Attempts to govern irresponsible

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 19, 2020)

There's a lot of irresponsibility and selfishness in the world around us. We can choose to not be part of it.

People who litter or dump their trash are childishly irresponsible.

People who leave shopping carts in parking spaces instead of making the small effort to put them in their corrals are showing self-centered irresponsibility and a lack of respect for others.

Another example of parking lot irresponsibility is the people who park on the yellow-striped zones. This is a violation of the lot owner's property rights; it's trespassing. I have a name for those zones and those who park in them, but it's not suited for polite conversation so I won't mention it here. I also have an idea for special "parking stickers" for the windshields of those who park there.

All this is to point out that any freedom can and will be abused by someone.

I've seen people argue that commonplace irresponsibility shows why political government is necessary. They never explain how these naturally irresponsible people who won't govern their own lives can be expected to responsibly govern the lives of thousands or millions of others once getting elected. I'm not buying it, and the evidence seems to point the opposite way.

Individual irresponsibility pales in comparison to the tragedy which occurs when you give flawed humans-- which is all of us-- power over others. Giving people who hunger for control the power to impose their opinions at gunpoint is what political government is at its foundation.

I believe it was irresponsible to shut down the economy to fight a virus which is losing its power to kill-- as all such viruses seem to do over time. Irresponsible governing has damaged the economy and undoubtedly killed people, and yet this is supposed to be better than the alternative of letting people run their own lives.

I'm in favor of letting people live with the consequences of their choices, while everyone else is free to defend themselves from those bad choices when necessary. Government often makes this reasonable path illegal. All this accomplishes is making it safe to be irresponsible, encouraging more of it.

Irresponsibility is just one human flaw among many.

Libertarianism isn't a denial of human nature's flaws. It's the recognition that those flaws are universal and those who seek to govern aren't immune. In fact, seeking to govern anyone besides yourself is among the worst of flaws. It's not something I would encourage; it's irresponsible.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

When Really Bad Goons die

Politics is not an honorable job. It is a life of parasitism at best, and at its worst, it's unparalleled evil. It is always the choice to bully others rather than to do the harder work of finding mutually consensual, voluntary ways of getting along. 

It makes no sense to honor those who choose that path. 

If they champion some category of rights while violating other, equally vital rights, they are not a hero for human rights. Pretending they are, just because they died, is dishonest and is ignoring their many victims.

Saying "good riddance" to such a person is not aggression or archation, while a life spent in politics-- making or upholding legislation which is enforced with death-- is aggression. Don't get the two switched around in your head as some people seem to have done.

-

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

Liberty, good...

 ...lack of liberty, bad.

-

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

Addressing the faults of capitalism

Does capitalism "exploit labor for profit" and "advocate for relentless consumerism"?

That's what a Twitter critic of capitalism claimed. He was saying libertarians need to address these faults of capitalism.

OK.

Is it "exploitation" if you hire me, we both agree on how much you will pay me, and you profit from our arrangement so that you can continue to afford to pay me, and maybe expand the business and hire some others, and possibly make some money for yourself, too? 

Nope.

Looking at that relationship honestly, you could argue that either person is "exploiting" the other, depending on your perspective and how negatively you view the world.

If I agree to work for you, I must have decided the money you will pay me is worth more to me than the time was worth to me on its own. I made a profit by selling you my time. If not, why would I agree to the deal? Yeah, I understand that I need money so I can buy necessities. That's part of the calculation. I see no lopsided exploitation here, absent coercion/the political means.

And "relentless consumerism"?

If you make stuff that I want, are you forcing me to buy it? If I buy it, is that nothing but consumerism, or do I find some value in what you produced? 

I see products vanish all the time, unable to convince sufficient numbers of people to buy them. Some of my favorite products went away because not enough people liked them as much as I did. Was I a victim of "relentless consumerism" who was freed from my chains when that product was discontinued? Or did I lose out on something I really liked due to consumerism not being quite relentless enough?

I know that it all depends on how a person defines "capitalism". 

If you define it as a political system, then I would oppose it too, unless I were smart enough to see that this is a dishonestly biased way to define it. based on the beliefs of Krooked Karl Marx. He used the term to disparage what he didn't like. Maybe "capitalism" isn't really the right word.

