Rule by majority unfair to minority

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 6, 2018- I don't write the headlines*)

Politics might be an amusing hobby, but it is a horrible basis for a society. One should never confuse government with society. Society grows naturally from the voluntary interactions of people, while government is anti-social; imposed by those who imagine themselves at the "top" onto everyone they see as beneath them.

Unanimous consent is the way to get things done without coercion or theft. Let those who agree work together without forcing anyone else to go along. If your idea relies on forcing people to participate, it's probably a bad idea. Anything which depends on force or coercion to survive should be allowed to die. Never use mob rule-- democracy-- to force people to do things they oppose.

Allegiance to a group shouldn't be assumed, mandatory, or dependent on where you live. Let people choose their own groups, and let the groups' territories overlap the way those of clubs or churches do. Let people switch between groups, or opt out, as their needs and circumstances change.

If your culture can't survive contact with a different culture, it may not be worth saving. Are you so dependent on the behavior and opinions of others that you can't live the way you believe you should if you don't have company? Yes, there is comfort in numbers, but you'll often find yourself in the minority over the course of your life. Embrace it. Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority you should re-evaluate your position. The majority is rarely right.

You have no right to enslave people for their own good, or what you imagine to be their own good. Let people find their own path, as long as they aren't stealing or attacking the non-violent.

You are responsible for yourself. You can take some responsibility for others, as long as you aren't imposing yourself on them. It's OK to allow others to make mistakes; to be wrong. It's usually how people learn. Don't let them drag you down with them, but realize when you need to back off.

You don't need others to live as you do, and everyone has the natural right to defend themselves from anyone who tries to force their way on them.

Remember that your ideas of what people should be doing may not be their ideas. If it would be wrong for them to force you to live as they want, then it would be wrong for you to force them to live as you believe they should.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

From the Ministry of Propaganda

It's no wonder people are confused about guns.

I was sent this in an email "news" alert. Here's an easy exercise... Spot the propaganda:

"Frustrated by state and federal lawmakers’ reluctance to address gun violence, local officials are starting a movement to control firearms within their borders. It’s an uphill task given that all but seven states have laws prohibiting them from doing so, but their work is slowly catching on.
In recent months, local governments have limited certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles, created “gun-free zones” and adopted zoning laws to keep out gun stores. “The failure of the Congress to pass policies that keep our communities and children safe means towns feel compelled to act,” Stephen Benjamin, mayor of Columbia, South Carolina, said

"Frustrated"? "lawmakers"? "reluctance"? "address"? "gun violence"? "officials"? "starting a movement"? "uphill task"? "their work"? "catching on"? "limited"? "created", "adopted"? "keep out"? "failure"? "policies that keep our communities and children safe"? "feel compelled"?

That's a lot of propaganda in only two paragraphs. I probably even missed some.

Why the dishonest phrasing? Is it because of the anti-liberty bias of the "news" organization? Yes. Yes, it is.

No matter your excuse, if you propose, pass, or enforce anti-gun "laws", YOU are a BAD GUY. YOU are as bad as the evil losers who shoot up crowds of ("legally") disarmed victims. You can try to veil your evil acts in all the glowing lies you want. It's still nothing but lies.

And when your lies warp people's opinions about something as critical as natural human rights you may actually be worse than the evil losers who shoot up crowds. Yes, "mainstream media", including the fly-by-night outfit which crafted this propaganda piece, I am looking at you and judging you. You don't measure up.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Statists: Blissfully unaware

How many statists-- even the flaming statists-- realize they are statists?

A friend's comment made me stop to consider the question. Her observation-- that the ones she knows are completely unaware of their statism-- is right on the mark.

They are like fish, unaware of the water they are immersed in. They can't feel it, taste it, see it or otherwise experience its existence. It simply "is". It is their "normal". They expect (if they are aware enough to expect anything) their experience to be universal.

I, however, can feel statism choking the life out of me sometimes. I'm drowning in the statism the statists can't notice.

