This was kind of a cool mention in a very good column: We’re going to have to rescue ourselves
Thank you, Bryan Hyde!
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Gullible vs Stubborn
There's a fine line between being gullible and being stubborn. You don't want to automatically embrace every new idea you are exposed to just because it sounds nice, but you also don't want to automatically reject every new idea just because it's different from what you currently believe or is uncomfortable.
And that's a hard line to walk.
When I hear a new idea, if I just turn around and repeat it because I like it, it's not my idea. I'm just parroting. I might be demonstrating gullibility because I haven't really thought it through enough to know whether it makes sense. So I don't usually just repeat ideas.
When exposed to new ideas that sound good to me, I take them in, rip them apart, see how they work, put them back together, see if there are any leftover pieces that don't fit anywhere, and then if they pass the test I consider them my own to share or to keep considering. This way I am less likely to be mindlessly parroting other people's ideas. And, I hope, less likely to fall for nonsense.
Sometimes the process takes years and sometimes it takes minutes (which can seem almost like mental years). It also means that by the time I've gone through the process I may have completely forgotten where I ran across the original idea so I may not give proper credit. My brain likes to believe good ideas come from inside, without any outside influence. Selfish brain!
Even if I don't like an idea it sometimes takes root. It won't go away until I put it through the same paces as the ideas I like. If it passes the test I need to accept it regardless of whether I like it. This helps me avoid being stubborn.
I'm not saying this is the right way to consider ideas; just explaining how it works inside my own head.
Monday, May 14, 2018
When you're wrong
I have a hard time wrapping my mind around how wrong people can be, and how they can stay that way. Without being bothered by it.
After all, I was once just as wrong, and I fought my way out of it. Now I can see how I was wrong, and why I was wrong. It seems obvious.
Then I remember that back when I was wrong, there were others who knew I was wrong and could see it clearly when I couldn't see it at all.
Now that's where I am when I see how others are wrong.
But it's ongoing. The things I am still wrong about are obvious to someone else who can see how I'm wrong and why I'm wrong, yet I don't yet see it. I hope I eventually do.
I'll write about something related tomorrow.
Sunday, May 13, 2018
Government involvement not helping
(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 11, 2018)
It's a wonderful thing when someone decides to help the community. I might even join them if their efforts align with my values.
I'm somewhat less thrilled when someone mistakes running for office, getting a government job, or passing a law for helping. A government position or job is nothing to be proud of. It's not honorable or praiseworthy. Everything is better without the threat of law or punishment, and when funded voluntarily. Worthwhile ideas don't require arm twisting.
Lampreys aren't helping the fish they latch on to, nor is government helping the society it feeds on.
At best, government is like the wrapping paper covering a gift. It may be beautiful, flashy, smooth, and neat. Or it may be ugly, greasy, or sloppily applied. In either case, the wrapping shouldn't be mistaken for the contents. The wrapping paper needs to be ripped off and discarded no matter how it looks. Then you can get to the important matters hidden below.
Often, government is like black mold growing in the heart of the community; bringing corruption and disease to everything it touches. You shouldn't protect the mold, pretending it is necessary. Nor should you bleach and kill it only to infect the area with new spores, causing the filth to return.
To really help your community, find things others can join voluntarily. Don't impose your ideas of what would be helpful through laws and taxes.
It's not charity if you have no choice, or if you are giving away other people's property. Socialism is the radical idea of sharing, at gunpoint, things which are not yours to share. Calling it democracy doesn't make it better.
When you violate others, it doesn't matter how pure your intentions are; you are doing something wrong. This is the fatal flaw behind most laws.
If you notice a problem, think of what you could do to fix it. Think of people who might be able to help, and ask them. You may be surprised at the response. Many people would like to help, but haven't noticed a need they can take action on. Convince them yours is the one they've been waiting for.
If no one will help, do what you can on your own. Or accept that your idea may not be as good as you believed.
As long as you aren't violating anyone else's right to life, liberty, or property with your good intentions, give it your best shot. If not you, who?
It's a wonderful thing when someone decides to help the community. I might even join them if their efforts align with my values.
I'm somewhat less thrilled when someone mistakes running for office, getting a government job, or passing a law for helping. A government position or job is nothing to be proud of. It's not honorable or praiseworthy. Everything is better without the threat of law or punishment, and when funded voluntarily. Worthwhile ideas don't require arm twisting.
Lampreys aren't helping the fish they latch on to, nor is government helping the society it feeds on.
At best, government is like the wrapping paper covering a gift. It may be beautiful, flashy, smooth, and neat. Or it may be ugly, greasy, or sloppily applied. In either case, the wrapping shouldn't be mistaken for the contents. The wrapping paper needs to be ripped off and discarded no matter how it looks. Then you can get to the important matters hidden below.
Often, government is like black mold growing in the heart of the community; bringing corruption and disease to everything it touches. You shouldn't protect the mold, pretending it is necessary. Nor should you bleach and kill it only to infect the area with new spores, causing the filth to return.
To really help your community, find things others can join voluntarily. Don't impose your ideas of what would be helpful through laws and taxes.
It's not charity if you have no choice, or if you are giving away other people's property. Socialism is the radical idea of sharing, at gunpoint, things which are not yours to share. Calling it democracy doesn't make it better.
When you violate others, it doesn't matter how pure your intentions are; you are doing something wrong. This is the fatal flaw behind most laws.
If you notice a problem, think of what you could do to fix it. Think of people who might be able to help, and ask them. You may be surprised at the response. Many people would like to help, but haven't noticed a need they can take action on. Convince them yours is the one they've been waiting for.
If no one will help, do what you can on your own. Or accept that your idea may not be as good as you believed.
As long as you aren't violating anyone else's right to life, liberty, or property with your good intentions, give it your best shot. If not you, who?
Blog poll results
That's how the blog rating poll ended up.
I do kind of wonder why those 4 on the bottom were even at my blog to v*te, because I wouldn't keep visiting a blog I didn't think was at least good, but I thank them for doing so anyway. Maybe they were just passing through and didn't know where they were.
Since this blog is mainly me working these things out for myself in my own head, and inviting you to watch, I'm grateful that anyone finds it worth their time (and that some actually find it worth supporting financially).
Obviously I have room for improvement, both personally and blog-wise. It's a never-ending process.
Thank you all.
How the world should be
It seems to me that people waste a lot of energy getting upset that the world isn't as they believe it should be. Especially when they are right.
I fall into that trap, too.
Violating private property and using violence against those who are neither using violence nor violating private property is wrong. It is something no one can have the right to do, no matter what they wish to believe. And most of the world spends time and effort looking for loopholes which can't exist so they can feel right about committing wrongs.
This is just how the world is. You can either find ways to work around it (without becoming one of the violators in the process) or you can get upset at how it is.
One thing I try to remind myself is that I'm only responsible for my own behavior. I am responsible for what I do, and what I support. I can try to help those around me be responsible for themselves too, but I can't make them. And, although I can try to make sure I don't add to the troubles, I am not responsible for society's direction. If everyone else is an archator, you aren't going to make much of an impact on the whole of society, but you can refuse to participate and add to the misery. It may take courage and determination, and you might suffer consequences for doing the right thing.
Yes, governing others is wrong. It is totally messed up. So I don't do it. I don't support it, contribute to it, or participate in it. I won't attack others, nor take their stuff, not even through politics. I can't make the whole world stop doing wrong, but I can try to make sure I'm not part of the problem.
Saturday, May 12, 2018
Rate this blog (pinned post)
I've added a temporary poll to the right-hand sidebar (just below the donation request). Apparently it's not visible in the mobile version, so if you're on a phone you have to switch to "web view" or something. Sorry.
Yeah, the answers are kind of goofy, but I'd like your honest rating, please.
As far as I know, it's completely anonymous-- I wouldn't try to figure out who chose which answer anyway.
It will be active until May 12, 2018, around 11:59 PM (Central Incorrect Time)
.
Yeah, the answers are kind of goofy, but I'd like your honest rating, please.
As far as I know, it's completely anonymous-- I wouldn't try to figure out who chose which answer anyway.
It will be active until May 12, 2018, around 11:59 PM (Central Incorrect Time)
.
Rationed rights
I know someone who, against my advice, recently got a concealed carry permit. His experience drives home why I believe it's a mistake to beg bullies for permission to exercise your natural human rights.
The process is insulting and degrading. It is designed to treat you like a common criminal.
There was a "fingerprinting"-- this of a person who has already been fingerprinted multiple times and undergone an extensive background check in order to get his current government "job". That wasn't good enough.
Then, there were drawn-out delays caused by a technical glitch wherein they wouldn't accept that he had worked for the same place twice, but with a different job sandwiched in between. The "system" wouldn't accept that answer. Not sure how a person's job history is supposed to validate their right to carry a weapon anyway.
