Theft

Theft isn't just one thing, It is a broad category of archation. It includes-- mugging, fraud, extortion, taxation, fines, fees, eminent domain, licensing, counterfeiting, burglary, etc.

There's not an OK type of theft.

Some forms of theft are less deadly in practice than others. Sometimes only because of the likelihood of the victim's cooperation in the face of overwhelming force and numbers.

Some kinds of theft are more "honest" than others. Any theft where the thief tries to pretend he's not a thief is the most dishonest kind of theft.

Theft is always wrong, no matter how you try to justify it and no matter what you say you'll spend some of the plunder on.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Time to roast the Peacock

Years ago I seem to have signed up for email "news alerts" from one of the original old "mainstream news" corporations. I don't remember why. I've never bothered to unsubscribe because until the past couple of years I didn't get that many alerts, but when I did, they were about actual events; news. Things like earthquakes, mass murders, hurricanes, plane crashes, and stuff of that sort. That has changed during the Trump years.

Now I get a few "alerts" every day, and the majority of them are designed to do one thing only: to disparage Trump. Why bother? I don't care one way or the other.

I hate that I have to say this again, but if I don't I will be misinterpreted (I probably will be anyway): I don't like or support Trump or any other president, past, present, or future. I do not respect the office, nor do I believe it is even slightly legitimate.

But what amazes me is the amount of effort this "news organization" is putting towards trashing Trump. The contrast with the way they treated Obama makes this even more obvious. And disgusting. I get it: the mainstream media hates Trump. OK. It doesn't mean you have to stretch to find people who hate Trump to quote. Or report on things you think Trump might have been thinking, or whatever. That's not newsworthy, it's just desperate. It makes you look as bad as you are hoping it makes Trump look. Some days, even worse.

I'm occasionally interested in news. I'm not interested in the "news'" opinions on Trump. Or on the "Democratic candidates" either. Politics isn't automatically news; in fact, it rarely is.

This has finally inspired me to do what I should have done many years ago. I have unsubscribed from their "news alerts". It was past time.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Don't force your crutch on others

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 29, 2019)

A few years ago I was hiking down a trail in Colorado. Exploring trails-- and off trails-- is probably my favorite activity. After a few hours, I decided I needed to turn around and head back. It was past mid-afternoon, on my last day of vacation, and I needed to pack and get ready for the drive home.

I doubt I had walked even a hundred feet when my natural klutziness struck and I twisted my ankle. Hard.

I was in agony, and the realization that I had miles to walk made it even worse. After I stopped hopping on one foot and finished expressing my immense discomfort, I resigned myself to the long walk ahead. I found a sturdy branch I could use as a crutch and started to hobble on down the trail. It took some effort, but I made it out before dark.

My ankle was swollen and discolored for a month. If not for the improvised crutch, my situation would have been worse.

Crutches were a good invention. Thousands of years after someone came up with the idea, they are still useful. Using a crutch may not be ideal, but it's better than the alternative. It allows someone to get around when they might not otherwise be able to without crawling.

If you need a crutch, use one.

However, not everyone needs a crutch. It's not nice to kick other people in the kneecap just because you want them to use a crutch. Nor would it be right to force others to pay for your crutch. It's different if someone volunteers to provide a crutch when they see a person in need.

Government is a crutch. I don't want or need it. I don't want you to force me to use it, nor to hurt me so I feel as though I have no choice. I don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's government, nor do I think it's nice when those who use this crutch go around whacking innocent people over the head with its laws "just because" they feel like it.

Plus, in every case today, there are better solutions. You could fix the problem so no crutch is necessary. When the underlying problem can't be permanently fixed, there are still better tools to use.

Even if I need a crutch-- or a government-- I have no right to force one on you against your will. Why would anyone do something so antisocial?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Government property

Governments-- States-- cannot legitimately own anything.

Everything they possess or control was either stolen from someone or fraudulently "bought" with stolen/counterfeited money.

A thief doesn't own the stolen goods he possesses or controls.

You can't "steal government property".
You can't "trespass on government property".
But you can be molested, kidnapped, robbed, caged, and murdered for acting on this truth. Thieves are very aggressively protective of what they imagine to be theirs.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Open-mindedness

You should keep an open mind about most things. Yet, as The Old People like to clarify, "Not so open that your brains fall out".

How can you tell the difference?

You don't need to be open-minded to every obviously bad idea: toward murder, rape, theft, kidnapping or other acts of archation. Being open-minded to these is a sign that your brains have fallen out. Closed-mindedness to things of this sort is wisdom.

But pretty much everything else is a good topic to keep your mind open on. You never know when someone might have a good perspective you never considered before. You might even discover you were wrong.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The freedom to listen

Freedom of speech is mirrored by the freedom to hear that speech. They are two sides of the same coin.

