Hoping future has more liberty wins

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 27, 2022)

It feels like the future is being pulled in two directions at once. Things are getting better, while things also feel like they are getting worse. Both are probably true.

I'm not so naive as to believe this is something new. Looking back at history I see how every era of the past had opposing forces pulling in different directions, fighting to shape the future. Two steps forward and one step back, as one or the other got the upper hand for a time.

I do believe the long-term trend-- with notable exceptions-- has been toward a better future. And to me, better always means greater liberty.

We may be the generation to see humans walk on Mars. Maybe even to begin emigrating off this planet. If, that is, the control freaks among us don't succeed in forcing us to live medieval lives of serfdom to advance their agenda.

Both futures seem equally possible today, depending on whose vision wins. Depending on who has the power to prevail.

In the governmental realm, liberty has been shielded from some tyrannical government overreach, while at the same time being violated by these same governments. Sometimes even over the same issues.

Just after the Supreme Court admitted the Second Amendment mostly means what it says, some backward states began desperately trying to find ways to avoid respecting the natural human right of their residents to own and to carry weapons. This should embarrass them after "Constitutional carry" of firearms proved its value against an evil loser in an Indiana mall recently.

Yet, at the same time, Congress debates a new ban on "assault weapons"-- a made-up political term for something which doesn't exist outside their imaginations. A ban they already know is unconstitutional and unethical, and which will harm more people than it would help until it inevitably gets thrown out. Opposing forces pulling toward a better future and a worse one.

This isn't the only demonstration of this effect. Marijuana legalization seems assured nationwide at this point. Taking away government's power to punish people for having or consuming a plant is better for liberty. On the other hand, if you can be punished by government for refusing to use wrong pronouns when speaking, you are not free.

I hope the better future wins. I'm not a fan of tyranny and slavery, no matter how "safe" the political criminals say this will make us.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Which evil should you support?

Which is dumber: supporting the police or supporting the military?
Is supporting a political criminal (a redundant term which means "politician") even worse than either of those?

I can't answer that for sure. 

Some days I have different opinions on the matter, depending on what I see happening at the moment. This probably means it's too close to call, 

Supporting any of them is supporting the evil act of politically governing others, so it's probably best not to support any of them.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

The Fringe

In the entertainment media, anyone who is anti-government is portrayed as "fringe"-- except in a few (extremely popular) franchises, anyway (even then, they may still be fringe, but on the right side).

That seems strange to me... until I remember that the media is a necessary tool to prop up the failed idea of political government. 

Without the propaganda being hammered into our heads from every direction, not many people would continue to believe that something they know is wrong can be "right" if you have government do it. So the idea that doing wrong is still wrong no matter who you have do it for you must be portrayed as "fringe" to scare the population into rejecting the idea automatically.

It seems to work fairly well, if you ignore the cracks in the plan.

That's not to say that there aren't some crazies or evil ideas on other parts of the fringe-- it's a big category and covers a lot of ideas.

-

Look at that face...
Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

How I was wrong about Covid

I didn't expect this "novel coronavirus" to mutate so quickly, therefore when I told people not to worry, they would only get it once, I was wrong.

Yes, you will only get each new variant once (probably), but this Matryoshka Doll of the virus world (if it's real, etc.) just keeps releasing new version after new version for the population to get-- each seemingly weaker than the predecessors, but still annoying to the people who catch them. The last time I got it, though, I wouldn't have even noticed if someone else hadn't had it first, so "annoying" is in the eye of the beholder.

As soon as I heard the first reports of this new coronavirus spreading around the world I looked into what, exactly, a "coronavirus" was, and what I found caused me to instantly shrug it off as no real threat to me. I've wondered whether the online information has since been altered to make the topic scarier, but I've not cared enough to check.

Personally, I'm glad I never got the shots. I'm not scared of the shots, nor am I scared of the virus. I don't like needles, but they don't scare me. They just hurt and I avoid pain unless the payoff is-- in my mind-- worth it. In this case, it wasn't. Not even close. 

