Imagine someone dreaming this up today

If political government had never been invented, how insane would the idea sound if someone came up with it out of the blue?

If you hadn't grown up surrounded by people who buy into the bizarre notion of governing others, how willing would you be to live your life that way? Would you tolerate it?

Well, that's how crazy it sounds to me, and explains how willing I am to live surrounded by it. But there's nowhere left to flee to. And now the government-supremacists are seriously discussing how to govern Martian settlers in the near future. Won't they already have enough troubles?

-

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.

Income inequality

It's trendy to preach about the "evils" of income inequality, but I won't be joining the chorus. That someone else makes more money than me-- even a lot more-- doesn't harm me.

Income comes in because someone is providing something lots of people want. This want gives it value. There's no downside to me from that.

It doesn't directly matter to my finances how much money you have. In fact, I want you to be as rich as you possibly can, regardless of how much I have.

Now, if someone got their money through "the political means" then it's not "income" anyway (thieves don't own the stolen property they possess), so it can't really be part of this discussion. Using "the political means" in any manner to gain money is archation. As is the attempt to "solve" income inequality through "taxation" or any other political policy or legislation.

I don't judge my income by what anyone else makes, but by whether it is enough to meet my expenses this month.

Yes, I wish my income was a lot higher than it is. But someone else's higher income doesn't harm me in the slightest-- not even if their income is thousands of times what mine is. It might even help me if they choose to use some of that income in ways that make my life better. Rich people start businesses that improve my life; they fund good things, and they buy things. Sometimes, even from me.

I can disagree with how they use their money-- especially if they fund political violations of my life, liberty, and property, but that's not a problem with income inequality, it's a problem of ethics.

The sad reality is that my contribution to society isn't very income-generating. Nothing I've ever done has been. But that's not the fault of some random rich person out there. It's my fault. For me to whine about the income inequality between me and someone else would be a dumb waste of time and energy. It's childish. The other person is probably just contributing more than I am. Such is life. They may be smarter and better looking, too. Should I whine about that and demand the government gang step in and fix that inequality as well?

-

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.

Government is violence without respite

I've heard people say that without government, society is doomed to be violent. Disputes have to be settled in the middle of the night by armed gangs.
That government, on the other hand, brings its courts and such, which means it isn't as violent.

Ok...

I think they've gotten the levels of violence backward, and even worse, they are mistaking violence for aggression. And archation.

Anarchy isn't more violent than government. With government, Statists simply refuse to see the violence that is all around them, like the water surrounding a fish.

Whereas in a free society any violence is generally going to be occasional, for a specific purpose to a particular end, with government the violence is continual-- it never stops. People are robbed ("taxed") without relief. They are ruled by legislation which violates their life, liberty, and property in hundreds (or thousands) of ways, day and night. They live under the constant threat of being attacked by armed agents of the state-- more and more frequently, by armed gangs of state employees in the middle of the night. Anyone who believes this is better (as opposed to just being their preference) is delusional.

-

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.

Do you need evil? Time will tell

A gun is usually the most effective protection from (a person with) a gun. A gun isn't evil in and of itself. Your gun can be used for good to thwart a gun being used for evil.

That's because evil is an action-- a behavior-- not a thing or a person. Actions such as governing others and other forms of archation.

So, while a gun is often needed to protect you from a gun and from evil actions, that observation doesn't translate to actions. You don't need to commit evil to protect yourself from evil. Nor do you need to have others commit evil on your behalf to protect you from evil.

Do you need government to protect you from government?
Do you need a cartel to protect you from a cartel?
Do you need a mugger to protect you from muggers, or a rapist to protect you from rapists?
For that matter, do you need a mugger to protect you from a cartel?

I don't-- I just wonder if you do. Or if you imagine you do.

I guess if it turns out I'm delusional and I really do need those evil actions to protect me from evil actions, I won't survive to spread my flawed ideas into the future. My demise would be the sign I was wrong about not needing evil to protect me from evil and you should dismiss my opinions on the matter.

-

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.

Fear of the Unknown

Is cowardice a virtue? Were the Luddites right? Should we hunker under our beds, afraid of what might happen if we take a risk?

"I really think the mainstream idea that we can always make a mad dash for the black emptiness in the sky if things go to s**t here keeps us from truly confronting our urgent need to preserve the ecosystemic context in which we evolved, and which there’s no evidence that we can live without.
I mean, we don’t even know that space colonization is possible. As of yet we have no evidence at all that humans are sufficiently separate and separable from Earth’s biosphere for survival apart from our ecosystem to be a real thing. Humans aren’t really separate 'things'; they’re a symbiotic collaboration of organisms with ecosystems of their own, all of which as far as we know are entirely dependent on the greater ecosystem from which we blossomed. So far all our attempts at creating independent biospheres have failed miserably, and the closest we’ve come to living in space has consisted of nothing but glorified scuba excursions: visits to space stations fully dependent on a lifeline of terrestrial supplies. That’s the difference between flying and jumping. It might be as delusional as our brains thinking they can hop out of our skulls and live independently of our bodies, or some river eddies saying they’re moving to dry land." ~ Caitlin Johnstone*

And, she might even be right. The best way to find out is to try it. Not everyone, but some. Voluntarily. But she shouldn't be robbed ("taxed") to finance it. No one should.

One thing I know for sure is that the Earth has a hidden expiration date-- probably a very long time in the future, but we can't know that for sure. Most dangerous asteroids are discovered about the time they go whizzing past the planet-- far too late to do anything about them. And if you learn anything about cosmology you'll see that asteroids aren't the only planet killers lurking out there waiting to sterilize the surface of this planet.

Maybe I'm silly, but I want the human species to survive as long as possible. That can be longer if our species spreads beyond this one planet. Yes, Earth is wonderful and should be preserved. The Black is scary and dangerous and will try to kill you. But all discovery worth anything has risks. Would you be better off if you'd never left your crib?

"We don't even know... we have no evidence... as far as we know... might be..." So get out there and find out one way or the other for sure! Refusing to move because you don't know (yet) is not praiseworthy. You don't know until you try, and using fear as an excuse to not try is just sad.

-

*I find some of the best, and some of the most pathetic, quotes on The Enlightened Rogue's blog. They are always interesting in one way or another.

-

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.

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