Libertarians aren't splitting vote

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 16, 2022)

After the election, I saw a few bitter Republicans on social media blaming the failure of Republican candidates to get elected-- the fizzled "red wave"-- on libertarians. It's a silly complaint.

Libertarian candidates don't take votes from Republicans any more than they take votes from Democrats. Most people who vote for Libertarians aren't going to vote for any of the other candidates no matter what.

If I were a voter and I only had a choice between a Republican and a Democrat-- and both advocated policies I couldn't tolerate-- I wouldn't pick the lesser of two evils. I would reject them both, even if there were no Libertarian candidate on the ballot. I would rather stay home than vote for someone I don't like or trust.

No candidate of any party has earned my trust. They all carve exceptions when it comes to protecting liberty from government depredation. Why would I waste effort voting for them? Just because they tell me their opponent will be even worse? Why should I believe them?

If Republicans want libertarians to vote for them, they are going to have to offer better candidates who stand up for liberty. No more of this "If you don't vote for us you're just helping Democrats win".

The same goes for Democrats who want libertarians to vote for their side.

If your candidate is pushing "gun control", drug prohibition, identity politics, a tighter "border", higher taxes on anyone, or more government in any way, I won't waste a vote on that candidate. I fell for this trick back when I was young and gullible, but never again.

If neither candidate is willing to resolutely and loudly reject anti-liberty positions, why would I vote for either one? I'll either vote for the Libertarian or I'll stay home.

Since I don't believe political government is legitimate in any way, no matter who is making the policies, staying home is what I do. You can vote for a new master every few years if it makes you happy, but I won't. Someone will assign a supposed master to me with or without my consent, but it doesn't obligate me to bow down or obey them.

Bad people have always done that sort of thing but I won't help them enslave me.

There's no reason to pretend such a system is inevitable or legitimate. You can't blame the failure of a system on those who see through it.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Performance or principles?

In recent days I've had more than one person accuse me of "performing" for attention. Spouting libertarian ideas I can't actually believe. Ideas I "know" could never work in the real world. In other words, virtue signaling.

It would be interesting to see one of these accusers actually talk to people who know me in real life and see if I'm expressing values or ideas that I don't believe and don't live.

It's a useful reality check, though.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

Don't be greedy, there's enough for everyone

Enough what? Hypocrisy.

The very same people now shrieking over those who doxxed "free speech absolutist" Elon Musk getting banned have been having conniptions for weeks (or months) because Musk wouldn't ban those they hate. And these are the same goons who wanted everyone they didn't like to be banned for one nonsensical reason or another.

So, hypocrisy? Sure. But it's not only Elon Musk wallowing in a pool of it.

I'm opposed to banning anyone for any reason, but I can understand the argument for it (I just don't agree). But if you've been advocating banning some people I'm not going to take you seriously when you are upset that someone else has been banned. You look like (and likely are) a fool.

-

No one actually notices the request for subscribers or donors anymore, do they.

Not government's job

It is not government's job to keep you safe.

Even if you could change reality and make it government's job, it is utterly incapable of doing this. Any attempt will harm your safety and destroy liberty.

Military adventurism, done with the excuse of making the world "safer" makes you less safe. It endangers you in very real ways.

Anti-gun rules, always "for safety", have the opposite effect.

All the Covid policies eroded your safety.

The TSA is a gang of terrorists infesting airports-- and lusting to expand their terrorism to all other modes of transport if given half a chance. Is it safe to allow yourself to be naked-scanned and groped? Not really.

Police, "laws", prohibition-- ALL of it makes you much less safe.

Complete safety isn't an option. Never, under any circumstance. Striving for total safety, especially if you are using government, is counterproductive.

Besides, liberty is the greatest good. Imaginary safety-- or even real safety, if that were possible-- doesn't come close.

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Scott Adams-- "narrative poisoning"

Recently, Scott Adams has been discussing what he calls "narrative poisoning". This is what he calls it when those you listen to have poisoned your mind by presenting a skewed one-sided narrative-- such as those who were honestly persuaded by their biased information sources to fear Trump as a Hitler, or to see January 6th as an "insurrection". 

Eventually, it reaches a point where those affected actually can't even see the possibility that they may have been brainwashed. Their fear is real.

Well, government supremacism is also evidence of narrative poisoning, and Scott suffers this affliction all the time.

On his show a couple of days ago, he posed a question he considered a tell for narrative poisoning of those on the political Right. (Of course, he only talks about "the two sides" as though those are the only options.)

He advocated (or brought up) a federal building code. Those who objected did so, he claimed, because of their narrative poisoning. Due to narrative poisoning causing them to automatically think "federal laws are bad" they couldn't see that one (unified, national) "law" is (in his mind) less tyrannical than 50 (individual state) "laws". By his claim, one national building code would be a net improvement; getting rid of 49 laws. 1 - 50 = -49... Supposedly.