If I had gotten the shots and had a bad reaction I would have felt dumber than if I had a bad reaction from the virus after refusing the shots. And if I had the shots and got the virus anyway and then had a bad reaction from either one, I would have felt totally stupid. 

But you do you-- it doesn't bother me if your choice is different than mine. Maybe you enjoy needles-- maybe you get really sick when you catch a cold (I know those who do)-- maybe your job threatened you. Whatever. It's your business what you do-- I don't feel violated either way, even if you shed spike proteins or something. I'm past caring.

But it is interesting to me how many still care. Deeply. I see people on both sides still trying to insist that their way was the right way, and the opposite way was wrong (and based in fear). To me, it looks like people arguing over whether a blade of grass under a tree on the other side of the valley, viewed through binoculars, is bluish-green or greenish blue-- even after a gopher ate it and it's gone.

I was wrong about my biggest statement about the virus... and it probably made no difference then, makes no difference now, and will not make a difference in the future. That's about as inconsequential as anything can get. Probably even more inconsequential than worrying about which political criminal wins political office next election, and whether "your v*te" would make a difference.

The "official" response to the virus was much worse than anything about the virus, and that's one thing I wasn't wrong about. It's a safe prediction in any situation. We are still suffering the consequences and probably will be for decades to come. Thanks, Authoritarian Idiots.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Government shouldn't control your doctor

I believe that in Europe, government has gotten too involved in medicine/health care. 

I believe the same is also the case in America.

Anything gets worse when mixed with politics or when government gets involved (and this includes government-mandated or manipulated "insurance"). The medical profession is not immune to the effect. 

This is a shame because health care could have been so much better (and less expensive) by now, and you and I will pay the price of government meddling in it. Probably with (at least a part of) our lives.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Rigging elections because Trump is unusually dangerous

I was listening to Scott Adams' podcast recently and he was talking about the Sam Harris admission-- that he approved of the media hiding (and lying about) the Hunter Biden laptop because of his belief that Trump was so dangerous that it was "self-defense" to do anything to keep him from being re-elected. Agree or not, this is advocating for rigging the election.

I've seen this belief expressed many times over the years. That Trump was/is unusually "dangerous".

But, in all the cries of how "dangerous" Trump was/is-- far above and beyond anyone else who might hold the office-- the one thing glaringly lacking is a clear explanation of exactly how he is unusually dangerous. I'm just supposed to take them at their word that he is.

Is it really Trump or is it his rabid followers who are dangerous? Are they really more dangerous than the rabid followers of any other political criminal? I mean, there are still rabid Biden followers out there who pretend he's not an obvious dementia patient.

I think it's the political office that is extraordinarily dangerous, not the specific puppet occupying the office. No one should be allowed to have the kind of power that the presidency, a congressional seat, or a federal judgeship (Supreme or otherwise) gives a person. Politics is bad; there is no way to make it OK.

Trump did plenty of things I hate. Bump stock bans, borderism/nationalism, etc. Plus giving government supremacists on his side an excuse to continue to "believe in" Statism and pretend it isn't pure evil. But I see nothing particularly unusual about anything he did. It was just more of the same, other than the outsized hysterical response from the Professional Adversaries of the "other side".

I am unconvinced, but open to being shown why I'm wrong.

On that same podcast, Adams asked his audience if they would break the rules to rig an election, if it meant saving the world from an existential threat. A great many said "no". Rule fetishists are weird critters. Imagine being so dedicated to rules that you'd let everyone die to avoid breaking bad rules.

I don't believe elections are, or can ever be, legitimate. I would break a "rule" to rig an election to advance liberty so fast it would make you swoon. The problem is, how could I know for sure whatever I do wouldn't have the opposite effect? It's why elections can't be legitimate.