I'm supposing my long-term "self-employment" would disqualify me in their eyes, or at least give them reasons to be suspicious and put me through the wringer.
Then there was the delay after eventual approval while waiting for his rights to come by mail so that he could start exercising them. In all, I believe the process took a month and a half or so. Rights delayed are rights denied... but so are rights licensed.
I understand, somewhat, the desire to "stay legal", if you believe that will keep you safe from the molesters in blue (and their co-conspirators) you might encounter. But that safety is an illusion. They'll murder you regardless of your permit, pat each other on the back for a job well done, go grab a beer, and get a paid vacation out of it.
Friday, May 11, 2018
Making waves
It is odd that I am expected to have no issue with people who want others to molest me at gunpoint. In fact, it's considered rude of me to notice that they are asking others to molest me at gunpoint. They might cry "That's not what's going on-- there are laws. There have to be! It's just how civilization works!"
Yet, being quite honest, that is what's going on.
Any "law" which violates life, liberty, or property is a threat to molest you at gunpoint-- and murder you if you don't comply fast enough. There's no other honest way to look at it. And that's the vast majority of the "laws" today.
It's not considered polite to notice what's going on and to point it out to others who prefer denial.
It doesn't matter that very few of those "laws" actually affect me. I would be a self-centered monster if that were the only reason I object. I don't want my worst enemy molested by "laws" because I know those same "laws" can also be used against people I like. Or even me. But, even if they aren't, those "laws" are still not right.
Silence in the face of those "laws"-- and the people who support them-- is socially acceptable (but kind of wishy-washy and cowardly).
You'll never be widely well-thought of by standing up for what's right when wrongness has so many fans.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
That's not honor
Why is the word "honor" now tied to people (and their behaviors) that it doesn't fit?
Why is being a cop or a military pawn now conflated with "honor" when the concept so obviously doesn't apply?
Neither "job" is any indication of
honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a source of credit or distinction: high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: such respect manifested: high public esteem; fame; glory (source)
good name or public esteem: reputation: a showing of usually merited respect: recognition: : privilege: a person of superior standing: one whose worth brings respect or fame (source).So why use the word "honor" when referring to those people who embody the opposite qualities?
Real honor is a virtue. But you can't be an honorable archator.
Tuesday, May 08, 2018
All bad guys are politicians, and vice versa
In the interest of calling things by their proper names, it is time to apply the label "politician" to everyone who employs the political means to get what they want from interactions with other people.
Yes, presidents, congressvermin, judges, and mayors are politicians. But so are cops, muggers, DMV drones, rapists, government school "teachers", burglars, border control/ICE agents, kidnappers, trespassers, troops, home invaders, livestock inspectors, armed robbers, forest rangers, code enforcers, Somali pirates, tax collectors, and everyone else who uses the political means rather than the economic means. Yes, Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump are politicians, but so was Jack the Ripper and the guy I once saw rob someone in a parking deck.
There are only two ways of interacting with others: the economic means, where both of you come out ahead, and the political means, where one "wins" at the expense of the other. The political means is acting through archation rather than respecting the rights of those with whom you are interacting. Politics is cheating.
It seems many politicians already understand this, since the word "politician" is often treated like a bad word, with many politicians wanting to distance themselves from the truthful label. They want to be politicians while pretending they are something else (which still uses the political means).
Monday, May 07, 2018
Fundraiser time
I need some extra donations or subscriptions right now because of an upcoming medical expense in the household. The after-insurance cost will be $250.
Enough extra to cover a tank of gas or so would also be really nice. (Even though I bike as much as possible.)
Any purely voluntary help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
.
Enough extra to cover a tank of gas or so would also be really nice. (Even though I bike as much as possible.)
Any purely voluntary help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
.
"Welcome to our future"
A friend recently told me something scary and ... sad. Something I am still trying to digest and ponder. Something which haunts me.
He recently participated in mock "job interviews" of some college journalism students. One of the questions he asked them was "What's the purpose of government?".
Unsurprising, considering the years of pro-government indoctrination they've endured to get to this point, the students mostly answered that the purpose of government is to "help people". One of them even said government's purpose was to "control people"; she considered this a good thing. She believes society has become so dangerous government needs to control everyone in order to "protect" us all.
My friend told these students he thought government's job was to ensure life, liberty and the individual pursuit of happiness; they all scoffed.
One even said "we do not need too much freedom because we can't handle it". Well, him maybe...
My friend went on to say:
"I understand that most people feel government is too big to fight, or they're afraid of the consequences sure to come when fighting government ... But these kids seem to feel government really is their friend, that [being told] what to do is in their own best interest.
Welcome to our future."
The choice really does come down to educate them out of their delusion, or... well, you know what Anonymous Commenter will say.
Yeah, Scary!
I will have a response to this sort of thinking in my newspaper column to be posted Wednesday morning. Stay tuned.
Yeah, Scary!
I will have a response to this sort of thinking in my newspaper column to be posted Wednesday morning. Stay tuned.
Sunday, May 06, 2018
Americans need more Robin Hoods
(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 4, 2018)
The middle of April is approaching fast; the time of the year when I hear a lot about taxes. Mention of taxes brings Robin Hood to my mind.
I don't think of him with the more recent spin which has been put on the legend, but in the original spirit of the tales.
Robin Hood is a model of an ethical outlaw. He broke bad laws by doing what was right for the right reasons. His story has been misrepresented, as in the original tellings he didn't "rob from the rich and give to the poor", but took back property which had been stolen through taxation and returned it to its rightful owners. Generally, those who collected the taxes were richer than their victims, but regardless, taxing is still wrong.
In later stories, Robin Hood was sometimes changed from a regular guy into displaced royalty in order to tickle the fancy of a government-obsessed public unhappy with the current government. This cheapened the story, changing him from a truly good guy doing right because it was right into a hypocrite who wanted to get rid of one gang of rulers so his faction could take their place. In this interpretation, his outlawry was only a means to a political end. That's much less inspiring.
I prefer the more uplifting tale.
"Taxation" is a dishonest word for theft committed under color of law. The punishments for failure to pay taxes add another level of malevolence to the act of taxing. You can't do right by doing wrong. If something is good and necessary, convince people to finance it voluntarily. If they won't, you need to let it go. Good ideas don't have to be imposed by force.
Contrary to Oliver Wendell Holmes' claim, taxation is not the price we pay for a civilized society, any more than cancer is the price we pay for a healthy life. Instead, civilized society is what we sometimes manage to create in spite of uncivilized antisocial acts such as taxation. Of course, you'd expect someone whose power, position, and wealth came from taxation to mislead you about its nature.
Robin Hood is a hero, completely unlike those who live off of taxation. Americans need more Robin Hoods; heroic outlaws standing on their behalf against socially acceptable wrongs. Perhaps a modern Robin Hood wouldn't stop at correcting taxation, but would also branch out to fight other authoritarian practices.
The middle of April is approaching fast; the time of the year when I hear a lot about taxes. Mention of taxes brings Robin Hood to my mind.
I don't think of him with the more recent spin which has been put on the legend, but in the original spirit of the tales.
Robin Hood is a model of an ethical outlaw. He broke bad laws by doing what was right for the right reasons. His story has been misrepresented, as in the original tellings he didn't "rob from the rich and give to the poor", but took back property which had been stolen through taxation and returned it to its rightful owners. Generally, those who collected the taxes were richer than their victims, but regardless, taxing is still wrong.
In later stories, Robin Hood was sometimes changed from a regular guy into displaced royalty in order to tickle the fancy of a government-obsessed public unhappy with the current government. This cheapened the story, changing him from a truly good guy doing right because it was right into a hypocrite who wanted to get rid of one gang of rulers so his faction could take their place. In this interpretation, his outlawry was only a means to a political end. That's much less inspiring.
I prefer the more uplifting tale.
"Taxation" is a dishonest word for theft committed under color of law. The punishments for failure to pay taxes add another level of malevolence to the act of taxing. You can't do right by doing wrong. If something is good and necessary, convince people to finance it voluntarily. If they won't, you need to let it go. Good ideas don't have to be imposed by force.
Contrary to Oliver Wendell Holmes' claim, taxation is not the price we pay for a civilized society, any more than cancer is the price we pay for a healthy life. Instead, civilized society is what we sometimes manage to create in spite of uncivilized antisocial acts such as taxation. Of course, you'd expect someone whose power, position, and wealth came from taxation to mislead you about its nature.
Robin Hood is a hero, completely unlike those who live off of taxation. Americans need more Robin Hoods; heroic outlaws standing on their behalf against socially acceptable wrongs. Perhaps a modern Robin Hood wouldn't stop at correcting taxation, but would also branch out to fight other authoritarian practices.
Maybe cops aren't a disease
Cops are not the problem; cops are a symptom.
That doesn't mean it's OK to celebrate symptoms. They still need to be addressed (and eliminated*, ideally).
Often it's not the disease that kills you, it's the symptoms. That's even the case with something like Rabies. This is also true of statism.
It's already clear statism is a fatal disease, not so much because of the statism itself, but because of the symptoms. They are what kills. And cops, along with troops and other terrorists, are the most deadly symptom.
If not for people depraved enough to enforce The State against others, the disease of statism wouldn't be as likely to be fatal.
The symptoms need to be addressed.
-
*If you believe killing them is the only way to eliminate cops, you seem to be saying cops can't reason their way out of evil, that they have no ethical principles worth anything, and nothing will stop people from continuing to show up and do the nasty, scummy "job" of policing.
Saturday, May 05, 2018
Touchy-feely racism
A day or so ago I ran across the most blatantly racist thing I've seen in a long time.
The author was taking it upon herself (I think the author was female, but I don't remember for sure) to instruct "Non-Black People", as she so gently phrased it, on how to "stay in your lane" while discussing Kanye West's support for Trump.
"Stay in your lane"?
That sounds suspiciously like "Know your place".
Fortunately most of us have moved past that. But apparently not everyone has.
Who cares what "race" Kanye is? If you have an opinion on his opinions, does that opinion hinge on what "race" both of you are?
Only if you, like that author, are a racist.
I have to admit, I was a little angry when I commented on that article. I couldn't believe someone is actually promoting racism that openly. Most racists at least try to hide the fact that they are being racist. But not her! She flies that flag high.
When someone tells you to "stay in your lane", or told Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus, it's a slap in the face. An insult. And it was pure racism. Don't put up with it. Your "race" has nothing to do with your rights or your value as a human being. Don't let anyone try to fool you into believing otherwise, no matter how "enlightened" they believe they are.
Friday, May 04, 2018
"Theoretical"? "Utopian"?
Anarchy* is neither theoretical nor Utopian.
It's a way to live among others without violating them. Probably the only way. It works in real life, every day, in the real world in which we live.
You already know this, I'm sure. If you don't know it yet, experience will drive the point home if thinking it through isn't enough for you.
*Or you can call it Voluntaryism. libertarianism, or abolitionism. Same deal.
Thursday, May 03, 2018
Sharing and prehistoric humans
I recently read a book I enjoyed a lot. It challenged my preconceived ideas and made me think. That's always a good thing.
Some of the ideas I was readily willing to accept without much trouble, just because I know myself and human nature. Other ideas put forward in the book weren't so obvious, and I'm still not totally convinced. For example, the authors conclude that pre-agricultural humans shared everything and didn't have private property.
Maybe.
They make a good argument for it, and it makes some sense. I'm willing to ponder it.
I believe, in our present planet-wide circumstances, that individual property rights-- over things and land (never over another person)-- are essential for human life and liberty. We have all seen what happens when those rights are violated.
However, I can imagine circumstances which might make property rights less necessary.
If humans aren't bound to a location, as with agriculture, but move around just about all the time, I can see how real estate property rights would only get in the way; hold them back or tie them down.
After the invention of agriculture, you had to know you had a good chance of being able to harvest what you planted-- thus property rights concerning real estate were discovered. This new lifestyle also necessitated specialized tools, so personal property rights became essential. You couldn't spend days fashioning a tool, only to have someone else walk away with it so that you didn't have use of it anymore.
All this is pretty clear.
But, if there were a way to get past this necessity, without compromising individual liberty and rights, I'd be willing to consider it. It couldn't include taking things away from people who wanted to keep possession of them (because this would indicate they are opting out). It couldn't include punishing people who decide to walk away from the group. It couldn't include treating people as property-- neither property of an individual nor "property" of the group. It couldn't involve initiation of force. Those points are non-negotiable.
I've said before that I'm not opposed to groups trying socialism or communism as long as it is completely voluntary and anyone can opt out at any time. Sharing is nice. Forced "sharing" isn't sharing. And sharing what isn't yours to share, under threat of violence, is just evil. That's why political socialism and political communism are such utter evil failures, and always will be. Politics ruins everything.
If you come up with a workable plan, I'd be willing to check it out and see how it works. Even if it means giving up most modern conveniences. I would not be willing to impose it on others.
-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Check out my special request on the side-bar.
Follow me on Steemit and Medium
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Check out my special request on the side-bar.
Follow me on Steemit and Medium
Wednesday, May 02, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)