That's why I prefer the term "the market". That keeps it apolitical. Except that people who are obsessed with politics will still try to make that political, too. If they get their way we'll all be slaves to poverty and starvation, but at least we'll die in the cold as "equals".

-

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

I don't v*te because...

I don't feel the need to be governed. I guess I never have.

Even decades ago when I used to v*te, it wasn't because I felt that someone else could run my life better, or because I was scared of what would happen if "other people" weren't governed, it was just what responsible people do. 

Or so I believed. 

I couldn't understand people who "didn't care enough" to bother to v*te. 

I needed to v*te because "everyone else is doing it".

Of course, I finally realized that not everyone is doing it. And to my surprise, it wasn't because they were lazy or apathetic. They often had good reasons that I agreed with. Reasons I agreed with more than I agreed with the justifications for v*ting I had always bought into in the past-- "self-defensive v*ting" being the one that held the most appeal to me.

I started feeling like participating in something I didn't approve of was giving the appearance of approval. I didn't approve. I realized I had been giving an illegitimate institution-- government-- some false legitimacy by participating. 

So I finally started behaving in a way that was consistent with my values.

It didn't happen overnight. For a while I was ashamed to admit in public that I hadn't v*ted. I eventually realized I wasn't the one doing something shameful and harmful.

I'm not usually too hard on those who still v*te because I understand why they are doing it. I just no longer agree that their reasons make any sense.

Maybe they'll come around, or maybe I'll eventually change my mind again.

-

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

Copsuckers hating me for what they imagine I said

Recently I've seen a lot of people asserting that it is NEVER OK to shoot a cop. Not under any circumstances. That's pure, weapons-grade Balonium.

When I clearly said that in the specific case of those two who were shot while sitting in their car, I would not have shot them, but I understand why someone might, I got a lot of flack.

People imagined I said those cops should have been shot at that moment under those specific conditions. But I didn't.

I was laughing at the copsuckers for hating me for what they imagined I had said.

Understanding why someone might do something isn't the same as endorsing what they did. It just means being able to think from different perspectives.

When someone is violating life, liberty, or property it is often OK to shoot them-- depending on the level of threat they pose. Ethically OK, if not "legally" OK. This doesn't change when the bad guy wears a badge. 

If it's OK to shoot Freelance Thug A under the specific circumstances, then it is OK to shoot Badged Thug A under the same circumstances. The presence of a badge doesn't change the circumstances. Not even close. 

Kidnappers deserve to be shot if they are in the act of committing a kidnapping.
Rapists deserve to be shot if they are in the act of committing a rape.
Thieves deserve to be shot in the act; murderers deserve to be shot in the act.
Attackers who are in the act of committing an attack deserve to be shot.
If they don't want to be shot they have the option of not doing those things which make it ethically OK to shoot them. Even if their paycheck depends on them doing those things. An honest job is always an option.

On the other hand, to wear the gang colors of the Blue Line Gang is to proclaim that you are a willing part of a gang which is fueled by stolen money and spends all its "on the clock" time enforcing legislation of varying degrees of illegitimacy, imposed upon the threat of death. Their mere presence is a credible threat to your life, liberty, and property-- more so in some situations than others, but you had better remain vigilant as long as they are around. 

Any "society" where cops can do things to you and you are prohibited to defend yourself from them is probably already a police state. Cops have no "extra" rights because those don't exist. They have no rights you don't have, but they do have extra responsibilities to avoid violating rights, and the consequences they face for doing so must be higher. If they don't like this added burden, they need to quit the "job".

Is this the same as saying "they should be shot on sight"? No. But copsuckers will read it that way-- bet on it.

I will admit I can never work up the energy to grieve over a shot gangster of any sort. Aggressors who complain about being aggressed against are just dumb whiners. Live by the sword, die by the sword. 

-

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

Opposite sex cosplay

I have nothing against people who imagine they are in a body of the "wrong" sex and act on that belief. I defend, from any and all violators, their right to do so.

I'm a little less forgiving of those who misuse the grammar word "gender" instead of using the correct biology word "sex". I see this as intentionally muddying the waters for the purpose of deception.

Referring to a person's "gender" is as grammatically incorrect as saying "I seen Bob at the store". The word you're looking for is "sex", even if the dictionary accepts the incorrect word due to common usage.