Trump was horrible; Biden is no better (but his mental condition makes him funny). I wouldn't rig an election in favor of either of them.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Don't you want to be represented?

I saw someone lecturing another person about why they shouldn't be libertarian. Why it's a loser's strategy. 

They said it's because by being a principled libertarian you'll never be properly represented in government.

What?

I guess they are under hypnosis or something because that makes no sense whatsoever. Imagine twisting your mind enough that you can hallucinate that someone is adequately representing you.

No one can ever really represent a single other person, and to imagine that one person can represent millions of others-- who have mutually exclusive, opposing values-- is totally nuts. 

I don't consent to be governed by anyone else. No one can represent me, no matter how much I give up my principles or compromise with monsters. If anyone uses the political means against anyone else-- even against my enemy-- they can't be representing me. Quite the opposite.

You aren't being represented even if you believe you are. So you might as well stay principled.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Libertarians aren't on right or left

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 20, 2022)

No one really understands anyone else, so it's no surprise that non-libertarians don't understand libertarians.

When I first started writing on the topic of libertarianism, I ran across a blog post written by a self-proclaimed "progressive" who explained why all libertarians were racists and should be hated and mocked. I commented, pointing out a host of reasons this wasn't true. He seemed to imagine everyone he didn't like could be clumped under the term "libertarian". Most of the beliefs he attributed to libertarians were not libertarian beliefs at all. I told him so and provided evidence. He replied with the nastiest name-calling he could manage. Then he blocked me from responding and later his entire blog was taken down.

Other times people who identified themselves as "conservatives" made assumptions about things I would support because they imagined libertarians were something they aren't. Sometimes they thought I'd support harsher enforcement of some law, or a "fair tax". Why I would support something I don't believe is legitimate, and which is not compatible with libertarianism, is beyond me.

The best definition of libertarianism I've run across is "someone who rejects the use of force against anyone who isn't currently violating the life, liberty, or property of another".

Cue the disagreements among libertarians over what counts as "force" or a violation. It keeps things interesting.

Some libertarians are fans of the U.S. Constitution. Others only use it to show how off-course the U.S. government has gone in the years since it was ratified.

Many libertarians believe a fetus is a human being with rights, while many others believe a fetus could eventually become a human being with rights, but a woman is a human being with rights now, which includes the right to end her pregnancy.

Some libertarians believe you can have a limited government-- a "night watchman state"-- while others think a little cancer is still too much.

Libertarians can be slightly "statist", believing that governing others can be a legitimate human endeavor-- as long as it is done gently, or they can be anarchists; not believing political government is ever justified. Or anything in between.

What libertarians are not is politically Right or Left. Even if our personal views could be categorized by those labels, we can't condone the use of force-- including legislation-- to impose our personal views on people who aren't harming anyone. It's a matter of principle.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Religion in schools

I see on the "news" that some recent Texas legislation allows government schools in the state to put up signs saying "In God we trust" if a private group donates the sign to the school district.

Even though I'm not a believer, this bothers me much less than the active promotion of the religion of Statism that occurs in those institutions-- paid for with money stolen from the population rather than voluntarily donated for the purpose.

Government schools have always promoted religion. Sometimes more than one. 

When my daughter was in the local school they pushed Statism and Christianity equally hard. Never mind that these two religions are adversarial (even though some will fight hard to claim that this isn't true). The teachers pushed Christianity and encouraged the students to pressure any kid who was hesitant-- to the point of bullying. 

So, really, this legislation is more of the same rather than anything particularly new.

Abolish government schools and let everyone teach whatever is important to them. Paid for voluntarily. Attended without compulsion. 

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Random thoughts

• I don't like "Second Amendment rights". The phrase, I mean. It's misleading. The right to own and to carry weapons doesn't come from the Second Amendment, but pre-exists it. The right will still exist even if the Second Amendment is abolished or ignored. 