Freedom of speech is meaningless if no one is allowed to listen, or if listening is made so difficult that it doesn't happen.

Government is prohibited from censoring speech by the First Amendment (which they routinely get away with ignoring). As I see it, this also means they are prohibited from keeping you from finding and listening to any speech you want to hear.

The Bill of Rights isn't generally thought to apply to government-created corporations (which I see as part of government), but if your corporation censors or prevents people from listening, I'll consider you the bad guy.

You have the natural human right to listen, with or without the First Amendment or any other document.

Governments and corporations have no rights; rights are individual only. Don't violate the right to speak or to listen.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Supporting your abuser

I suppose if you firmly believe your abusive boyfriend protects you from ghosts, demons, and other potentially abusive boyfriends you might otherwise end up with, you're going to accept the abuse. Or downplay it.

It's the same if you believe a government protects you from other governments and "cartels".

Is it Stockholm Syndrome or something even darker?

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Trusting cops to do the right thing

I don't understand those who desperately claim that "at least half of the police officers will refuse to enforce a gun confiscation".

Based on what evidence? The cops who currently refuse to enforce prohibition and all the anti-gun "laws" already on the books?

How's that working for ya, copsuckers?

Just because cops own and carry guns on the "job" doesn't make them "pro gun rights".

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The things I'll do for money...

Just a heads-up: I'm going to be super busy over the next week and a half, working at a fireworks stand (ironic, since I don't really like fireworks). Mostly I'll be providing overnight "security", but probably doing some selling, too. I'm hoping I can find some time to sleep. You know how desperate I always am for money.

I've scheduled posts for (most of) those days (still working on it), but I wanted you to know what's going on, just in case one day gets skipped, or your comment languishes unnoticed a while.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Legal" or "Lawful"

Ah. Counting on magic words to save you.

Recently I saw someone make a desperate appeal to their perception of a difference between "legal" and "lawful". They were attempting to make a "founding father" look like something other than the nasty old statist he was, by their tortured interpretation of something he had said about "lawful authority".

The fellow trying to justify the dead statist's words was trying to claim that "lawful" meant "in accordance with natural law", as opposed to "legal", which meant only that someone made up some legislation and called it a law.

Not that there can be any political "authority" in accordance with natural law, but whatever.

Still, I was willing to consider his point, so I looked up the two words in question.

legal-- permitted by law; lawful; of or relating to law; connected with the law or its administration.
appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law.

Oops. That "lawful" in there is terribly inconvenient. But, moving right along...

lawful-- allowed or permitted by law; not contrary to law; legitimate; appointed or recognized by law; acting or living according to the law.

Trying to read any meaningful difference into those definitions is an impossible task.

However, I'm sympathetic. I know dictionaries are often wrong; relying on incorrect (but popular and common) usage for their definitions. Look how often they conflate "anarchy" with "chaos" for example.

So, when there's good reason to stray from a bad dictionary definition, I support that move completely.

But, to try to find a good definition for a word so that you can feel good about an old, dead statist is probably pointless if liberty is something you value.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Preferences provide opportunities

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 22, 2019)

Preferences are a personal thing. Some people prefer dogs while others prefer cats, and some like both species equally. None of these choices is wrong, even if one choice might make more sense or be more right for some people.

If dogs are preferred, there are those who prefer large dogs and others who prefer small dogs. Some people prefer aggressive dogs while other people want a more sociable dog.

It's all OK unless your preference is to prevent others from making their own choice based on their personal preferences.

If you decide your preference for large sociable dogs means cats should be banned or tightly regulated, and small, aggressive dogs must be confiscated and destroyed, your preference has crossed the line. It is no longer acceptable; it's antisocial.

Even if the majority of people take your side.

Yes, there are acts which aren't the same as preferences. You can't just say your preference is to break into houses and steal what you want instead of earning money with mutually voluntary trade to pay for those things. Well, you can say that's your preference but no one is obligated to sit by while you act on it. Anyone has the right to stop you when your preference violates others.

Very few of the things people choose between harm anyone. You might be bewildered by someone's choice. You might even believe it's immoral. Unless it "picks your pocket or breaks your leg"-- to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson-- it's your responsibility to mind your business.

Differing preferences provide opportunities. If everyone liked the same thing, there would be no need to make different kinds of food. Generic "Human Chow" would be good enough. Everyone could wear the same style clothing, in the same color. All cars could be identical.

Life would never have a chance to improve because there would be no reason to experiment with different things. Look how many innovations were stumbled upon by accident. Often the underlying cause was someone trying to fulfill their own, or a pool of potential customers', preferences; some which are known and others which are a mystery even to those who possess them.