Sex is biological and doesn't change with your "gender identity". Check someone's DNA or chromosomes and you'll be able to pin down their sex-- with exceedingly rare exceptions. How the person "identifies" isn't going to show up scientifically no matter how much they might wish it would.

Trans"gendered" people are cosplaying the opposite sex. 

You have every right to cosplay as anything you want. A vampire, a wolf, a snake, a demon, a cartoon character, a stuffed animal, or the opposite sex. 

You have the right to dress to fit your chosen persona-- or the persona you imagine is the "real you". You have the right to pay to alter your body however you see fit-- surgically cutting parts off, adding things, altering and reshaping parts, piercing things, implanting bumps and horns-- or to tattoo yourself with scales, stripes, spots, or anything else to make you feel more like what you are cosplaying as. 

I defend your right to do all of this against anyone who seeks to prevent you from doing so, even if I personally believe you are making a tragic mistake.

While you have the right to pretend to be whatever you want, you have no right to threaten or bully other people-- including using the violence of government-- to force them to act as though they believe your cosplay is biological reality. You have no right to force people to pretend with you or to bully those who won't. Legislation can't create this right.

I will defend everyone's right to resist this bullying, whatever form it takes, and no matter how you justify it.

I would say that "gender identity", when it doesn't match biological reality, is clearly a psychological issue, not a biological one. It has also been pointed out that psychology is a collection of observations in search of a science. "Gender identity" is anti-science.

That doesn't mean a male can't "feel like" a female, or vice versa. And if that's the case, I'm not going to attack them for it, even if I don't believe them when they tell me their sex/"gender" is something other than what I can see it is. 

But in the SJW world, science is the enemy. They claim "gender" roles are "cultural", and other cultures don't necessarily buy into the binary gender roles "our culture" does. They want to pretend it's all just cultural programming.

Other cultures in other times and places didn't buy into species roles, either. They believed the shaman (or others) could transform into another species. Maybe their psychology could transform, but not their DNA. They weren't really another species, no matter how much they believed they were, and scientific tests could have proved it.

What if I self-identify as an iguana? Maybe I really feel I am in the wrong species' body. 

You, looking at me, can plainly see I'm not one. Even if I wear an iguana costume or get surgery to make me more iguana-like. My claim looks absurd because it is. DNA and chromosomal evidence don't support my belief. In fact, everything points to me being a member of the Homo sapiens species.

Am I an iguana anyway, just because I self-identify as an iguana? Do I have the right to use the violence of the State to force you to refer to me as an iguana and treat me as though I am an iguana?

No!

If the roles were reversed and you "identify" as an iguana I'm still going to treat you as a human, including fully respecting all your human rights. You have the right to believe you are an iguana and I have the right to know you aren't one, no matter what you believe. I don't have the right to force you to stop pretending, and you don't have the right to force me to pretend along with you.

I am totally against bullying others into pretending along with those who've embraced the fantasy that they are in a body of the wrong sex.

The bullies punish people who speak the truth. Such as author J. K. Rowling when she honestly and accurately pointed out that the correct word for "people who menstruate" is "women"-- to the horror and bottomless anger of science-deniers.

Later, CNN joined in the lying by refusing to call "people with a cervix" females. These lies don't help anyone and they avoid reality.

When you attack someone for being truthful you bring me into the fight. You are on the wrong side. To claim you are defending your rights by bullying those who are not suggesting violating your rights in any way is wrong.

I've seen the claim that [facing reality] "erases trans legitimacy". Pointing out the biological reality doesn't erase anyone's legitimacy. If you take it that way you are living in a delusion. No one's opinions can "delegitimize" you; only you can do that to yourself. 

Well, reality can do it, too, if your idea of self goes against reality. Again, the issue is with you, not with other people.

Can we call a truce? I may refuse to call a male "she" (and I'm most certainly not going to try to learn all sorts of silly new made-up and unnecessary "gender" words), but I would never dream of using the state to force anyone to behave in a "gender appropriate way", even if there's any such thing. None of my business.

Every human alive has equal and identical rights. Psychological issues can't change that fact. Nothing can. I will respect your life, liberty, and property-- your human rights-- even if I don't play along with your cosplay. Those are separate issues. I will stand with anyone whose rights are being violated by bullying from any side.

It's not "transphobic" to resist and oppose bullying.