• I really hope Joe Biden-- or his rigid corpse-- runs for president again. It would be hilarious. It's not as if any other candidate would actually be good for liberty, so you might as well go with the funniest one.
  
  
• Just because you support someone doesn't mean they are on your side. It may mean they have you fooled and are working against you while you fawn over them.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Close the "sensitive place" loophole

People are still celebrating the recent Bruen Decision by the Supreme Courtjesters. It has its good points, but Justice Thomas left a Trojan horse in it. One thing he should have never let stand: he pretended there are "sensitive places" where government must be allowed to continue to (illegally) prohibit firearms.

He was wrong.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, there's no such thing as a "sensitive place" where it's OK for government to prohibit firearms. None. 

And "government property" [sic] is the one place where any sort of gun prohibition is specifically prohibited by the Second Amendment. To whom does the Constitution apply? Government. Not to you or me. The Bill of Rights tells government which things it is not allowed to do. Making up anti-gun rules being specifically laid out as a prohibited action.

Look how the evil anti-gun bigots around the country-- particularly the political criminals of New York and California-- are misusing that imaginary "sensitive place" loophole now. They are essentially declaring their entire states to be "sensitive places" where guns can't be carried (except by their own armed gangsters, of course). 

Close the "sensitive place" loophole. Don't leave the authoritarian monsters any place to hide.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

The useful thief?

If I'm a thief who mugs everyone in town at gunpoint and who breaks into homes to steal money and weapons, but once in a while I use the stolen money and weapons to rescue a hostage, am I a good guy or a bad guy?

Does it change anything if I call myself "the military" or "the police"?

Is there no way to do the good without doing the bad?
I believe there is; government supremacists believe there isn't.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Good people in bad organizations?

Good people don't willingly join evil organizations. This includes, but is not limited to, working for the FBI, local police, the IRS, the BATFE, the DEA, etc.

Even if you joined them out of ignorance, if you continue to work for them you are no longer a good person.

I make exceptions for moles who are actively working to destroy those organizations from within. In that case, you have to be having an actual effect, not just doing all the evil things expected of you, but maybe not going quite as hard on an individual here and there. You get no pass for your heart being "in the right place" while you violate individual rights.

Good people quit gov. Good people don't encourage others to get-- or remain in-- government "jobs".

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Politics depends on blind spots

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 13, 2022)

Everyone has blind spots. Especially when it comes to politics. In fact, I'd say politics is made up of blind spots knitted together with wishful thinking, expressed through legislation designed to violate people you don't like.

Conservatives generally love the Constitution. They have a blind spot when it comes to unconstitutionally controlling people's movement. They obsess over "immigration" and are willing to toss the Constitution aside for this issue. It's almost a universal conservative trait, now, but this wasn't always the case.

Liberals, progressives, or whatever they are calling themselves today, generally love bodily autonomy, at least concerning abortion. They don't feel the same when someone makes the choice to defend their bodily autonomy with a firearm, or chooses to not have injections forced into them. It's a blind spot that almost defines their ideology.

Politics depends on blind spots for its very existence. Without them, it would shrivel away in the burning white light of truth.

The thing with blind spots is that you can easily see them in others, or in other groups, but you can't usually see them in yourself without help.

If someone points out what they think is a blind spot you have, you'd better take notice. They might be right and they might be wrong, but wouldn't you rather figure it out?

Often, the answer is "no".

I've spent my life trying to find and eliminate my own blind spots. People have been enthusiastic to point them out to me. It's how I went from being a conservative, to being a constitutionalist, to being libertarian. Every blind spot I discovered led me toward a greater respect for liberty. It never swung the other direction-- or hasn't yet.

I owe thanks to the people who helped me along the way. Many times they were right. Often, though, people imagine blind spots where they don't exist, based on seeing their biases through their own blind spots.