Forget draining "the swamp"; their beloved cesspool of lumpy statism needs to be drained and dried and sterilized.

My life has been a case of learning to swim so that their filthy statism doesn't snuff out my life. It hasn't been easy. I think I'm getting better at it. And, I do what little I can to drain their treasured cesspool.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Follow your arrow

I don't know best how to run my own life most of the time; I certainly don't know best how to run yours.

I'm suspicious of anyone who claims to know how to run the lives of others; anyone who says they know what's best for you or me.

All I know is you and I have no right to archate. That leaves a lot of room for experimentation.

The path of archation isn't a good one, as it interferes with how others are choosing to live. Beyond that, you try your way and I'll try mine. If yours looks good, maybe I'll try to adopt some of it into my life.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Taking statists seriously

I know I shouldn't be mean to statists. I shouldn't ridicule them or point out that they are no better than molesters. Even though it's true.

That's not how you get people to listen and (possibly) change. This knowledge requires a change in me. And that change is hard and unpleasant and unnatural.

Statism-- the belief that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor-- is ripe for ridicule. This notion that people can't be trusted to run their own lives, so we need to have some (who can magically be trusted-- going against the original assumption) with power to run the lives of others is a demonstrable mess. It makes no sense. It is internally inconsistent. It doesn't work in the real world, with real people in real situations.

It's hard to not be mean to people who advocate something so stupid. It's hard to not point out how they promote evil acts. It's hard to not compare them to others who believed similar things with similar results.

I know I shouldn't, but it's not likely I'll stop. Too many people treat them with unearned respect and act as though they are actually contributing something to the human conversation. There needs to be another side to it. Someone needs to be pointing and laughing at their nonsense.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Not worshiping the State hard enough

I posted this to FB:

Hey..."great" job, Idiots. Declare independence from a state then turn right around and set up a new state which turns out to be far worse than the relatively weak state you rejected.
When you finally get rid of a tapeworm you don't rush out to swallow another one. Well, not unless you're an utter moron.
I reject your "4th of July" and embrace independence from all your states and other control freaks.

And was immediately graced with this comment:

You are totally lost!...I pray God for your salvation!.

And then she "unfriended" me. (I have no clue who she is, so I'll get over it.)

I find it interesting how some people tend to conflate their gods; confused over which one I'm not properly worshiping this time.
-

Related: Put independence back in the day

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Archators-- we are watching you

Sometimes I get the feeling that my readers and I are a quiet, secret little conspiracy for liberty. Quietly undermining the status quo-- at least the rotten parts of it-- below the radar.

It's probably just a symptom of an inflated sense of self-importance. But it's kind of a pleasant one.

"Hey, archators. We are here; watching, working, and undermining you and your gangs. Laughing at your claims to "authority" and legitimacy. You can kill us, but you can't stop the signal. And, if we feel cornered, you might die in the attempt."

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

"Reparations"-- You can't owe imaginary debts

The odds are almost certain that some of my ancestors were enslaved by the ancestors of someone else sometime in the past. When do I get my "reparations" for this slavery?

Of course, the odds are just as good that some of my ancestors also enslaved the ancestors of someone else sometime in the past. I guess any "reparations" cancel out.

And I'm OK with that because I have never personally been enslaved (if you don't count the attempts to govern me) nor have I ever personally enslaved anyone. I'm against enslaving anyone for any reason... and always have been. Even the kinds of slavery the "majority" approves of.

Abolitionists like me carry no guilt over slavery which was committed in the past-- long before we were born-- and can't owe anyone for krimes (which were then legal and "moral", but never ethical) of the past which I didn't commit and don't support. It's ridiculous that anyone could believe otherwise.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

'Nothing' is best government activity

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 30, 2018)

There is one thing government could do which I will support. One thing I believe it needs to spend more time doing. It's the one thing government can do best, the one thing government can do which will actually help, and the only thing which can justify taxation.
What is this extraordinary government activity? Nothing.

I support government doing nothing, and I believe it needs to spend more time doing nothing. Nothing government does is better than what the market can do. Government does nothing which helps, and nothing justifies taxation.

This doesn't mean I'm against everything government currently does; I'm against those things being done by government with money stolen from my neighbors who may not want such "services" at all. It's an important difference.

As long as people are going to imagine government is necessary or even desirable, I want it sitting in a donut shop day after day gossiping, eating, and drinking coffee rather than being out there meddling in our lives. I may still have to pay for it, but at least this would limit the additional abuses. If people are truly desperate to encounter government, let them go find it napping in its office, never running free in the community among the people.

It's why I favor gridlock. It's as close to government doing nothing as we're likely to get.

As lawyer, newspaper editor, and politician Gideon J. Tucker once observed, “No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” He noticed this fact back in 1866; the situation has only gotten worse since then.

Gridlock is a partial solution-- the one way, under the current circumstances, we can stay a bit safer from government's probing fingers.

As long as gridlock is paralyzing Washington, DC, neither side will let the other have a win, so new laws aren't being imposed.

While the politicians are at each other's throats, trying to prevent the other side from having its way with us, perhaps they'll be too distracted to find new ways of grabbing for our wallets, touching our bodies, and fighting against our liberty. It may be the best we can hope for until the people stop tolerating a distant gang of criminals always seeking new ways to control their lives.

I'm in favor of anything which helps government approach the ideal of doing nothing, even if it's only temporary and limited in scope. Gridlock is a good start.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Misplaced trust

If someone hated you and wanted you to die, would you follow their health advice? Would you let them talk you into behaviors you knew were risky? Would you listen to them at all?

Yet, people let government employees tell them what rights they have.

I see this all the time in responses from people when I say something about the right to own and carry weapons. Particularly on Quora, and especially among those who are saddled with a government which doesn't want them to have guns. (Even more than the U.S. government's aversion to an armed population, I mean,)

They constantly tell me what that specific gang of bullies says their rights are (and are not). They act as though I'm a barbarian for recognizing natural human rights.

If I pointed this out to them they might object that "their" government doesn't hate them nor want them to die; that it is only looking out for their best interests. Judging by the actions and the results of those actions, they sure could have fooled me. If they want the best for their subjects, that is.

It's a sad thing to see. I don't want to see people enslaved, especially when they do it to themselves. I don't want them trusting a gang of thugs to tell them what their rights are, or fooling them into believing rights are only privileges, and that only Neanderthals like me would expect anyone to respect rights.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Someone is confused

Terribly confused. (And I don't believe it's me.) He even stated it for the record, too!

How can he be a lover of Big Government, while being a hater of government? He can't.

On the "Hates government" side he has:

• Taxation is theft. (Yes it is. Even if you like what it pays for)
• "government hating" (which seems a dubious claim, considering)

On the "Loves government" side he has:

• "military and law enforcement supporting" (HUGE welfare programs, and what other molesters does he support?)
• "illegal immigrant hating" (it takes a government to declare something "illegal" and to decide something is "immigration")
• "border security" (HUGE welfare program, and why does he hate property rights?)

On the "irrelevant to the topic" or "insufficient information" side, he has:

• "Gun waving" (Cops wave guns. Troops, too. Government extremists love guns-- as long as they control them. Guns are just tools and it depends on who you are pointing them at)
• Free speech (speech can be pro-liberty or against... but where is he throwing it?)
• anti-abortion (I know people who are pro-liberty, and reasonable, on both sides of the issue)
• school choice (is this school I'm allowed to choose regulated and funded by government? Does my choice include not funding schools at all?)
• anti-handout (except when he's handing other people's money to military, law enforcement, ICE employees, etc. apparently)

So, yes, this guy (who I probably should have redacted, but I'm not going to) is mighty confused. That's why he's a "conservative".

No, "liberals"/"progressives" (who are neither) are not more consistent. I laugh at their confusion and hypocrisy just as much. And when I find a comparable hilarious example, I may share it as well.

Statists-- they don't get that way by being smart or consistent.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Don't archate, part 2

More accurate; too wordy

So, why shouldn't you archate?

The biggest and best reason is that you have no right to do so. Admittedly, most statists and kriminals (archators by another name) don't care. That doesn't change the reality, though.

And if someone is doing what they don't have a right to do, anyone has the right to use force (or whatever it takes) to stop them. If you don't like the consequences of archating, don't. This is a utilitarian reason, so not really the best, but it is still true.

If everyone archates constantly, a functional, positive society isn't possible. Trade wouldn't be possible. "Don't steal the stuff I stole from others" just doesn't work in the long run. Once again, this is too utilitarian for my tastes. And again, statists and kriminals won't care anyway.

But that's the thing, statists and kriminals don't care about a lot of things. If they did care, they wouldn't choose the path they chose. If someone isn't going to care about right or wrong, it's pointless to try to convince them an act is wrong, expecting it will make a difference to them. It won't matter to them. You're not going to talk them out of their wicked ways. So don't waste time trying. State the facts, then let the chips fall where they may. Facing unpleasant consequences is all that will matter, and it will matter most when they lose. Make them lose.

The fact is, "Don't archate" is just what I tell myself. I hope it's what you choose, but I'm only responsible for my own choices, not yours.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Statism isn't working?-- redefine "working"

I notice a lot of people have a hard time admitting when something isn't working.

They'll pretend it does work.

They'll redefine what "works" means to them-- in a way that often goes against how they originally defined it.

They'll ignore the failure as long as they don't have to change what they are doing.

It's probably smarter to stop as soon as you notice something isn't working, or if you feel the desire to redefine "works" in the situation. Think about how else you might approach the problem. Try something else. Don't keep doing what you've been doing just because it's what you've always done.

And, even if it does work, there's probably a better way just waiting for you to discover it. See if you can.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Don't archate

Don't tread on me > Don't tread on anyone > No one tread on anyone > Don't archate.

Seems simple enough. Why is it so hard for some to understand?

Probably because they don't want to understand, because it would show they need to change. To make themselves a better person.

Again, it's a suggestion. A promise from me to you. I think you'd be better off to adopt this philosophy, too, but I don't expect you to. Just know that it's how I will relate to you and others, including how I might react if you do choose to archate. For your own sake, and for the sake of humanity, don't archate.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Hair!

How many times throughout history have bullies sought to humiliate and dehumanize their victims by forcing them to grow their hair long? I doubt this has ever been the case.

Yet, how many times has the opposite been done, where thugs and bullies sought to humiliate and dehumanize their victims by chopping off their hair, or even by shaving their heads? Over and over again this has been a tactic used by vile archators against their victims. It has been done in Nazi concentration camps, U.S. government's Indian "schools", prisons, etc. Some of you history buffs may have lots more examples I'm not aware of.

Why is this the case? What gives the bad guys this idea repeatedly throughout history?

I understand some people, many people, choose short hair or a shaved head. I would never seek to force them to grow their hair out, even though the opposite is so often the case.

This is why I see long hair as a way to feel my own liberty, and why I don't cut it off. To me, it would feel wrong. I would feel less free. It would feel like giving the bullies what they want. Plus, I just like long hair (on everyone, regardless of how they believe it looks on them).

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Laws themselves a senseless crime

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 23, 2018)

Droughts are a serious problem. They cause wildfires, dirt storms, crop failure, and they deplete the aquifer. Droughts are harmful and dangerous. Someone should do something! Why aren't droughts illegal already?

On the other hand, you don't want floods, either. Or property-damaging hail or tornadoes. Those should be criminalized as well.

There needs to be a legal minimum and maximum amount of rainfall each month, and bans on assault weather, so everyone is safe and healthy.

Reasonable people understand it is absurd to criminalize nature. People who advocate, write, pass, and enforce laws are not reasonable people. When nature and laws collide, nature will always make a fool of laws.