Furthermore, if you love someone, shouldn't you love them enough to speak the truth even if they don't want to hear it?

I understand the disappointment of being told your fantasy isn't real, but are you doing them any favors when you pretend along with them so that reality doesn't burst their bubble? I don't think you are.

Now, maybe you agree with me and maybe you don't. But this is honestly how I see it and if I claimed to see it otherwise I would be lying.

See also: Cancel culture is real

-

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

Stimulus may be last nail for dollar

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 12, 2020)

Government actions have consequences.

Some people were happy with the so-called stimulus checks they got from the federal government. Most of them are excited about the prospects of getting another one.

One such fan of stimulus checks was complaining to me a while ago after realizing prices on some necessary items have gone up a noticeable amount.

Instead of keeping my mouth shut, I said "Remember the stimulus check you were so thrilled to get a couple of months ago? You're starting to pay for it."

I could have added, "Expect it to get worse".

The more dollars created, the less each individual dollar is worth. When a dollar is worth less, it takes more of them to buy things.

Look at the recent price of gold, silver, and Bitcoin. As the U.S. dollar loses value, their prices go up.

It's called "inflation", but most people get it backwards. It doesn't mean things are getting more expensive; it means dollars are getting cheaper. Inflation means you can get more dollars for a roll of toilet paper than before.

People who are unaware of this economic fact might complain about the wrong things and blame the other victims-- manufacturers and retailers-- instead of the guilty party. Government will do almost anything to keep the people from realizing who's to blame.

Don't expect the trend to be a straight line. The value of a dollar will be unstable, going up and down over the short term. Prices will rise and fall because the value of a dollar isn't the only thing affecting prices. Supply, demand, and innovation also affect what things cost. This is why, even though the dollar's value is fading, prices don't always only get higher.

In the long term, the dollar is doomed. It was probably already doomed, having lost over ninety-six percent of its value since the Federal Reserve was created. A dollar today is worth less than four cents compared to a dollar before government policy began its destruction.

The Covid-19 spending, conjuring dollars out of thin air, might be the final nail in the coffin. Or, people may continue to tolerate a "dollar" worth a few cents if enough of them imagine it's worth more. You can't predict what people will do. I never believed anyone would tolerate having the economy shut down and being forced to wear masks, but here we are.

Has anyone told you recently we are living in interesting times?

- 

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Dangerous followers

I don't need a president, so I don't support presidential candidates. However, from observation, I have a suspicion about the future based on how I expect the followers of those candidates to behave in case of a loss. Or a "win".

I believe a Trump win in the upcoming election would be safer for me, personally, than a Biden win. It's just based on feelings and I could well be wrong. I hope I'm not since I also believe Trump will win.

Notice I said I "believe" all the above, not "think" or know".

I believe if Trump wins, the "other side" will riot and do its best to destroy everything it can, as fast as it can. Since I am far from any big cities, with their largely disarmed populations (at least, among the less aggressive residents) I am not scared for my own safety if/when this happens. I also believe the riots will be quashed by armed suburbanites before they could reach me. And since I'm in a backwater, off any beaten path, it would be hard for them to get to me unless it was intentional.

I see in the anti-Trumpers a mob with a willingness to hurt and kill people they don't believe are fully on "their side". And I'm not.

On the other hand, I don't believe Trump supporters would burn cities if Kamala Harris, in the person of Joe Biden, wins. They'll probably be angry and claim it wasn't a legitimate election (as if that's even a thing). If Harris'/Biden's more radical supporters are able to influence them-- and they must believe they'll be able to-- I'll be personally harmed by the anti-gun legislation they'll push through-- more so than Trump's anti-gun legislation (as evil as it was) managed to hurt me. 

I don't see a willingness among Trump supporters to attack people who aren't loudly siding with the others and getting in their faces, so I don't believe they would be much of a threat to me. Even if they know I'm not on their side. I have sat through the Pledge to Holy Pole Quilt without participating, and although I got a few dirty looks, no one threatened me as I've seen (on video) happen to people who were ordered by an angry mob to raise a fist and declare "black lives matter". So, again, I feel safer with a Trump win than with a Biden win.

It could just be my bias speaking. I've spent more of my life around "conservatives", and even when they disagree with me it hasn't gone as badly as the few times I've disagreed with "progressives" to their faces. 

I don't believe I was the critical variable, even though I admit I usually feel more sympathy toward misguided "Right-Statists" than I do for equally misguided "Left-Statists".

I don't feel as strongly about the election this time around, since I haven't had decades of personal loathing for Joe Biden like I had for Hillary Clinton. And even then I didn't "prefer Trump" enough to v*te against Hillary.

Of course, if the "social unrest" gets bad enough, whoever the anointed ruler turns out to be, none of us will be immune. How much damage we'll sustain remains to be seen. Interesting times, fuels by politics (which makes people stupid).

-

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

"Borders", human trafficking, "freebies", and other political misdeeds

Why would anyone conflate "open borders" with government intentionally importing hordes of people from other counties and giving them your stuff? Those aren't the same thing at all. 

But it's a useful strawman. And that explains why they "get confused" when the subject comes up. After all, if you can't lie about things you can't be political.

I'm not for "open borders"; I don't believe in government borders. There's a difference between those that goes over the heads of most people. 

I'm also opposed to government doing anything, including importing people from other countries (which is human trafficking for political gain) or giving anyone other people's property.

Once again we see government pretending to be the solution to problems which wouldn't exist without it causing them in the first place. And the political people either enthusiastically going along with it or enthusiastically opposing it while unknowingly legitimizing it. It's the most common thing in the world. 

I hope you don't fall for it.

-

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

Keep your Utopia to yourself

How many of other people's "good ideas" do I want no part of? Most of them.

I'm not interested in a moneyless society or solving "inequality" even if this would boost me. I don't care to live anywhere that has no offensive speech or ideas. "Problematic" means interesting. I don't want to live in a shining city where everything is perfect-- by someone else's definition of "perfect".

Most people's Utopias sound like dystopias to me.

I would rather have messy liberty than a bubble-wrapped cage.

This may mean I'm ungovernable. Does it mean I'm defective? 

-

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

Not everyone is political

To people who are political, standing up to them and their politics seems political. If you do so they'll claim this is evidence that you are political, just like they are.

That's the same faulty thinking that makes an irrational person believe that killing someone who intends to harm or kill you is murder.

Shooting an attacker is not murder. 

Opposing someone's aggressive politics-- without advocating the use of aggressive politics against them-- is not political. It's not the same-- the initiation of force (lacking consent) makes all the difference.

-

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

The victim isn't to blame for the actions of the thug

Does it make sense to claim that the violent criminal isn't at fault if he kills you because you resisted his attack? That the fault is his victim's? The victim should have cooperated; to expect a violent criminal to not kill a resisting victim is unrealistic. Right?

I've seen people making this case-- often. At least in one specific type of encounter with a specific species of thug.

By this way of thinking, parents need to teach their daughters how to not resist rape. Just like they need to teach their sons how to not resist arrest. 

What? Do you actually imagine those aren't similar? You'd be wrong.

The rapists operate according to rules about how they expect their victims to behave during the encounter. Their victims don't really have any say in these rules or how they are imposed. 

Police have the same kind of rules, but they call theirs "legislation" or, even more dishonestly, "laws". Their rules are no more legitimate and are just as self-serving.

Thugs are what they do.

How about parents teach your sons and daughters how to not violate people's rights. How to not become aggressive gangsters. 

Where's the problem here? It's not how the victims react, it's in those who do the attacking and expect to face no resistance.

Yes, I realize if you resist, the police may murder you, and copsuckers everywhere will blame you. Blaming the victim is very popular. But it's wrong. It's insane. Cops are far worse than freelance kidnappers and rapists because they demand your compliance. At least with the freelance thugs, few people will blame you for fighting back and killing the vermin.

-

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

To the BidenBots of Twitter

If you imagine my refusal to support your zombie means I support Trump, it shows how poorly your brains work; how pathetically binary and 2-dimensional your thinking is. 

I've despised Hillary Clinton almost beyond the human capacity to despise anyone, since the early 80s. 

Yet I still didn't take the opportunity to v*te against her by v*ting for Trump. 

Do you know how easy it would have been to justify v*ting for Trump to v*te against Hillary? Just in my own mind, anyway. Yet, I didn't.

How is that supporting Trump?

I don't support any candidates. Yours included. 