If someone looks at the color you've called "blue" and tells you it's orange, take another look, comparing it to examples of blue, orange, and other colors. If you still see it's blue, you aren't obligated to say you agree it's orange just because someone tells you it is and calls it your blind spot. If you can logically explain yourself-- to shine light where someone else thinks you have a blind spot-- it may indicate the blind spot is theirs.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The statists' sandcastle of lies

I first noticed the over-reliance on lies demonstrated by anti-gun bigots. There is just nothing they can say to advocate for their side that isn't lies built on lies topped with lies. 

It's no different if it's disgusting individuals like Joe Biden, Bob'O'Rourke, or Shannon Watts, or their criminal organizations like Moms Demand Slavery or the BATFEces gang. Lies, lies, and more lies by liars who need to lie to justify their existence. The truth is a strange concept to them, and they treat it as a mortal enemy... because it is.

Recently though I've come to notice that all statism is exactly the same.

Statism depends on lies. Advocates create a foundation of lies, then build a sandcastle of lies on top of that, then top it off with little flags of lies.

Of course, all the anti-gun bigots called out above are also statists relying on lies; government-supremacist liars. But even "nice" statists who pretend to be "the reasonable adult"-- while they condescendingly pat you on the head-- are leaning on lies. Without their sandcastle of lies, they have nothing. Nothing. They would just flounder in the void with nothing to hold on to.

I was going to list specific examples, but there's no point. The list would be all-inclusive: ALL statism is the same. If it justifies government supremacy, it is built on lies. If it justifies any limit on liberty, it relies on lies. If it carves out exceptions, those exceptions are lies. Every government agency or bureau requires lies to justify its existence. Every piece of legislation is nothing without the lies it pretends are truth. "Taxation", border control/"immigration", anti-gun rules, prohibition. "vice laws", "national security", "law enforcement", etc., etc., etc. It's all a lie.

It's no different if it is "Right-statism" or "Left-statism"-- it's still a web of lies. If you respect truth and reject lies, you'll naturally gravitate away from statism. All of it.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Economics lesson for political criminals

Inflation is a rate of increase. Until that rate is zero or negative, there's still inflation and inflation is still a problem. 

It's not "zero inflation" if the rate of increase stays constant. 

It's not "zero inflation" if the rate of increase is a little less than it was before-- as long as it's still inflating more than zero or a negative rate.

Inflation isn't "normal" or just how things are. It signifies bad choices made by political criminals who interfered in the market by counterfeiting money. It's a consequence of bad policy when no policy should be imposed.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

An improvement

This is the new sign put up today by the school across the car path from my house. I approve. 

This replaces, or is in addition to, the signs at every door saying the same thing.

The only thing I'd like more would be an "out of business" sign on the chained doors, but I'll take it.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

The Secret of Success

Work really hard and/or really smart (find the perfect balance of the two) in the right way, on the right thing (unknowable), at just the right time (unknowable), and have lots of luck.

There you have it. You're welcome. Now go forth and prosper.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Trust the FBI?

The gang that creates "terror" plots so it can foil them and pat itself on the back (and say it needs a bigger budget) can also (and probably will) plant whatever "evidence" it wants to find during a raid.
Abolish the FBI.

- 

My WiFi router died last night. So posting will be more inconvenient until it is replaced (which will happen when/if I can afford one). Not sure I'll miss any posts after tomorrow's newspaper column, but if I do, don't be surprised.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

If everyone acted like you...

How would the world be if everyone acted exactly like you act? The "why" of their motivations don't matter, just how they actually act. They could be doing the same thing for completely different reasons.

If everyone littered the same amount as you, would the world be clean, buried under a thick layer of trash, or somewhere in between?

If everyone wanted government to make up or enforce legislation "only" to the same extent as you do, would the world be free or an authoritarian prison?

Pick anything you do. If everyone did the same sort of thing, at the same amount you do, what would the world be like? If that sounds like a good world, congratulations! You must be doing things right. If it's not a world you'd want for your grandchildren, think about what you could do differently.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon