Government and astrology

Government (by which I actually mean The State) is "real" in the same way astrology is "real".

They both exist as a collection of related beliefs. No one can doubt that the beliefs exist and this belief has effects. People truly believe in them and will argue about their "reality". They can point to the horoscopes in the newspaper or online, to the jewelry created in the form of the various astrological signs, to the "laws", and monuments, and giant buildings full of people. But those are just indications that people believe in these things and act on their belief, not that there's any concrete reality beneath the beliefs.

People actually alter their behavior based on their beliefs in these things. People choose who to date based on astrology and choose people to kidnap, rob, and murder based on government. But the beliefs are equally stupid.

In the end, you have nothing but beliefs and people willing to do things based on that belief, but nothing real holding up those beliefs.

Aren't you glad you aren't superstitious like those people?

That being said, sometimes it is necessary, when you are speaking to the believers, to refer to the thing as if it's real in order to point out the flaws in that system of belief. This way you can show that it doesn't actually work as advertised-- although they probably won't listen.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Enough problems without government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 5, 2018)

If you build a house in certain neighborhoods in Hawaii, you run the risk of having your house swallowed by lava. Along most coasts, hurricanes and tsunamis are looming dangers. In mountains, avalanches and landslides are seasonal threats. If you choose to build in Moore, Oklahoma, remember that tornadoes seem to enjoy the local scenery, and build below ground.

Pick your spot, then deal with the risks which come with it.

Unfortunately, no matter where you choose to live on this planet, political government-- imposed on you by a ruling class or by your friends, family, and neighbors-- is a constant threat to your life, liberty, and property.

While the other risks are natural, the threat posed by government is completely artificial and unnecessary. People chose to create it, then struggle to maintain it in their minds; the only place it really exists. The government buildings (and the employees who inhabit them) are things the believers will point to as proof of government's reality, yet those physical things are nothing more than idols built to the idea-- concrete monuments to a figment of the imagination.

Frequently, the natural disasters are made worse by relying on this figment. A news story about the people of Puerto Rico, who were still without power or fresh water months after their devastating hurricanes, said they were questioning whether the U. S. government cares about their survival.

It doesn't. Government cares about its own survival. As long as your survival doesn't get in government's way, it is content for you to survive. Your survival takes a back seat, though. This is why the U. S. government has a plan for "continuity of government" in case of a civilization-ending disaster, but no plan to save America's productive people. Those who are the embodiment of government believe their survival is more important than the survival of the rest of the world.

You might claim having government around protects you from some bad things. Burning your house down prevents bedbugs in the same way, but seems similarly drastic.

The threat posed by belief in government is greater in some areas but seems unavoidable everywhere, and that's insane. Getting away from government is part of the reason the frontier has been historically popular, and without a frontier or other state-free spaces, there's a ticking time bomb which can't be defused. Society will eventually pay a price it can't afford.

The world has enough trouble. Why create and perpetuate a completely unnecessary problem?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Should women be believed?

Well, sure. If there's reason to believe them. Not as a collective, but as individuals. And not automatically just because they are women. No one should be believed automatically, especially without good reason.

All women sometimes lie because all humans sometimes lie.

To believe someone just because they're a woman is sexist. You have to have a better reason than that, no matter what they are claiming.

Some women have falsely accused me of things in the past; claims they made as a way to try to get some sort of power over me. Most women haven't done that. I know which ones were lying; other people have no way to know. It would be ridiculous to consider me guilty just because someone says something about me.

And, yes, just like in all cases, I believe it's better that one hundred guilty people "get away with" something than to have one innocent person punished. But that's just me and my bias against punishment/revenge.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

If guns were banned

If you managed to ban guns, you haven't made any good people safer. You've only made lesser weapons in the hands of evil losers deadlier. Since anything is a weapon when used as a weapon, you can't get rid of weapons without removing everyone's brain.

Against a good guy with a gun, a 2x4 isn't terribly dangerous. Take away the good guy's gun, and unless he has something at least equal to the 2x4, and the will and skill to wield it, he's in serious trouble.