Biden would not be an improvement over Trump. You're ignoring his serious mental and ethical problems just because you are so hypnotized by "Orange Man bad". Criticize Trump on his real faults, but don't fall back on your list of imaginary things you believe he must be secretly thinking, or lies spread by the desperate national media.

Stating the truth about your candidate doesn't mean I support the candidate who's the biggest threat to him.

Politics makes people STUPID.

-

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

Government's gifts

There is nothing government can offer me that I want. The price is always too high, especially when it's "free".

I don't want their handouts or their idea of "national security", or economic stability/central banking, or "law and order". Their idea of "peace" or "prosperity" isn't compatible with mine, and I don't want their version. I don't even want the government versions of "freedom" or "liberty"-- those are shoddy substitutes for the real thing.

Economically, government can't give me anything it didn't first steal from someone else. I'm opposed to theft, so why would I want to receive stolen property?

I have no problem with letting others take whatever government offers-- or pretends to offer-- as long as I'm not forced to pay for it or to participate in any way. As long as market alternatives aren't prevented for those things government does that I might still like if offered elsewhere.

Why is this reasonable compromise off-limits? Is it because political government is anti-reason? Yes. Yes, it is.

-

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

Let's adapt to something positive

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 5, 2020)

Humans are adaptable. More so than any creature other than, possibly, cockroaches. It's our greatest strength. We have adapted to living almost everywhere on the planet, and soon, with the right technology-- an adaptation we've created-- off-planet, too.

We've adapted to a different diet than our ancestors ate. In some cases, we probably haven't adapted well enough yet, and our health can suffer the consequences, but we're getting there.

Not all adaptations are helpful. We have adapted to some things we should have resisted.

We've adapted to having our freedom and property rights trashed by the worst among us. Ironically, in the beginning they used the excuse of protecting our freedom and property rights as to why we should go along with what they were doing to us. They were lying.

We've adapted to the demand to hand our children over to the state to be indoctrinated during their most impressionable years. We are told this is for the purpose of educating them because we are incapable and too ignorant to educate them ourselves. If that's true, it's only because we were victims of the same indoctrination system in our youth. It's time to break the cycle.

We've adapted to tax burdens far beyond the levels which caused our ancestors to violently throw a government out of the country. Some people have adapted so well they want taxes to be even higher.

We recently adapted to stifling conditions imposed by governments using the excuse of Covid-19. Whether or not the restrictions were necessary, or even helpful in the slightest, most of us complied and adapted. Probably more than was healthy.

As bad as these things are on their own, it's more tragic to passively accept them. Most people have adapted so completely they don't even notice and accept it as "just how it is done". It doesn't have to be.

To adapt to certain conditions isn't anything to be proud of. You shouldn't tolerate having your natural human rights violated by anyone under any circumstances, but most of us do to some extent.

You are expected to adapt to even more restrictions with each new year. It's time to make a stand. If we lose this fight-- if we don't resist-- our grandchildren won't understand what they've lost.

Let's adapt to some positive things for a change, such as a life of liberty, including real property rights. The future can be great. It's up to us to make it so.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Debating a commie-- Part 3.1: Fencing off the water

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

In his lead-up to the hypothetical island scenario in Part 3, he used the example of someone who has fenced off a river on their property and you are on the other side of the fence dying of thirst.

I think this says more about him than about property rights. Or a right to live, or a right to water.

I pointed out that you can walk past the end of most fences. But, even if you can't, if I owned that property I would let you drink and fill your canteen. If you crossed the fence to do so without asking (maybe I'm not there but I have a video camera and I'm watching you) I'm not going to be angry. Please, drink! I'm not going to have an issue unless you damage the value of my property in some way, and crossing my property and drinking from the river so you don't die doesn't do so.

This makes me think communists are really horrible people and they imagine everyone else is as self-centered as they are.

-

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

Debating a commie- Part 3: Kobayashi Maru Island

Part 1

Part 2

The commie wanted to put me in a hypothetical scenario to show that property ownership is a bad idea.

His hypothetical scenario was this: I am stranded with one other person on an island. He hoards all the coconuts-- the only food source on this island-- and says the price for one is a specific sexual favor. He says property rights would make this bad situation possible. He also wanted me to say whether or not this was a voluntary exchange.

I don't believe in the no-win scenario. There are always alternatives you can try, even if they don't work. I pointed out that it's an island, so there would be fish and other seafood, and you could eat the core of the coconut tree (a short-sighted solution, for sure). He says this isn't allowed. No other food is available.

I say "No deal". I also said that only the people involved could say whether the exchange was voluntary or not, and that I couldn't really say for myself since I am not in that situation and can't really imagine any real situation being so lacking in alternatives.

I have survival skills and can make fire without modern cheats. I can collect and make water safe to drink-- possibly even desalinate seawater using plastic debris. I can make shelters, tools, and weapons. Is this not worth a trade? His chances of survival go up if he cooperates and down if he refuses to.

Having me alive is to his benefit. Self-interest-- if he's not insane-- should encourage him to keep me alive.

But, what if he doesn't see it this way?

Finally, I know I have no right to violate his life, liberty, or property. But... if backed into a corner to the point that I was desperate enough to ignore my principles, I might just kill him in his sleep. I have no right to do so (if you imagine that intentionally starving someone to death isn't aggression), but I might anyway. Because I'm human and I'm flawed.

The commie kept trying to equate this to a "trolley scenario" and even though I posted a link to how I believe such a problem could be handled ethically, he ignored that reply completely, other than saying my solution would just be to tell them to get off the tracks.

I think I've done exceptionally well in avoiding violating my principles over the years. I've been in situations where many others would abandon any principles. I'm not perfect. I can imagine scenarios that would make me archate, but imagining them gives me time to work out alternatives. I hope.

-

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

Debating a commie-- Part 2: Free food, water, and shelter

 

(Part one: Right to life)

The commie insisted that since food, water, and shelter are necessary for life, and life is a human right, those essentials must be free for everyone.

But they can't be.

"Free" doesn't just mean you don't use money to obtain them-- money is a placeholder for value, and that value is usually a proxy for some work that was done. "Free" would mean you get them without anyone working for them.

If you get food, someone had to work to, at least, collect it. It was probably also planted, harvested, processed, prepared, and distributed, or some combination thereof. All of that is work-- a cost. Whether you do the work or someone else does, it is never free.

Water must be collected and filtered, sterilized, stored, and distributed. That's work. If you've never had to work for drinking water even when water was all around you, you may not be aware of the work involved, but I have. I know.

Shelter-- housing-- must be built and maintained. Someone has to do work to make it. 

If you expect someone else to do the work to provide these essentials, and for you to get the benefit of their work without compensating them, you're advocating theft. Or slavery.

Food, water, and shelter are never free. Even if they don't cost any money. I know because I've done the work to provide them (in primitive form) for myself from scratch before. There is always work involved.

You do have a right to food, water, and shelter-- but this only means no one has the right to prevent you from doing the work to provide them for yourself using property you have a right to use through ownership or an agreement with the owner. It doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to provide them for you at their expense.

This also means no one has a right to forbid you from planting crops in your front yard, collecting rainwater that runs off your roof, or living in a brush hut on your own land. A government position can't create such a right because such a right is a lie.

Part 3: Kobayashi Maru Island

-

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

Debating a commie- Part 1: Right to life

I recently got into an online debate/argument with a communist. Yes, a real self-described communist.

It began with a reply I made to someone who was claiming that since food, water, and shelter are essential for human life, those things were a human right and must be provided "free" for everyone. My response elicited a response from another commie who began by harping on the "right to life" thing.

I'll get into more of this in upcoming posts, but for now...

The right to life.

Yes, you have a right to your life.

The communist says this means your life must be guaranteed. Of course, sensible people know there is no guarantee.

He also claims this means you have a right to take whatever property-- even if it doesn't belong to you-- is necessary to stay alive. Need food? Steal it. Need water? Steal it. Need shelter? Steal it. You need it; it's yours to take. 

I'm not sure how this works for the person you took it from, since he is now going to need whatever you took. Does he steal a replacement from someone else, or take back the property you now possess? A "society" based on theft doesn't seem like much of a society to me. But then, I'm not a communist.

Your right to life means simply that no one can have the right to murder you-- to kill you for any reason other than in defense of life, liberty, or property.

It doesn't mean anyone other than you is obligated to work to keep you alive. And it does take work to obtain the necessary property to stay alive. More on that next time.

Part 2: Free food, water, and shelter
Part 3: Kobayashi Maru Island

-

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