I once had a short hedge which grew berries every summer. Nothing was interested in the berries until they fermented, then the robins would gather to eat the fruit and get drunk.

It was funny to watch and proves a point.

Robins aren't arrogant enough to threaten other robins with a cage for eating berries, and to kill them if they resist hard enough. Only certain humans are this arrogant.

Seeking mind-altering substances is not just a human trait. It goes much deeper into the nature of living things-- at least those with a mind to alter. Trying to make the behavior go away with laws is as stupid as criminalizing weather.

The potential to cause harm doesn't justify laws, either. Everything can cause harm, so laws covering anything could be justified by that standard.

Crime only occurs when an individual's life, liberty, or property has been harmed by the actions of another. Crime-- harm to individuals-- is the most common result of writing and enforcing laws. It's the same whether the laws are against substances, tools, or the victimless behaviors commonly called "vices".

Even in the case of harm, do you really need a law against murder before you'll accept it's wrong to murder? Would you wait to make sure murder has been properly criminalized before defending someone who is being attacked? I hope not. What is the point of a law telling you what you already know? Does putting it in writing really change anything? It justifies hiring judges, police, and prosecutors, and paying them all with money stolen "legally" through the act of taxation, but it doesn't solve anything.

You don't need laws to make acts which harm life, liberty, or property wrong, and laws which criminalize other acts or objects harm life, liberty, and property by their existence. Laws are a senseless crime.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Blogger might not like me

Just a heads-up.

Blogger has stopped notifying me about posted comments. I have no idea why, and making sure the settings are right hasn't fixed the problem. So if I miss a comment for a while, forgive me.

They've also stopped showing me search results on this blog earlier than about the past 2 years, making it hard for me to find older posts I want to link to. No idea what that's about, and my inquiry was ignored.

I'm also cross-posting on Wordpress (and just about always have, although it's somewhat of a mess) just in case Blogger decides my blog is unwelcome here. I prefer to keep this one as the primary blog, if possible.

.

Problems with "authority"

I don't mean I have problems with "authority, I mean there are problems with the concept of "authority". Besides it being The Most Dangerous Superstition.

Obviously, I'm speaking of political "authority", not expertise. Two unrelated concepts; one word used for both. Confusing by design.

"Authority" is the power to molest. That's really all it is. This power is based on superstition, but beliefs have consequences.

Probably, in the big picture, this is the thing "conservatives" get most wrong. Along with their absolute rejection of their greatest responsibility, while crowing about everyone else's "responsibility", that is. They don't understand what "authority" is, so they end up worshiping something nasty and disgusting, and criticizing others who see it more honestly than they do.

Political "authority" isn't a real thing. You shouldn't respect it. But you should realize dunderheads will murder you if they feel you have disrespected their delusional "authority". Individual beware.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

"Human trafficking"-- the "people trade"

This recent focus on "human trafficking" is ignoring the biggest offender: government. This means the activists aren't serious.

Who can possibly "traffic" even a tiny fraction of the humans that government does? Without trafficking-- trading-- people back and forth for money, government would lose much of its power and purpose.

Just the prison bureaucracy alone trades in more people than all the freelance slavers combined. And yet this is supposed to be OK? It's not OK with me.

End "human trafficking"; abolish the prison industry.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Yes, you are an "-ism"... or two

Some people like to claim they are above all "-isms". They take pride in this claim, and may even believe it. They are fooling themselves.

"-ism" is simply "a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. "

So those who say they reject all "-isms" would like you to believe they take no actions, have no principles, etc. They "do" nothing based on anything? Don't be ridiculous.

What are they afraid of?

Sure, there are many really disgusting "-isms". Ignorant ones based on horrific beliefs. But to pretend to be above them all is delusional. If nothing else those who pretend this are devoted to "antiismism". That's got to be one of the oddest "-isms" there is.

Don't run from "-isms", but choose wisely. There are good ones and bad ones-- learn to tell them apart. It's really not that hard to do.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium