Can you afford the water ransom?

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 30, 2019)

A tax increase for the near-mythical water project has been recommended. This illustrates one danger of allowing government to control access to water.

To propose a tax is to admit failure. They couldn't find a voluntary way to do what they want so they'll send the guns of government to loot the society-- in this case through an annual ransom on property; a "property tax".

A reliable supply of drinkable water is critical. The responsible, difficult, and adult way to handle the situation is to find a consensual way to provide water. Let the market handle it, without interference from government.

A proposal which involves holding a gun to your neighbors' heads and demanding their money is no solution. All who choose this path need to be tarred, feathered, run out of town, and their job should be abolished.

To pretend this isn't what you're doing when you propose a tax or a tax increase is to lie to yourself.

Sometimes taxes are excused as the sensible way to collect the money to pay for something which must be funded. It doesn't matter how necessary you believe it is, theft is never necessary, ethical, or reasonable. Rather, it is childish, irresponsible, and antisocial. There is nothing I want bad enough to send government collectors to your door to force you to pay for it. If something can't be funded voluntarily, without threats, it means no one wants it bad enough yet. No job, service, or product is worth taxation.

Yes, the price for something might go up for participants if everyone else isn't forced to "pay up" against their will. The product or service might even become unavailable. To pretend you're saving money through a tax, while not counting the tax in calculating the price of the product, is dishonest.

Let people pay the market rate for what they want, do without if they don't want to pay, and let charity help those who can't pay. That's the civilized way to do things.

People dismiss libertarians for insisting "Taxation is theft", but what else is it when someone's rightful property is taken against their will by force or threat of force? It's no better than a common mugging. In fact, it's less honest. Even if you believe it's necessary because "that's how it has always been done".

Some say "Taxation is the price we pay for a civilized society". Not true. Civilized society is something humans occasionally achieve in spite of uncivilized acts like taxation.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Winchester

Happy belated birthday to Oliver Winchester. I got this from Ammo.com, with permission to post it all on my site. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a way to include the links which were in the original-- and I tried several times.

...

Oliver Winchester was born in Boston, on November 30, 1810. He started his career with a clothing company based out of New York City and New Haven, Connecticut. After successfully running this aspect of his business, Winchester began to look for new opportunities. Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson (yes, that “Smith & Wesson” who later formed the Smith & Wesson Revolver Company) acquired and improved a rifle design with the help of shop foreman, Benjamin Tyler Henry. Talk about a genius cluster! In 1855, they began to manufacture what would be known as the “Volcanic” lever-action rifle. The company would become incorporated as the Volcanic Repeating Arms Company; its largest stockholder was Oliver Winchester.

After limited success with this new rifle, Winchester seized the opportunity to take control over the failing company and renamed it the New Haven Arms Company. Although initial returns were slow, Benjamin Henry, the company’s leading engineer, improved the Volcanic repeating rifle’s design by enlarging the frame and magazine to accommodate the all-new brass cased .44 caliber cartridge. This ingenuity put the company on the map, and in 1860, the patent for the infamous Henry rifle was issued. The next six years of production produced over 12,000 Henry, many of which were used in the Civil War. In the following months, Benjamin Henry, angered over what he believed was inadequate compensation, filed a lawsuit for ownership of the company. Oliver Winchester hastenly reorganized the company as the Winchester Repeating Arms Company to circumvent this issue.

The Model 1866 soon rolled out as the first Winchester rifle. Based on the Henry rifle, it came with an improved magazine and a wooden forend. In the following years, larger caliber rifles such as the infamous Model 1873, “The Gun That Won The West”, brought more notoriety and foundation to the company. Although Mr. Winchester would miss the opportunity to see his company’s greatest achievements; he passed away in December of 1880.

Winchester Repeating Arms Company’s collaboration with John Browning brought about much success with a host of shotguns, including the still produced Model 1885. The turn of the 20th century hosted a series of new arms developments, many from the top engineer at the time, T.C. Johnson. But it was the start of the First World War that set development and production requirements into full force. The company became a major producer of the .30-06 M1917 Enfield rifle for the United States military, and worked once more with Browning to develop the .50 caliber BMG.


During the war, the company borrowed heavily to finance the expansion. In an attempt to pay down its debt following the war’s end, they used their surplus production capacity to manufacture consumer goods such as kitchen knives, roller skates, and refrigerators. The strategy was a failure, and the Great Depression sent the company into bankruptcy. John M. Olin’s Western Cartridge Company purchased the Winchester Repeating Arms Company at auction in 1931, with plans to restore the brand to its former glory. The Second World War helped this cause tremendously as Winchester produced the U.S. M1 Carbine and the M1 Garand rifle during this time period.

Over the following decades, the Olin Winchester-Western division struggled with rising labor costs and other companies’ cast-and-stamped production methods. By 1980, Olin decided to sell the company back to its employees, which re-incorporated as the U.S. Repeating Arms Company. Olin retained the Winchester ammunition business. U.S. Repeating Arms went bankrupt in 1989, and after a number of sellouts to forgien holdings companies, the New Haven plant closed its doors on January 16, 2006, after 140 years of producing rifles and shotguns.

In August of 2006, Olin Corporation, owner of Winchester trademarks, entered a new license deal with Browning to make Winchester brand rifles and shotguns once again. The Model 1885, Model 1892, and Model 1886 are all produced by Miroku Corporation of Japan, then imported to the U.S. by Browning. Currently, Fabrique Nationale d’Herstal (FN) makes the remainder of Winchester’s rifle and shotgun lineup in various locations around Europe.

Winchester-branded ammunition continues to be produced by the Olin Corporation. Some of the most successful cartridges ever invented have been under the Winchester name: the .44-40 WCF, the .30-30 WCF, the .32 Winchester Special, the .50 BMG, the .270 Winchester, the .308 Winchester (the commercial version of the 7.62x51mm NATO), the .243 Winchester, the .22 WMR (aka the .22 Magnum), and the .300 Winchester Magnum. In North America, the .30-30 and .308 Winchester are some of the best selling cartridges in firearm history.

Through its history, the Winchester name has experienced great successes and significant failures; but it’s truly an important story to know in the realm of firearms. Here’s to the man that started it all, happy birthday to Mr. Oliver Winchester.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Ending prohibition

https://www.endthedrugwar.org/

Recently Scott Adams seemed bewildered as to why some state or big city government in America doesn't at least try total drug legalization.

Once again it appears I understand something his radical government supremacism doesn't allow him to understand.

Why doesn't The State do the one thing that would make the drug cartels collapse completely? Because ending prohibition-- the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs-- is that one thing. Not more "laws", not harsher penalties, not invading Mexico, and not building a wall. Not anything which empowers or enriches government employees. Only taking government out of the equation would accomplish anything worthwhile.

And that's why they won't do it.

It would reduce the power and wealth of the losers who depend on prohibition-- not only the losers running the drug cartels-- but also the politicians, the legislation enforcement gang, and the prison employees. Prohibition is welfare for useless archators.

Your life and safety are of no consequence to those losers if it means giving up some money and power.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Questions for "sofa"

These are questions that come to mind while reading the comments made by "sofa". I've already said if he can come up with a plan-- which doesn't include archation-- which would make him (and others who share his concerns) feel better about moving beyond the government era, I would help promote it. But I need to understand some things more completely.

What do you mean when you speak of cartels? If you're speaking of "drug cartels" why not promote the only tactic that can defeat them now: the complete end of prohibition?
Why do you believe they would be worse than the current government cartels?
How large do you expect them to be?
What do you expect them to do?
What would be their reason for attacking a universally-armed society and what would they want to accomplish by doing so? What would they expect to gain?
How would they "win" without a bureaucratic/political infrastructure ("government") to take over and control? Without anyone "authorized" to surrender on everyone's behalf?

Do you believe there are people who like the military way of life enough that they would organize similarly in a free society? They would be free to do so, without asking permission of a government, in such a situation.
Do you think they'd end up with the abandoned military tools after the government era ends?
Do you believe "lone wolves" who have no use for joining a group would be thrilled to act as snipers and assassins against invaders/cartels?
Would you, personally, fight back-- overtly or covertly-- against cartel thugs going through your neighborhood. Or would you at least assist the resistance?
Do you think the new cartel would be viewed as "legitimate" as is the current government cartel so that few would risk fighting back due to social consequences?

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Happy Thanksgiving

I am thankful for all my readers and especially thankful to my donors and subscribers. Really. Thank you all!

And if you want some reading today, check out this Thanksgiving history from Ammo.com.

~Kent

.

What I want for Christmas 2021

I know all the reasons I shouldn't like Tesla vehicles. I resent the government subsidies, I know the limitations of battery-powered vehicles better than most, and I don't like the way new cars spy on you and theoretically allow others to take control.