Remember too that evil losers have often trained their whole lives to aggress against others; most good people don't have that much commitment to learning to be defensively violent.

And that's assuming you were able to get the guns away from the evil losers, which is a fantasy. So the actual situation would be much worse: evil losers with guns against unarmed, or insufficiently armed, good guys. And anti-gun bigots are OK with that. They are your enemy.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Politics is a symptom

If someone uses politics to force their will on you (or anyone) they have something wrong with them. Something's not right inside.

Pity them, but don't let them hurt you.

It's OK to defend yourself from them. Really. It may not be "legal", but it can't be wrong.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

I aim to misbehave

Click to magnify

Because doing the right thing, and refusing to do the wrong thing, are so often "illegal", I'm glad to be an outlaw.

How about you?

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Other people's emotions

I mentioned my own emotional reaction when exposed to nasty anti-liberty ideas, but there's another kind of idea which can cause a negative reaction.

Some people get angry when exposed to the truth. Angry enough they advocate using government violence to make people shut up. If you speak a truth these people don't want to hear, they want to make sure you suffer for it. That's evil and stupid.

If you make it painful for people to speak the truth, you will get more lies.

Some truth is ugly. It's not how you want to believe reality is. Something else would be nicer. Seeing truth of this sort can make you mad, but being mad about it won't make the truth stop being true. Maybe you can change the truth if you are motivated enough, and if it's a truth which can be changed (many can't).

People can also get angry when they don't like something poking holes in their beliefs. Even, or especially, when it's true.

So I can understand why the truth would sometimes cause a negative emotional reaction. But that doesn't make it less true.

If the truth makes you mad, you might want to figure out why.

Are you more attached to the belief than to reality?

Does letting go of one bad belief take out a critical piece of support for other beliefs you want to protect?

Of course, you might try to find a way to keep believing that the truth is a lie. A lot of people choose this path-- it's easy and feels safe.

The truth doesn't care how you feel about it. It is what it is, for good or bad.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Sabotaged by emotions

Sometimes I really hate having emotions. Hating emotions? How's that for irony?

I often get angry when people around me express statist, sexist, racist, nationalist opinions. I don't want anger to be my reaction. I want to be able to laugh them off as fools, then (if necessary) wipe the floor with them using well thought out truth presented without emotion.

If nothing else, it would be better to annoy them with Socratic questions.

Anger gets in the way of that. It sabotages me.

So, recognizing this, I try really hard to get over my emotional reaction before I respond to nasty ideas. That's easier when writing than when face-to-face.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

'Democratic' socialism no less evil

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 29, 2018)

Over the next few years you're going to be tested. Socialism-- the politics of envy, parasitism, and entitlement-- is growing in popularity again. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have recently been its elder cheerleaders. Now socialism is being given a fresh make-over. It has a new, young, and apparently articulate voice in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

It's being re-branded as "democratic socialism" as if adding mob rule (democracy) to socialism makes it less evil. No matter who's pushing it this time, expect more attempts to portray socialism as kind, fair, and generous. As "common decency" toward the "less fortunate".

Don't be fooled-- it's still the same old evil under shiny new paint.

It's not kind or generous to give away what isn't yours to give, whether you got the ill-gotten goods in a mugging or by collecting a tax. Theft is theft even when you call it something else. And spending stolen money on popular things doesn't make theft right.

Socialism isn't "sharing" because non-consensual "sharing" doesn't exist. Socialism tries to build a society on a foundation of theft.

At some point, the people you are robbing are going to give up. Why put in all the work only to have your effort stolen? Right now most of these people say they would never go on the dole and will keep working. But they haven't had all hope pulled out from under them yet.

When they see themselves working to support more and more who aren't putting in any effort, at some point they'll decide it's not worth it anymore. Then who will keep your system afloat?

Sure, maybe the money can be created out of thin air. But more dollars in circulation, backed by nothing but promises, means each one of those dollars is worth less every day. Eventually, no one will accept those worthless dollars for products or services-- even if you can find someone still producing or serving. At that point your choice will be barter or starve.

It doesn't matter how many times people come up with the bright idea of socialism. It doesn't matter if you claim "real socialism" has never been given a chance. Neither has real capitalism.

Maybe the democratic socialists are right and all the failures of socialism in the past hundred years or so were "not real socialism", but the closer you get to real socialism, the deader everyone gets, while the closer you get to real capitalism the wealthier everyone gets. Choose your future, choose your fate.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Economic realities and government "jobs"

I recently heard the claim that the economy is "going great". This doesn't match with the reality I'm experiencing, although I might not be representative. Nor is it what I'm seeing in some others I know. Some of them have even settled for government "jobs" because that's the only thing they could find.

I think it's a terrible shame when the economy is so bad that people are reduced to looking for, or accepting, government "jobs".

And I see this a lot. People can't find a job in the market, so they lower themselves and take a government "job".

They would deny this is lowering themselves.

But, to take a "job" financed with stolen money, which people don't get to opt out of funding-- or, in many cases, using, even if they don't want the "service"-- is low.

I know; you've got to make money. Food must be bought; bills must be paid. Believe me, I understand. Probably more than most. But there are certain "jobs" I just couldn't bring myself to do.

I couldn't live with myself if I had a government "job" which required me to impose the dictates of the State on people and violate their rights with violence. This means I couldn't be an armed government employee of any sort; I couldn't be a cop, or a forest ranger, or an IRS agent, or an employee of any other Alphabet Agency. I couldn't work for the DMV. Nor the military. I couldn't work for the TSA, nor any sort of "border security". I can't bring myself to use violence, or threats of violence against anyone on behalf of the State in exchange for money.

I also couldn't live with myself if I worked in a government "job" which violated people "nicely". I couldn't work in a government school, library, or other "helpful" service. The gun is still there, it's just hidden a little better.

Yes, this means that in this economy I am kind of screwed. I accept that reality. But I still won't violate you for money. Neither in a mugging, nor through a vulgar government "job".

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Picking nits

It's weird to me when someone pops up with "but that's the local government, not the feds" doing some evil thing or another. Or the other way around.

And I can't figure out why it matters. Maybe to "state's rights" [sic] people... but to anyone else?

Government is government. To distinguish between federal, state, and local is to miss the point. Yes, they can all hurt you in different ways, and sometimes you can pit them against each other to protect yourself a little. But to fall for the belief that one isn't bad, while the other is? Ridiculous! They are all bad, just in slightly different ways.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Siding with evildoers

Being in favor of illegal searches and seizures is kind of a rapey position. Isn't it?

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Orphan stew

No, this isn't advocating cannibalism, it's a bunch of little thoughts that have collected and never made it to blog or column status, but that I didn't just want to throw away.

You've been warned....

__


Alternate history:
Quill and Tattler-- Medieval jesters who make fun of the ruling elites while practicing sorcery. Tattler never tattles because he doesn't speak.

__

Liberty lovers need to come together, because the enemies of liberty are united against us. But liberty lovers fight over "borders" and American Sharia Law (including "vices") and the illusory "right vs left" nonsense, each insisting on each and every exception to rightful liberty that they want to have incorporated into the deal. It won't work.

__

I've never been one to give much credit to conspiracy theories. People are simply too tempted to show off to keep big secrets for long-- even under threat of death.

Government runs on conspiracy theories.

Some may be true, but you and I will probably never know. Roswell.  JFK.  FEMA camps... Fun, like horror movies, and just as credible.

Some are easily disprovable but remain popular with those who want to believe in them. Such as "Flat Earth" and "dinosaurs never existed".

Then there are the real conspiracies: Federal Reserve, the IRS/income tax, the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.

__

Libertarianism offers real solutions. But you won't see those solutions if you refuse to look outside the political sphere-- to see things that go against what you've always done.

If you would rather imagine what solutions you believe a hypothetical libertarian might suggest, based on your misunderstanding of libertarianism, then you'll just keep going in circles with yourself.

__

Natural disasters are a problem, one that no one can eliminate through education alone. But education still helps.  What can be done about natural disasters is to cause people to see that these things will happen, and that the best defense is being prepared. The only connection to government here is that government both encourages people to prepare, and grows increasingly suspicious of those who do.  Well, government also exacerbates natural disasters through incompetent response and by preventing voluntary, free market solutions from working. And by making people believe they don't need to be prepared, because government (or someone) will come and save them.

__

How can anyone believe it is right to use politics to control others?
Wouldn't it be better to find a way to work with other people without sticking a gun in their face?

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

(The?) Ten Good Suggestions

1. Do not use violence against the non-violent who are not taking or damaging your property.

2. Do not take or damage the property of any other person.

3. Do not seek to govern anyone but yourself, nor should you choose others to govern them on your behalf; do not enslave.

4. Mind your own business until or unless someone asks you for your help with their business.

5. Try to not unnecessarily offend others, but if you are offended, suck it up. You haven’t been harmed.

6. Tell the truth, unless you have to lie to keep someone from violating an innocent.

7. Keep your word, as long as you can do so without violating any of the above.

8. Defend others from those seeking to do the above to them.

9. Treat others as they wish to be treated.

10. Do not use wishes or beliefs as an excuse to violate these guidelines.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

A word from the author (UPDATED)

Posting may be sporadic until or unless I can come up with the money to get the internet turned back on. Just a heads up.
I'll try to schedule posts if I can get to a hotspot.

Update:
I'm back. For now. Things aren't going well, financially. That's not news. Donations and subscriptions are down to about half what they were just a few years ago. Either the economy is tanking, or my value is declining. It is what it is, and I'll keep looking for new sources of income-- so far, nothing has clicked.

Again, I'll beg: if you use Medium, PLEASE "clap" for my posts there. Just a few claps gets me enough money to help me out-- and each post can be clapped for, by each individual, 50 times. But no one claps. I got 2 cents from Medium last month. Yes, the site is wildly leftist. If my posts there would get a little notice, maybe that could shift a little. If not, at least it would help me out monetarily

.

Always on-duty

The theft-funded molesters of The Blue Line Gang are "special". They are expected to ignore all "no guns" signs because they "have to" remain armed while on duty. It is their job; their responsibility.

The thing is, that's not special at all.

It is YOUR duty and responsibility to remain armed at all times, too. In fact, your duty and responsibility are much more fundamental than theirs. Their "duty" only comes from a "job" and a paycheck; yours comes from the fact that you are a sovereign individual. The buck stops with YOU.

As long as you are on duty-- and it is your never-ending duty to defend life, liberty, and property-- it is your responsibility to be armed. You are never off-duty, and you can't escape your responsibility.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Looking in the mirror, I see...

I am conservative, but I am not a conservative.

I am liberal, but I am not a liberal.

I am a conservative in that I believe there are some things from the past-- some values-- which need to be conserved. Including such liberal values as true generosity and compassion.

I am liberal in that I value liberty for ALL and want it spread to everyone. That was once something liberals stood for.

Not so much since they re-branded as "progressives".

For that matter, I am progressive, but I am not a progressive.

I am progressive in that I believe in progress. I believe progress is necessary and good. I do not believe giving our enemy, the State, more power is progress. I think it is quite the opposite. I see those who want to give the State more power as backward throwbacks. As Proglodytes.

It's funny how words get stolen, perverted, and end up meaning the opposite of what they once meant. It's how we ended up with "conservatives" who want to trash things worth conserving, with tight-fisted, thieving "liberals", and with regressive "progressives".

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

You can solve problems or play politics

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 22, 2018)

When you imagine solving some problem, what kind of solution do you envision: permanent or political? Win-win or win-lose? How would you rather fix things? Permanently and where everyone wins, or politically where someone wins at the expense of others who are harmed?

If you choose the political option, those you harm will keep trying to turn the tables. They may claim to only want to stop the harm they are suffering, but when they get the chance they'll repay everything they suffered, with interest, and the problem will keep coming back.

This shows the difference between using the economic method to fix things or the political method to kick the can down the road a ways.

Sometimes you'll even run into someone who doesn't really want a solution. Often, as in the case of crime, they profit too much off the problem-- financially or politically-- to want it gone. This is behind much of the resistance to ending both drug prohibition and "gun control". A solved problem makes political power evaporate. Certain people fear this happening.

But why hand your destiny to sociopaths? Work around them. Ignore them. Shut them out of the conversation. Find solutions in spite of their stubbornness.

True solutions will never violate natural human rights nor stand in the way of exercising those rights; of living your liberty.

I can't respect those who believe your rights and liberty are subject to their opinions (which they'll call "laws"), and who back their opinions with threats of violence (known as "law enforcement"). I don't understand this type of thinking.

Your right to live in liberty doesn't scare me, because liberty is self-regulating. You can never have too much liberty since you never have the right to violate others. Your liberty to do anything you want stops where the other person's rights begin. No outside force, beyond self-defense, is needed.

You only get the liberty you respect in others. If you don't respect the rights of others, you seem to be giving others permission to ignore your rights, too.

If I invite you into my home or business I'm never going to ask you to leave your rights at the door. If I'm afraid of what you might do, why invite you in? It doesn't make sense.

Liberty can solve so many problems, but you have to want the problem solved before you'll consider it. How about you? Do you want to solve problems, or would you rather keep doing politics?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Defense against the Dark Arts (of Archators)

Those who are against you owning and carrying effective weapons, and using them to defend life, liberty, and property, like to pretend the bad guy is your ethical equal. That his death, as a consequence of his attack on you, is some sort of tragedy.

For an anti-gun bigot to say that using a gun in self-defense "costs a life" makes it sound as though you traded a random innocent life for your life. As if, one day for no apparent reason, you feel threatened so you go out, find some little kid who is minding her own business and kill her as she sits at her "unlicensed" lemonade stand so you can live. It's not like that at all. (That's more along the lines of how The Blue Line Gang operates.)

Instead, in such a case, someone has chosen to show you they don't value your life. I would say they also don't value their own life as much as they value their desire for attacking you or taking your stuff. They are trading their life for their desire to violate you. They decided on the "game", they know the rules, so the outcome is on them when it doesn't go how they'd like.

It's not that they "lose their right to self-defense" once they attack you. Rights can't be "lost". But their right to self-defense doesn't do away with your right to self-defense, your right to not be molested, and your right to not have your property rights damaged-- at their hands. In the current circumstance, chosen by the archator, you have the biggest stack of rights at stake. I hope when the smoke clears the archator is on the losing end. Every time. If fairness were a feature of reality, that's how it would be. Since it isn't, you need to do all you can to stack the deck in your favor.

The bad guys, including the anti-liberty bigots, aren't going to cut you any slack.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Let me see your ID first"

Cody Wilson's situation really bothers me. Aside from the ridiculously statist "age of consent" stuff which goes against biological and mental reality (not discounting the real age of consent which is going to vary among individuals, and probably isn't any of your business to determine for someone else).

One thought that keeps running through my mind is that believers in the State must expect everyone to swap "government-issued ID" when they meet (and be able to tell if it is "real"), just in case anything happens later on. Maybe they believe the State should issue "Approved for Sex" cards, with age restrictions on which partners you're allowed, of course. Otherwise you are going to have to rely on someone's word, and people lie (and believe lies) when they really want something. And you can't always rely on what your eyes tell you about someone's age.

Years ago, there was a mom and daughter who regularly came into the pet shop where I worked. Both of them flirted with me a lot, and I flirted back. It was all completely innocent, but I really did like them both and thought they were both very attractive. I think "hot" was the word which came to mind.

One day they were in the shop and the daughter told me it was her birthday. I told her "happy birthday!" and asked how old she was.

I had always figured she was 16 or 17; maybe a bit older. She certainly looked and acted like she was.

She said, "I'm 12".

I was totally shocked and didn't believe her, but her mom confirmed it. Maybe her mom was lying in order to play a joke on me, but if so, she never admitted it.

So, all the time we had been flirting, she had been 11 or younger? The other store employees gave me a lot of good-natured ribbing over that-- having overheard the whole thing. But they admitted they thought she was much older, too. I should be thankful the pair of them never offered me a threesome.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.