves "government" will continue.
But that realization is no reason to do things in support of these violations. It's not "pragmatic"; it's back-stabbing.
I really don't understand those willing to act as though these acts of statism are "legitimate" just because they aren't going away today. Cancer won't be cured today, either, but that's no reason to pretend it's good or necessary.
Friday, August 18, 2017
Fellow travelers taking detours
A lot of people will never care about liberty. At all. They'll never value it. Forget them. They are like rocks and trees on the landscape. They are scenery. Learn to navigate around them. Don't go out of your way to kick them. That will only end up hurting you.
And some people once cared, but lost their way.
I know people who used to consider me (and those like me) to be fellow travelers on the path toward Rightful Liberty, but no longer do. I have some in mind, but I won't embarrass them by naming names.
It's not because my position changed in any meaningful way-- it's because they moved to the political "right" when it became "pragmatic" to do so.
In many cases they enthusiastically embraced the Borderist anti-property rights position, and in other cases they embraced other aspects of Trumpism. A few just went completely off the deep end into "alt-right" craziness-- those are thankfully rare. But all this is a matter of degree, not a difference of kind. (Others jumped into the Left end of the statism pool, but that's a different subject for another time.)
I could be sad about this. In fact, I often am.
Or I can hope this soon passes and they'll get back on course after it does. Being hopeful is what I choose to do.
I'll still be here when they get over it.
I know people who used to consider me (and those like me) to be fellow travelers on the path toward Rightful Liberty, but no longer do. I have some in mind, but I won't embarrass them by naming names.
It's not because my position changed in any meaningful way-- it's because they moved to the political "right" when it became "pragmatic" to do so.
In many cases they enthusiastically embraced the Borderist anti-property rights position, and in other cases they embraced other aspects of Trumpism. A few just went completely off the deep end into "alt-right" craziness-- those are thankfully rare. But all this is a matter of degree, not a difference of kind. (Others jumped into the Left end of the statism pool, but that's a different subject for another time.)
I could be sad about this. In fact, I often am.
Or I can hope this soon passes and they'll get back on course after it does. Being hopeful is what I choose to do.
I'll still be here when they get over it.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
OK. I'll bite
Fred asks a couple of questions about cops and violence, saying they won't be answered by folks of my sort, because they'll trigger cognitive dissonance.
Well, let's see...
The Police: A cop sees a man strike a woman in the head with a piece of pipe and grab her purse. He tries to arrest the perp, who resists. The criminal is 19, muscular, and weighs 220. What should the cop do?
Answer: He should do the same thing anyone else should do. He should defend the victim and himself. If necessary, he should fatally shoot the aggressor. "Arrest" (under the statist misunderstanding of the word) shouldn't be a goal, but that's a different subject.
Next...
Second question: The perp is big, stoked on PCP, has a length of pipe, and does not want to go to jail. He attacks the cop. What should the cop do when attacked with a deadly weapon?
Well, unless the guy was archating-- which if he's referring to the guy in the first question, he was-- the cop should have minded his own business and the pipe vs. cop attack wouldn't have happened. Being on drugs, having some pipe, and not wanting to be caged are not mala in se acts (wrong in and of themselves).
However, if he is referring to the guy in the first question (as I believe he is), the answer is the same as the answer to the first question: he should defend the victim and himself.
The right thing to do doesn't change depending on what your "job" is-- and that's the fatal error cop supporters always make. This really isn't that complicated, folks!
The rest of Fred's questions are either not directed toward me (being asked of archators of various sorts) and are thus irrelevant for this blog, or they are outside the scope of this blog. The answer to his religious question would make some of my readers mad, and the "question" has nothing to do with the proper way to live among other people. I'd rather unite people than divide them, so I won't answer that one here.
Labels:
advice,
cops,
Counterfeit Laws,
Crime,
drugs,
police state,
responsibility,
Rights,
society
Statists are crybabies
How many times have you been minding your own business, just talking to other liberty lovers, when some statist troll pops up and says: "Show me how your imaginary anarchist society will work!" or some other version of "It can't work!"
It happens to me all the time.
But, when I direct them to this blog, to my books, to my Dispatches from Libertopia blog, and to my website, they whine that they don't want to read all that stuff. They won't even bother to watch simple videos! It's "too much" or not what they wanted to hear.
They don't want links that would require them to lift a finger. Clicking is hard! And they might have to think!
Nope, they want to be spoonfed. They want everything to be written anew, just for them. And, of course, they won't listen anyway, because they really just want to whine.