It would be sad if everyone were the same and liked the same things. I'm glad people like different stuff. It exposes me to things I might not otherwise experience, it gives me options and enriches my life. And it might someday introduce me to something I had no idea I was going to love.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Libertarianism is the balance

One objection I frequently see against libertarianism is that it's "too extreme". "There needs to be a balance between the extremes of libertarianism and fascism" (as illustrated by "border enforcement" and so forth).

This misses the reality.

(Of course, the act of governing others won't be referred to as fascism. Statists aren't that self-aware or honest. They'll call it "rule of law" or will conflate political government with society. You can use whatever substitute terms you wish, as long as you keep this in mind.)

The extreme ends of the spectrum are not libertarianism and fascism-- the extremes are nihilism and fascism. Libertarianism is the healthy balance which avoids both of the toxic extremes. It's the only way to avoid ruin.

Libertarianism is not "extreme" unless your wish is to watch the world burn; unless you want to kill off everyone with your chosen politics. If you choose something other than libertarianism you are choosing one of the deadly extremes. You are choosing to be extreme in defense of something indefensible.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Shooting down drones

If you don't want your drone to be shot down, keep it over your own property. Any drone that isn't over property you own or rent, at a minimum, is fair game.

This doesn't change just because you are a government.

In fact, since governments can't legitimately own anything, government drones are always fair game. I might give the US government license to fly its drones over the Pentagon, White House, or Capitol building, but nowhere else. No, they don't own those properties either, but I'm willing to compromise that much. At least until they are a threat to adjacent property owners, anyway.

If your drone is over someone else's property, it is trespassing and they have the right to shoot it down. They aren't required to... if you are on friendly terms with them maybe they won't.

If your drone is over "international waters", it's not over your property and shooting it down is a legitimate action. Especially if it is a government military drone. This is because drones "owned" by governments are weapons of war, and their presence is a credible threat to archate.

Keep your drones at home and you won't have to get whiney or become a puffed-up bully when someone shoots one down.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Wrong opinions

There are wrong opinions. An opinion is a belief, and a lot of beliefs are simply wrong.

I know that's not a nice thing to point out, but it's true. Your opinion-- your belief-- may be that "taxation" isn't theft and therefore isn't wrong. But it is, no matter what your opinion on the matter may be.

Your opinion might be that the Earth is a flat disk. But it isn't.

Your opinion might be that anyone who destroys their own copy of Holy Pole Quilt should be punished. That's a sick, superstitious opinion, and yes: that opinion is wrong.

You are "entitled" to your opinion. You can be as wrong as you want to be. However, no one is obligated to behave as though your opinion is valid when it's wrong. They don't have to respect a wrong opinion.

Facts don't care about your opinions. You should care if your opinions don't match the facts, but for too many people, that's hard, and it would invalidate their most dearly held opinions. So they won't do that.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"One could argue..."

That's a phrase I frequently see at the beginning of some rather strange assumptions and some bizarrely incoherent "arguments".

Well, sure, "one could argue" anything at all. Doesn't make the argument correct.

"One could argue" that there's no such thing as right or wrong; that anything is permissible to do to other people. That's basically the statist argument. As long as government passes a "law" allowing an act, "one could argue" that it's OK. Or, if government makes up a "law" prohibiting something, "one could argue" that it's bad. There's no real right or wrong, just legal or illegal.

"One could argue" that there's no such thing as biological sex (chromosomes = Hate!). It's all about the linguistic term "gender"-- it's just cultural and you can "identify as" whatever you feel like. Today. And you can change your mind again tomorrow.

"One could argue" that rights are imaginary. That you only have the rights you can kill to defend. I guess this excuses those who don't want to stick their necks out and defend people who are being violated and aren't able to defend themselves.

It has rarely been the case that I see the phrase "one could argue" as a lead-in to anything sensible.
"One could argue" it's a phrase that isn't very useful for reaching truth.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Time again for some random acts of ANARCHY

Yeah, you know what I'm talking about.
But if you need a refresher, you can get that from this link.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Perfection is not an option

I don't expect perfection.

Not from people, places, situations, or... whatever else there is.

You are going to have no real choice but to drive on some government roads. You are going to have no choice but to use some things government paid for with money it stole. You can barter and use silver for some trades, but fiat "money" is unavoidable. You may benefit in some roundabout way from government's unethical (and evil) actions which you oppose. That's reality.

You don't have to like it. You aren't condoning theft or government by using those things. Feel free to speak the truth about government roads even as you are driving on one. That's not hypocritical, it's just how things are. You make the best of what you've got.

I understand that some people view a government "job" the same way-- even though I strongly disagree. Still, as long as someone isn't actively promoting government supremacy or power, I will cut them some slack. A government-employed librarian is still better than a politician, a government-employed school "teacher", a member of the military, or a cop. Or, at least preferable in my view, since they aren't promoting government supremacy nor imposing government at the point of a gun.

But no one is perfect or pure.

To condemn yourself because you aren't perfect isn't healthy.

To condemn everyone else because of this reality isn't helpful. You're not helping those you condemn, nor are you helping yourself. You certainly aren't helping society (the interactions between individuals) nor the "cause" of liberty. Demanding the impossible from others (and, yes, in the present reality, it is impossible) causes harm.

What I do expect is that people do the best they can with the cards they've been dealt. Recognize that you have no right to archate, and if you feel you "must" anyway, accept the consequences of doing what you don't have a right to do.

This perfectionist viewpoint causes harm to those who hold and promote it.
This unpleasant reality is no justification for giving up and saying that because no one else lives up to your vision of perfection, you might as well embrace the state and use it against others. This is a destructive mindset. It gives off a foul odor. It looks and smells like hypocrisy to me.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Let people opt out of 'good ideas'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 15, 2019)

Would you rather live in a world where it's normal for people to try to convince each other of something, or a world where it's acceptable to just give an order and shoot anyone who doesn't immediately comply? I'm firmly in the "convince others" camp.

To convince people you've either got to have reasons or ways to play with their emotions. If you convince them with good reasons, the convincing sticks. If you use emotions, someone with stronger appeals to emotion will come along and get them to change their minds again.

If you rely on threats, as soon as the threat is out of sight they'll go back to their old path.

This is why I'd rather convince others with reasons and avoid using force. It doesn't matter to me what the issue is.

I prefer everything to be voluntary. Work together, ask for help, or do what you can on your own. Don't try to force anyone to join you. If you need to use threats or force, you probably ought not do it at all. I don't support or need those who use coercion.

In your personal life you probably already avoid force. I'm assuming you aren't a thief or murderer.

You and I don't need to be threatened and forced; it's only "those other people". Well, they see it the same way. Someone's got to be the first to grow up.

Gandhi is quoted as saying "Be the change you want to see in the world". It's true enough even if he never said it.

You don't need to wait for anyone else to do the right thing with you. You can start now. You don't have to wait until others join you or until they agree with you. You don't need to wait until the law changes to allow you to do the right thing. Yes, there's danger in stepping out first, but who said life is supposed to be safe? Do the right thing anyway.

Don't violate the rights of others. Liberty is the freedom to do everything you have a right to do; everything which doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights. Anyone who violates your liberty isn't one of the good guys.

Be big enough to let people opt out of your "good ideas" if they can't be convinced. Of course, you'll still need to defend yourself against people who refuse to cooperate. That's a fact of life nothing can ever change.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Funny tales and science-based advice

If you haven't yet discovered Amy Alkon, you're missing some smart fun.

I first encountered her when Michael Shermer (of Skeptic.com) interviewed her a while back. I was impressed.

So I found her blog. It was good, as well, and I've been reading it regularly since then.

Then a week or so back I found a copy of her book "I See Rude People" in Goodwill. Not wanting to leave it there for the unappreciative cretins (anyone who didn't already know who she is) to ignore, I bought it. I then read it. Great fun and humorous, while making a serious point (or several).

I enjoyed it so much that I emailed her to say so and to apologize for buying a second-hand copy instead of one where she'd profit from the sale.

Our brief exchange led me to buy the Kindle version of her newest book "Unf*ckology". It's really a good book. I think her advice is exceptionally well thought-out, and I've integrated some of her suggestions into my life already, with noticeable benefits. I highly recommend it.

She's also on Quora.

She self-identifies as libertarian but is more accepting of government than I am. (Who isn't?) I think you ought to give her a look.
(And no, she isn't paying me to say any of this, nor does she know about it, although I might-- or might not-- send her the link. So, no financial interest on my part, nor anything but a desire to introduce you to some writing you might like.)

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Best" president ever?

Trump? The "best"?

Well, sure, if you're desperately searching for a way to say something nice. But not for the reasons you might imagine.

I am not a Trump supporter, nor am I a supporter of any president, past, present, or future. I don't "respect the office" nor the people who attain it. Not one bit. Evil political parasites, all. I'm already against your next president.

However...

Congress seems to pose a greater danger to my life, liberty, and property than any president ever could. As long as the congressvermin stay distracted with trying to get Trump they are less focused on molesting the rest of us with their "laws" and such. Go, Trump!

Plus, Trump, building on the work of all his recent predecessors, continues their efforts to dismantle the credibility and illusory legitimacy of the office of president. That's a good thing.

Of course, I think William Henry Harrison is the president all presidents should strive to emulate. I want them all to follow his noble example.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.