But I want a Cybertruck anyway.

It's as if my old Citicar and a DeLorean mated and gave birth to this vehicle; the first Tesla I've ever really liked. I know it will change a lot before (if) it hits the market, but I like the prototype a lot.

I guess it's time to start saving up pennies and nickels for one or hoping someone decides to buy me one for Christmas.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Black and white or shades of gray?

Yes, some things-- perhaps most things-- are "shades of gray" rather than "black and white".

However, there are things which are "black and white". The "shades of gray" vs "black and white" distraction is just that: a distraction. It's not either/or. Even most "shades of gray" scales include black and white at the opposite ends.

Those who want to get away with or excuse evil will be desperate to fool you into thinking there's no "black and white"; that's it's all gray. This is dishonest. There are grays, but there is also black and white.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Legislation, laws not the same thing

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 23, 2019)

How much do you respect and obey laws? How much should you? I suppose that depends on what you mean by "laws".

Most people confuse legislation for laws. Laws were discovered-- usually thousands of years ago-- while legislation is made up by politicians and imposed under threat of violence as if it were law. Occasionally, legislation is written to copy or reflect law, but not often.

Law concerns respecting the rights of others, while legislation is almost entirely written to give excuses for government to violate individual rights. Thus "don't murder" is a law, while "pay this tax" is legislation.

Laws don't need to be written down for you to have the right to defend your life, liberty, or property from violators. Nor do laws have to be enforced. People must only be allowed to defend themselves and others from anyone who violates law.

Since most people use the word "law" for legislation, I'll make things simple and switch to following the common usage below. Just keep the difference in mind.

I have lived in many places. Each time I moved to a new place I was subjected to a new set of laws. I never felt glad about the laws which were being enforced in my new location. Not even once. I have, however, often been glad about the laws which either hadn't been written or weren't being enforced.

I'm much more likely to comply with a harmless policy, even if it's arbitrary, if I'm asked nicely than I am if someone puts it into legislative language and turns it into a threat. I see all laws as a negative; a drain on society. The fewer laws, the better.

In the Tao Te Ching, written in the 6th century BCE, Lao Tzu wrote: "The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become...The more laws and commands there are, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

So. thousands of years ago, smart people had already realized that laws aren't good for society. Politicians and their hired guns still pretend otherwise.

I once asked a retired deputy sheriff-- a former legislation enforcement officer--  whether something was "legal". He replied, "By the time a person sits down to breakfast they've already broken a bunch of laws, so don't worry about it. Just live the best you can without harming anyone else and you'll be better than most people."

Great advice for everyone, unless you suffer from a law fetish.

See also: Law, legislation, or Unholy Writ

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

You can't violate the imaginary

"You and I don't have any rights."

This statement is often followed by a list of ways political government violates our rights, "proving" we have no rights. But if we have no rights, how can government violate them?

The "We have no rights" claim is a circular argument just like the "Rights don't exist" claim. They both just lead back around to absurdities.

Every human on the planet has equal and identical rights. And once humans leave Earth their rights will go with them wherever they end up.

Will those rights be violated by someone? Guaranteed! So?

If I tie you up so you can't use your arms and then claim that since you can't use your arms you have no arms, is anyone going to buy that argument? Doubtful. That some make it nearly impossible to exercise your rights doesn't mean those rights don't exist-- they are just being violated.

Now, I could chop off your arms and claim you have no arms-- and I think you would agree I have a point, but arms are material while rights are immaterial. The only way to "remove" your rights is to kill you. And if you have no rights, where's the problem with that?

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Selective Outrage Theatrics

Selective outrage combined with Outrage theatrics brings you Selective Outrage Theatrics.

This is what I see going on all around me when people who ignored the crimes and abuses of Obama (and ALL previous presidents) act as though Trump is something uniquely evil-- something entirely new. It's all about Trump all the time (he probably loves it). My eyes hurt from all the involuntary rolling.

It's just the normal progression of statism. Trump doesn't fall outside the parameters. He's more of the same in the way I've always expected presidents to be. It's only a problem if you want to "look up to" politicians and think political government is a legitimate institution-- like a circus or something.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Searching for convenient stumbling blocks

Those who wish to live voluntarily among others, neither ruling nor being ruled, but in liberty, without propping up any institution of collective archation, just do so.

And, yes, there will always be bad guys trying to molest them in one way or another. You can live a healthy lifestyle and still get a disease, after all. You can't suspend reality.

Those who don't want to live voluntarily will always have a ready list of excuses for why they can't. Why it won't work. They'll expend more effort looking for ways to avoid living in liberty-- which some of them even say they want-- than they would by just doing it.

The hypothetical scenario is one of their favorite stumbling blocks. Sure, consider the hypotheticals, but don't wait for them to be answered just the way you want. Start living-- now. And if you need an answer to the hypotheticals that badly, come up with an answer on your own and share it with the rest of us. Let the market of ideas weigh and measure your answer. Then you can catch up to the rest of us when you're ready-- or you can take your own path and see where it leads. Who's stopping you?

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Lather, rinse, repeat

Why bother to eat? You know that even if you do you'll just get hungry soon and have to eat again. Even any pleasure you experience from the taste of the food will be fleeting. Pointless.

And bathing? Ugh. Why? No matter how clean you get yourself, you're just going to end up naturally collecting filth as soon as you step out of the water. It's inevitable. You might as well give in and let yourself get crusty. Be pragmatic and wear perfumed clothes-- but then you'd only have to keep applying perfume and washing your clothes, so maybe not. Don't be Utopian.

And anarchy? How long do you think it would last before some fool establishes a government again? Might as well just accept it and work with what you've got instead of hitting the "reset button".

Anything that may have to be repeated regularly or from time to time can't work. At least, that's what I'm always being told.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Confidence

Confidence comes with competence.

As an example, I am confident I can make a fire under just about any conditions. This is because I've learned and practiced making fires using many different methods and in just about every condition. I am fairly competent at firemaking. I want to be even better.

Similarly, the more I learn about liberty, the more confident I am that it is appropriate, and works, everywhere-- as long as it is used. I can rely on it and I don't feel the need to archate due to a lack of competence. I am fairly competent at understanding and applying liberty. I want to be even better.

But I have little confidence in those areas (car repair being one) where my competence is low. Know your limitations-- and if you want, smash those limitations by gaining competence. The confidence will come.

Of course, some marginally competent people often overestimate their competence and have inflated confidence because of this. More practice can be a way to find out if this applies to you (or me), but I've noticed the people most in need of this awareness avoid practicing, preferring to talk about it instead.

Never stop learning. Never stop practicing. If it doesn't work, learn more; practice more under harsher conditions. Let your confidence come from real competence.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Who "deserves" rights?

If you believe individual liberty is only for American citizens or that it is somehow created by the U.S feral government (or the documents establishing that gang), you are confused.

I actually saw someone making the claim that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to anyone but American citizens. That everyone else is fair game for whatever the U.S. government chooses to do to them-- in America or abroad-- because they don't have "American rights".

Wrong. The Bill of Rights made violating natural individual human rights by the U.S. feral government a crime (but did nothing to prevent it from happening). It didn't say whose rights were not to be violated; it said who wasn't allowed to do the violating.

If you say it's a crime for me to murder people, do you then say this only applies to me murdering people with red hair? No. The prohibition is on my actions, not on who my victims might be.

And rights don't come from government, anyway.

Liberty is a universal human right. If you believe it comes from some government-- any government-- or any government's documents, you are missing the reality.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Grateful I don't live in California

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 16, 2019)

Sometimes it's hard to remember to be thankful for life's little blessings. Recently I was reminded to be grateful I don't live in California.

My electricity went out for a little while a few days ago, but the power company was on-the-ball and power was restored in no time; long before it could have become inconvenient for anyone but the least prepared among us.

By contrast, the electric utility in California plans to shut off power to hundreds of thousands of its paying customers. On purpose. For hours or days or however long they feel is necessary-- without much warning or a chance to properly prepare-- to prevent their substandard system from starting wildfires.

Do you think this will cause many Californians-- both those personally affected and those who aren't-- to start taking the idea of "prepping" seriously? I have my doubts, but I'll hope.

For most of my life, people have either joked about those who prepared for emergencies, calling them paranoid, or they quipped "If society collapses, I'll just come to your house." Showing up empty-handed at the house of someone who has spent years of planning and piles of money for just such a crisis will only be welcomed if the residents of the house are out of meat and hungry enough to consider adding you to the menu.

If you don't value your own life enough to plan for emergencies and put those plans into action, why should anyone risk their own life and the lives of their children to save you?

Anyone should be able to see the value of preparing for natural disasters, and political disasters-- like the one playing out in California-- may become more common in the coming years. "It's not political!" you say? Sure it is. When political deals grant a power utility a monopoly over an area, and state laws and "green energy" policies prevent proper infrastructure, capacity, and maintenance, then the problem is political, no matter who you would rather blame.

It's even more directly political when laws require a prepper to handicap himself by staying hooked to the electrical grid and shut off his system in the event of a blackout so as to not have an advantage over his less-prepared neighbors-- as is the case in California.

Any real solution begins with barring politics from the discussion. Then, plan for what happens if politicians interfere anyway. And take a moment to be grateful you don't live in California.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

My out-of-control pro-Republican bias

I don't believe in politics. It is not a legitimate way to deal with others. I don't believe in political government. Not of any sort. I have no use for such stupidity.

I don't need or want a president, any congressvermin, a mayor, police, courts, or any other "government representation" or service.

I'm opposed to both Republicans and Democrats.

However, I admit I am ever-so-slightly more biased against Democrats. Not much more, but it's there. Partly due to personal experiences and partly due to upbringing.

But that also means I can be harder on Republicans. I am slightly more likely to be disappointed in Republicans because I expect nothing from Democrats-- even in those areas where I agree with them. Republicans have a history of sometimes saying the right thing while doing the wrong thing-- but they also say plenty of the wrong things, just like Democrats. And somehow I believe they ought to know better even though they keep proving me wrong.

And even when either side-- as if they were different sides-- say the right things, they say them for all the wrong reasons.
"Legalize it (so government can tax it)!"
"From my cold, dead hands (because I need to protect muh flag from them ferriners)!"

Politics makes people stupid.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Libertarianism doesn't fail

In spite of assurances to the contrary, I have never once seen libertarianism/abolitionism/voluntaryism/anarchism fail when used in the real world.

Yes, people frequently fail to use it, but that's their failure. It rests nowhere else.

Libertarianism is a tool. It's always the right tool for the job when you're talking of human interaction-- among individuals or societies. Yes, there are other tools you can use-- none of them are as good and all of which are harmful to individuals.

You wouldn't blame the tool for the failure when people don't use the proper tool when it's offered. It's not the hammer's fault if someone rejects the hammer you offer them and pick up a rock to use instead. That would be silly.

Sure, people could get by using a rock to drive in nails, but a good hammer is going to work better whether or not they use one. Same goes for libertarianism.

You can use archation-- the state/political government-- to create a semblance of a society. But to make the claim that society needs archation is to ignore the fact that society and political government are mutually exclusive.

A society may exist in parallel with a state, but it exists in spite of it, not because of it. Never mistake some expression of statism for a functioning society because it isn't one.

And this brings up a point: maybe giant groups of humans-- what is taken for "society" by most people today, simply can't work for our species. It might be disturbing to consider, but it might still be reality.

You can't keep a single, solitary bee alive, healthy, and functioning-- not as a bee.
Perhaps you similarly can't have a healthy, functioning hive of humans-- this is the level where The State always arises. Would this fact upset you if it were true?

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Have principles (and gun)-- will travel

I recently got a boxed set of DVDs at Goodwill of the (first season of the) old western Have Gun-- Will Travel. I used to watch the show on Netflix... before they removed it while I was in the middle of binge-watching it a few years ago.

I have to say I really like Paladin. That show may be the most libertarian Western TV show I've seen.

I tend to rate fictional characters' actions as to whether I would have done the same thing in their situation. Paladin comes closest to what I would do (assuming I were as skilled and charismatic as the character, I mean). At least, his actions don't usually raise any red flags-- even though he still has way more respect for certain state institutions than I could ever have. He does occasionally do things I wouldn't have done-- things I consider archation-- but not that often.

It's a show I really enjoy.

What shows do you find most libertarian, and do you enjoy them?

(I have internet once again! Finally!)

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Cannabis isn't "Black market"

Dealing in Cannabis is no longer a real "Black Market" activity; it is now more like a Gray Market activity in those places where the backward legislation continues to regulate it in some way.

And make no mistake-- all legislation is backward.

Cannabis is legal, except that some locations still legislate against it, other places demand their piece of the action, and other places insist you only buy certain types of it from certain sellers. None of which is legitimate in the slightest. Just like gun "laws".

And it was never wrong to begin with.

(I'm told I may get internet today!)

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Internet update.

I was misled about when the internet would be hooked up at the house. They are now saying the 20th.

I'll try to take my laptop to my parents' house to use their WiFi so I can start posting again before then.

I'm pretty unhappy with the situation, but it's not the fault of the internet provider.

.