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
About those "bad apples"
Let's pretend that the problem with cops really is "just a few bad apples" like cop supporters continually insist.
What does an apple seller do with any bad apples he discovers in a barrel of apples?
Does the apple salesman make excuses for the bad apple and leave it in the barrel?
Does he remove it for a couple of weeks, then sneak it back in when no one is looking?
If he does toss it out, do other apple sellers enthusiastically come get it and put it in their barrel?
Do the other apples crowd around to protect the bad apple from being disposed of?
What happens if you leave bad apples in the barrel with the good apples?
Will the bad apples be made good again by exposure to the good apples, or will the bad apples ruin the whole barrel?
What are police departments doing with all the bad apples that keep turning up?
Are police departments disposing of the bad apples that expose themselves?
But, you might point out: people aren't fruit.
You're right. People aren't rotten fruit to be thrown in the compost heap. So why do cop supporters keep insisting on making that comparison?
Monday, August 14, 2017
New videos
Here are my most recent videos. I don't feel like posting each one here individually, so maybe I'll do a post every week or so- depending on how many videos I make.
(These are the Youtube versions, but they are all available on Vidme, too! Just in case you want to reduce your usage of Google.)
Please subscribe to my channel to get all the videos before I get around to linking them here.
(These are the Youtube versions, but they are all available on Vidme, too! Just in case you want to reduce your usage of Google.)
Please subscribe to my channel to get all the videos before I get around to linking them here.
Nuclear solar electric cars!
Fred, Fred, Fred... you ought to know better.
About electric cars, he says:
Liberals love them because they will prevent pollution, end global warming, and maybe stop hair loss. Libertarians hate them because they associate them with clean air, federal subsidies, and Al Gore.He might say it isn't possible, me being a libertarian and all, but my first car was an electric car. I love them. And I know their limitations. (Yes, that's actually me and my electric car in the picture above, in the spring of 1980.) I like clean air, I dislike government subsidies, and Al Gore is a big ol' hypocrite I can ignore. Next!
So where does the electricity come from? From all kinds of generating plants, I guess–now. But if it came from nuclear power plants, then you would have a nuclear-powered car. See? And you would have zero pollution of the air.
I guess it depends how you define "pollution of the air", but whatever.
Back when I drove an electric car, the location where I lived got the majority of its electricity from a nuclear plant (at least when that plant wasn't shut down for one reason or another). I had a bumper sticker on my car saying something about how many barrels of oil one nuclear power plant saved. So my car was nuclear powered, and in fact, all my friends called it "The Nuke".
Then, of solar power he says:
Again, libertarians are against it, probably because Al Gore thinks it is a good idea.
Nope. I love solar power, but I know the environmental damage done by manufacturing the solar panels required for solar electricity. My problem with most people who advocate solar electricity is that they seem to be ignorant of the environmental costs (the same with large-scale wind-generators such as are sprouting up all around me). There is a cost to everything. Be aware of it, take it into account, then make your choice. Personally, I would love a solar roof.
Anyway, yeah, I know it's just humor on his part, but it is good to keep people honest. Right?
-
Totally unrelated, other than it is about transportation (or rather, the prevention of transportation), I think I'll start calling the TSA the Terrorist Support Administration. More accurate.
Labels:
advice,
DemoCRAPublicans,
government,
libertarian,
personal,
responsibility,
society,
taxation,
welfare
Sunday, August 13, 2017
Don't believe in gender grab bag
(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 12, 2017- I titled this one "Gender identity doesn't determine rights", which I still believe is better.)
Contrary to enlightened opinion, I believe there are only two genders, male and female-- with the occasional rare fluke of nature resulting in what used be to called a hermaphrodite.
I don't believe in the grab bag of genders which seems so trendy these days, nor do I believe in the validity of choosing non-binary gender identities, apart from those occasional rarities I mentioned above. I believe in biology.
Yes, it's a shameful confession, revealing one of my terrible shortcomings.
It is also a dangerous view, and a radical perspective, to admit publicly. It labels me, to those on the political Left, as a bigot. In some places, such as Canada, it could make me a criminal.
Yet, my beliefs are nothing but my opinion, and as such they are immaterial.
Because here's the thing which matters: Opinions don't dictate reality; reality is independent of mere opinion, and the reality is that your fundamental human rights don't depend on your gender. As a human you have the full complement of human rights-- life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness-- just because you are alive. End of story.
The outdated view, from back when people believed rights depended on who or what you were and could be added to or taken away, has run its course. It's out of steam. Time to discard that superstition and move on. It's why I see both sides of the argument over gender identities as socially destructive and a distraction.
Even if I think you are a little off-kilter, I will defend your rights, including your right to believe as you wish, up until the moment you try to violate the person or property of another. No one has a right to try to change your beliefs by force, including force of law, just as you have no right to dictate how others believe or speak. Anyone who tries to make up laws based on someone's gender, either to create rights which can't exist, or to take away rights which no one can take away, is wrong. It's simply not subject to legislation one way or the other.
The political Left is correct when it says no laws should be made to force people into gender boxes or punish those who don't fit, and the political Right is correct when it says no laws should force anyone to pretend, and speak as though they believe, someone's psychological issues reflect reality.
Contrary to enlightened opinion, I believe there are only two genders, male and female-- with the occasional rare fluke of nature resulting in what used be to called a hermaphrodite.
I don't believe in the grab bag of genders which seems so trendy these days, nor do I believe in the validity of choosing non-binary gender identities, apart from those occasional rarities I mentioned above. I believe in biology.
Yes, it's a shameful confession, revealing one of my terrible shortcomings.
It is also a dangerous view, and a radical perspective, to admit publicly. It labels me, to those on the political Left, as a bigot. In some places, such as Canada, it could make me a criminal.
Yet, my beliefs are nothing but my opinion, and as such they are immaterial.
Because here's the thing which matters: Opinions don't dictate reality; reality is independent of mere opinion, and the reality is that your fundamental human rights don't depend on your gender. As a human you have the full complement of human rights-- life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness-- just because you are alive. End of story.
The outdated view, from back when people believed rights depended on who or what you were and could be added to or taken away, has run its course. It's out of steam. Time to discard that superstition and move on. It's why I see both sides of the argument over gender identities as socially destructive and a distraction.
Even if I think you are a little off-kilter, I will defend your rights, including your right to believe as you wish, up until the moment you try to violate the person or property of another. No one has a right to try to change your beliefs by force, including force of law, just as you have no right to dictate how others believe or speak. Anyone who tries to make up laws based on someone's gender, either to create rights which can't exist, or to take away rights which no one can take away, is wrong. It's simply not subject to legislation one way or the other.
The political Left is correct when it says no laws should be made to force people into gender boxes or punish those who don't fit, and the political Right is correct when it says no laws should force anyone to pretend, and speak as though they believe, someone's psychological issues reflect reality.
Fearing "terrorism"
"Terrorism" has no grip on me. I'm not brave, though.
My biggest fear has already become reality: the loss of one of my kids. I won't say I exactly survived, because not all of me did. I'm somewhat changed. Maybe those around me see it; maybe it's all tucked inside and they don't. Either way, I'm still here.
And especially now, to me, "terrorism" is nothing but loserism. It can't scare me.
It really never has. Whether it comes from ISIS, ICEis, Washington DC, North Korea, or the local cops. They are all just gangs of bullies looking for people to intimidate. If you don't cower, they lose.
Although I will say that on September 11, 2001 I did a lot of looking up at the sky. On that day I had planes (or whatever-- depending on what you believe about that day's events) causing problems east, southeast, and west of me. I felt kind of surrounded.
That day, caught up in the viral stupidity, I flew a "Betsy Ross" flag from my deck (I will not have an official federal Holy Pole Quilt on my property). I'm ashamed of that knee-jerk reaction now.
Yet even then, I wasn't looking for government to "save" me. I knew the most likely result would be a further destruction of liberty from a government excited to have an excuse and a populace too scared to object to any new escalation of tyranny.
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Liberty experiment failed
(This is a guest post, written by someone who prefers to stay anonymous. I don't usually do this, but I made an exception in his case. All opinions expressed in the main body of the post are his.)
It is with much sadness, sorrow, and regrets that I realize that our great experiment has failed; Our fleeting Liberty has been forever lost.
It lasted a total of 6 Years, 6 Months, 16 Days.
Here are the facts that few Americans even know. (Quoted text from various American History websites which I won’t name. The interested reader will look them up for himself. I fully expect nobody will bother to do so.)
“The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781
“Until the new Constitution was ratified, the country was governed by the Articles of Confederation. The document was tailored to a newly formed nation made of states acting as independent countries, and it quickly became clear to America’sleaders [politicians] that future stability [their power] required a stronger, more centralized government. New York’s Alexander Hamilton thus led the call for a constitutional convention to reevaluate the nation’s governing document. The Confederation Congress endorsed his initiative, and representatives from all 13 states were subsequently invited to convene in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, to participate in the convention.
“The initial purpose of the Convention was forthe delegates [a group of greedy, ungodly and powerful men] to amend the Articles of Confederation; however, the ultimate outcome was the proposal and creation of a completely new form of government. On September 17, 1787, the convention concluded with the signing (by 38 out of 41 delegates present) of the new U.S. Constitution. Under Article VII, it was agreed that the document would not be binding until its ratification by nine of the 13 existing states.
“Hamilton and James Madison [two of the worse enemies of Liberty this nation has yet seen] led the lobbying efforts for votes in favor of ratifying the Constitution. With assistance from [traitor to Liberty] John Jay, they produced the 85 essays known as “The Federalist Papers” that explained and defended how the proposed new government would function. The essays were published in newspapers nationwide and were pivotal to securing ratification.”
[The anti-federalist papers were ignored by most people because they didn’t understand they were being led astray. Even now that our Liberty is almost gone, still most people won’t even read them! Even now that these papers are digitized and made into audio files, few Americans bother to listen to them!]
It’s anyone’s guess if The Articles of Confederation would have secured Liberty on these shores. It’s impossible to know what could have been.
The exact dates of ratification of the new constitution are listed below, but they really don’t matter. My statement of “6 Years, 6 Months, 16 Days” above assumes the date when these evil men started us on our plunge to tyranny.
Once the enemies of Liberty set their jaws to destroy that great gift that 56 brave men gave and lost their “Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honors” to secure, all was lost. (The actual length of time from the Articles of Confederation’s ratification till the ratification of the new constitution was 8 Years, 3 Days if anyone cares.)
“After ratification, Congress set dates for the first federal elections and the official implementation of the Constitution. Elections were set to take place on Monday, December 15, 1788, to Saturday, January 10, 1789, and the new government was set to begin on March 4, 1789.”
History buffs (and those fearful of Liberty) would drag out the Connecticut Compromise, but it was all fluff to trick people to put into effect this new tyranny. The reasons the common man went along with this anti-liberty plan was mainly because the common man just wants to live free, mind his own business, to make a life for himself, to raise a healthy family, and to live his life in peace and prosperity if he can.
Fast forward to the 1930’s-1940’s…
“Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps said
First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
“The quotation stems from Niemöller's lectures during the early postwar period. Different versions of the quotation exist. These can be attributed to the fact that Niemöller spoke extemporaneously and in a number of settings. Much controversy surrounds the content of the poem as it has been printed in varying forms, referring to diverse groups such as Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Trade Unionists, or Communists depending upon the version. Nonetheless, his point was that Germans—in particular, he believed, the leaders of the Protestant churches—had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people.”
One of the most important tenants of the new constitution, the prohibition of ex-post facto laws, is so important it is listed twice in this document.
“An ex-post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex-post facto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.”
This is an important law because… “It's a law that makes an act criminal, even though the act was lawful when it was committed or it can be a law that inflicts a harsher punishment than was permitted when the act was committed.
And this is as far as my guest poster, "TFF", got before losing interest and moving on to other things.
I agree with him that ex-post facto "laws" are utterly despicable.
He invited me to finish this essay for him, but I have a hard time expecting honestly or integrity from government. "What do you expect? It's government!" So I can't really work up the interest to put in an honest effort to do this justice.
But he asked if I would share this, so his effort would be recorded somewhere. I am pleased to do so.
It is with much sadness, sorrow, and regrets that I realize that our great experiment has failed; Our fleeting Liberty has been forever lost.
It lasted a total of 6 Years, 6 Months, 16 Days.
Here are the facts that few Americans even know. (Quoted text from various American History websites which I won’t name. The interested reader will look them up for himself. I fully expect nobody will bother to do so.)
“The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781
“Until the new Constitution was ratified, the country was governed by the Articles of Confederation. The document was tailored to a newly formed nation made of states acting as independent countries, and it quickly became clear to America’s
“The initial purpose of the Convention was for
“Hamilton and James Madison [two of the worse enemies of Liberty this nation has yet seen] led the lobbying efforts for votes in favor of ratifying the Constitution. With assistance from [traitor to Liberty] John Jay, they produced the 85 essays known as “The Federalist Papers” that explained and defended how the proposed new government would function. The essays were published in newspapers nationwide and were pivotal to securing ratification.”
[The anti-federalist papers were ignored by most people because they didn’t understand they were being led astray. Even now that our Liberty is almost gone, still most people won’t even read them! Even now that these papers are digitized and made into audio files, few Americans bother to listen to them!]
It’s anyone’s guess if The Articles of Confederation would have secured Liberty on these shores. It’s impossible to know what could have been.
The exact dates of ratification of the new constitution are listed below, but they really don’t matter. My statement of “6 Years, 6 Months, 16 Days” above assumes the date when these evil men started us on our plunge to tyranny.
Once the enemies of Liberty set their jaws to destroy that great gift that 56 brave men gave and lost their “Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honors” to secure, all was lost. (The actual length of time from the Articles of Confederation’s ratification till the ratification of the new constitution was 8 Years, 3 Days if anyone cares.)
“After ratification, Congress set dates for the first federal elections and the official implementation of the Constitution. Elections were set to take place on Monday, December 15, 1788, to Saturday, January 10, 1789, and the new government was set to begin on March 4, 1789.”
History buffs (and those fearful of Liberty) would drag out the Connecticut Compromise, but it was all fluff to trick people to put into effect this new tyranny. The reasons the common man went along with this anti-liberty plan was mainly because the common man just wants to live free, mind his own business, to make a life for himself, to raise a healthy family, and to live his life in peace and prosperity if he can.
Fast forward to the 1930’s-1940’s…
“Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps said
First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
“The quotation stems from Niemöller's lectures during the early postwar period. Different versions of the quotation exist. These can be attributed to the fact that Niemöller spoke extemporaneously and in a number of settings. Much controversy surrounds the content of the poem as it has been printed in varying forms, referring to diverse groups such as Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Trade Unionists, or Communists depending upon the version. Nonetheless, his point was that Germans—in particular, he believed, the leaders of the Protestant churches—had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people.”
One of the most important tenants of the new constitution, the prohibition of ex-post facto laws, is so important it is listed twice in this document.
“An ex-post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex-post facto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.”
This is an important law because… “It's a law that makes an act criminal, even though the act was lawful when it was committed or it can be a law that inflicts a harsher punishment than was permitted when the act was committed.
............................................
And this is as far as my guest poster, "TFF", got before losing interest and moving on to other things.
I agree with him that ex-post facto "laws" are utterly despicable.
He invited me to finish this essay for him, but I have a hard time expecting honestly or integrity from government. "What do you expect? It's government!" So I can't really work up the interest to put in an honest effort to do this justice.
But he asked if I would share this, so his effort would be recorded somewhere. I am pleased to do so.
-
The (free) market and Capitalism
I don't usually write "free market" anymore, just "the market", because if it's not free, it's not the market.
"The market" just means voluntary trade without coercion. Government "laws" make a market impossible-- although you can still create a mostly-"free" market through the Black (or Gray) Market.
"Capitalism" is simply the market plus the act of re-investing some of the profits ("capital") back into the market. A true capitalism is impossible under a government (due to the impossibility of a real market coexisting with government), although approximations can exist.
It is possible to have a non-capitalist market if you make no profit, or put none of your profits back into the business (and don't use that money to start another business, either). This will probably be a short-lived dead end, though.
Capitalism is not about "hierarchies", although there is nothing wrong with voluntary hierarchies.
It has nothing to do with exploitation, even though exploitation can happen in any arrangement.
Anarchy isn't anti-capitalist, unless "capitalism" is misidentified and defined incorrectly. Socialism dishonestly posing as "anarchism" is anti-capitalism because socialism is anti-property rights, and you can't have a market if you aren't allowed to own and use property.
"Capitalism" is simply the market plus the act of re-investing some of the profits ("capital") back into the market. A true capitalism is impossible under a government (due to the impossibility of a real market coexisting with government), although approximations can exist.
It is possible to have a non-capitalist market if you make no profit, or put none of your profits back into the business (and don't use that money to start another business, either). This will probably be a short-lived dead end, though.
Capitalism is not about "hierarchies", although there is nothing wrong with voluntary hierarchies.
It has nothing to do with exploitation, even though exploitation can happen in any arrangement.
Anarchy isn't anti-capitalist, unless "capitalism" is misidentified and defined incorrectly. Socialism dishonestly posing as "anarchism" is anti-capitalism because socialism is anti-property rights, and you can't have a market if you aren't allowed to own and use property.
Friday, August 11, 2017
Do "nice guys" rob people politely?
The idea behind the "good cop" delusion seems to run along these lines: If you are robbed by a gentlemanly robber, you weren't really robbed.
And yes, most cops have behaved nicely toward me, even while they robbed me. (Although they have all acted scared while committing their act of enforcement.) Does this excuse the theft? No. That's ridiculous.
A polite archator is still an archator, and is not a "good" person. Ever. Not even if you approve of what they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


