I suspect in most cases, building codes are county or city codes rather than "state" level, but this doesn't really change the argument.

As is so often the case, he's wrong and it's because he's blinded by his government supremacism.

What he missed (and it's in the category of thing he always misses) is that while the state's building code might be a hundred pages long (a guess-- I'm not going to research the real number of pages involved), a national building code would undoubtedly be at least ten times longer to cover every possibility and condition in every part of the country; from Maine, to Hawaii, to Louisiana, to Montana, and everywhere in between. 

Also, if I'm building a house, I don't have to comply with every state's (illegitimate) building codes, but only the code enforced by my state's illegitimate bureaucrats. I could be trading a hundred pages of rules for thousands of pages of rules. This is not a net gain for me.

A national building code would probably encompass conditions that aren't going to exist in most places. Where I live now, I don't need to worry about flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or temperatures 40 below zero. Other places do have to deal with a mix of those conditions. To impose and enforce a national building code would end up meaning I would have to build my house to standards that are absurd for this location. Adding bureaucratic red tape, unnecessary cost, and long delays to the construction. And this would be the case everywhere else, as well.

"Well", you might say, "they could just make the code's details vary by location, depending on the circumstances where you are". Which would just get us back to where we are now.

Government has no business making or enforcing building codes. Let private certification by competing providers come up with the superior analog of building codes and certify the structures (and builders) that are "up to (their) code". Then let buyers choose who to trust. 

Only a government supremacist would believe government can do it better and should be involved in any way.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

Loyal to his enemy to the end

An older casual acquaintance of mine died Sunday night. Just days after being put on hospice. He was a Vietnam veteran and apparently had suffered a lot of damage from Agent Orange-- at least that's what he blamed for all his health trouble. The past couple of years were especially rough on him.

Some things made it worse than it had to be. The government directly poisoned him and then the VA subjected him to decades of government (socialized) "healthcare".

In spite of this, he was totally pro-military and pro-government to the end. He only objected to those institutions not being run the way he would have preferred. He had a flagpole in his front yard with Holy Pole Quilt and a POW-MIA flag lit by floodlights at night, being saluted by plywood soldier silhouettes.

I see this as a clear example of Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe you'd rather call it patriotism. RIP Jim.

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Expect pushback

One thing that people seem to have a hard time learning (or remembering) is that if you push someone too hard or too far you shouldn't be surprised when they push back. Because they will.

Look at the current political situation-- it's all pushback, from every side against whoever pushed them too much. Those who feel they've had their rights or their "freedom" limited are pushing back in political ways.

If you treat some people as "less than", don't be surprised when they fight back. Whether their feelings on the matter are justified or not, they'll use their victimhood to gain political power and then use that power against you because of what you've done to them in the past. 

But, if they go too far with their pushback, they shouldn't be surprised when they get pushed back yet again. It's not a pendulum; it's being actively shoved from side to side.

Left-Statist Twitter users are angry that Twitter has started fact-checking them now, along with their opposition. But they were perfectly fine with Twitter actively censoring anyone who wasn't a Left-Statist under the old management. In fact, they denied it was even happening and laughed at anyone who said it was. The situation has changed. They thought they were special and above accountability. They don't like it at all when the shoes are on both feet.

What they call the promotion of "hate speech" (no such thing), "white supremacy", and the Republican Party is simply a slight shift back toward the middle. They are so far Left-Statist that even slowing the plunge toward their side looks to them like a hard turn to the other side. This Red Queen has to run as fast as she can toward the Left to stay in the ever-moving "center". Enough is enough. Unhitch from them and let them run off into the ocean and drown. There's no appeasing them. There's not even any reason to push them-- they'll do it to themselves. Just wait them out.

If Musk ever does end up pushing them too hard (for real, not in their fevered hallucinations) they will push back, justifiably so. Hopefully, as long as they are only imagining a push they won't be able to do any lasting damage. But hallucinations are powerful in those without a foundation of worthwhile principles. So I wouldn't say they have no chance.

If only people would stop trying to govern everyone else. It's OK to share the world with people who have different values-- and I'm speaking to all sides here. What's not OK is trying to legislate other people into slavery that you imagine would be good for you. If you do this, expect pushback. You probably won't enjoy it.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

Don't base your life on politicians

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 9, 2022)

Why would anyone bother confronting politicians? Do they really believe politicians matter in their daily life?

You protect your rights by exercising them-- by putting them into practice-- not by begging others to respect them.

I'm not going to a politician's office to try to convince them of anything. Not to beg them to stop violating my rights nor to ask them to violate someone else on my behalf.

You won't find me at a protest, a political rally, or in a voting booth for the same reason I'm not going to go to an inner city to beg the violent criminals there to stop hurting innocent people. It's a waste of time and, as shown by January 6, 2021, can be pointlessly dangerous.

Both groups, freelance criminals and politicians-- which I see as clones of each other-- are inconsequential to my life. They don't matter except when they do something to violate me or someone around me, and in that case, they aren't likely to stop simply because I asked nicely. Especially not if I ask them according to the rules and procedures they say must be followed.

The worst type of political action is to ask for the rights of others to be violated through more laws.  It's not smart or ethical and only gives them justification for violating you later. Playing political "an eye for an eye" is how liberty dies.

Politicians and other criminals will only stop violating people if they have no choice. When you ask politely, they have the choice to say "no".

Exercising your rights can be dangerous when there are people out there who mean to stop you. Most worthwhile things carry some risk, and living your life outside political permission is no different. I believe it's worth the risk.

Anyone who attacks you for exercising your rights is the bad guy. It doesn't matter what justification is used or what law they say gives them this power or imaginary political authority. It doesn't matter if they got enough votes to get away with it. They are bad guys with delusions of legitimacy.

Don't base how you live your life on the opinions of those who win elections. Not even if they have the power to hurt you-- this is something any bad guy has the power to do. Don't live your life to appease them. Treat them as though they don't matter, and soon you'll discover they don't.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Blogger, are you drunk?

Blogger-- the site, not the person-- has developed an odd quirk.

It is suddenly marking comments from years ago as spam. These are comments that were previously published-- I know because when I go to the post, some of them have replies from me. But, now they are awaiting deletion as spam.

I just had a batch of them from 2014 that I had to approve or mark as "not spam".

I don't know what's going on there.

Added: They just keep on coming. Since I started paying attention to the dates, they've all been from 2014. I've been approving all of them. Including those I strongly disagree with.
Oddly, I discovered I was unable to post this as a comment, so maybe their comment code is broken.

.

Judge the words, not the source.

After my post in support of online anonymity, I heard someone make what seems to me one of the dumbest statements against online anonymity I can imagine.

This person was saying that he automatically discounts everything which comes from anonymous accounts.

Really? Their anonymity renders him incapable of weighing the truth of a statement? That's incredibly dumb and pathetic.

I've said in the past, and I stand by it to this day: it doesn't matter who said something, truth is truth. It's why I don't really care if a supposedly historical quote wasn't really said by the person it is attributed to. If it's true, I'll gladly claim the orphaned quote as my own.

Everyone is capable of saying true, and smart, things. Just give them time.

Hitler said some true things that anyone would agree with if they didn't know the source-- I don't know of any off-hand, and I don't feel like digging for a quote, but I guarantee you it's a fact. Even if it was just "Die meisten Menschen mögen Hunde als Gesellschaft" or "Most people like dogs for companionship" (according to Google translate anyway). 

As hard as it may be to believe, every politician occasionally says something true. Yes, even Maxine Waters must have done so at some point.

Sure, anonymous accounts are as likely to spew nonsense as "real journalists". Don't automatically write them off just because you dislike their anonymity, though. Judge the words, not the source.

If you discount truth because of the source-- because it's one you don't like or because the source prefers to remain anonymous for reasons that are none of your business-- you are shooting yourself in the foot. Or brain. You are handicapping yourself for no good reason-- for your feelings.

That's your choice, of course, but it's not smart.

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

News flash: Democrats and Classical Liberals are Republicans

A "classical liberal" wanted to "prove" I am a Republican by getting me to admit I want the state to enforce my personal opinions. This was in response to something I posted in defense of a classical liberal's post. 

I was responding to someone else saying he can't support libertarians in response to something another classical liberal posted. I pointed out that classical liberals aren't libertarians and that even so, the classical liberal was kinda right.

This attracted a different classical liberal.

He said that classical liberals would call me a Republican. When I said they would be wrong he said anyone who believes the state should enforce their opinion is a Republican. Seriously. He said that. Here's the exact quote: "Should the state enforce your personal opinion? If yes, you are a Republican." 

By his daft-inition, Democrats are Republicans, as are Socialists/Nazis/Communists and every other group that uses politics. Everyone is a Republican-- including classical liberals who advocate for a "night watchman state" (which is kind of their defining characteristic, is it not?).

Yet I didn't call for government to enforce my opinion (if any) on anyone. It wasn't even part of the conversation, he just hallucinated what he wanted to see.

It's a messed up world where you can mix in some politics and lower the IQ of the room. Just another example showing that politics makes people stupid.

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Online anonymity is essential

Jordan Peterson has come out strongly against online anonymity. I understand that he probably gets attacked by anonymous trolls a lot. It's no excuse.

It just shows that everyone is wrong sometimes. Especially when their feelings get involved.

I am in favor of anonymity; no reservations. Even anonymous trolls. 

When there is authoritarianism and tyranny, anonymity is essential. I don't think anyone should be required to martyr themselves to speak the truth.

I was anonymous for the first few years online, and I often wonder if I made a mistake by giving that away-- even though it seemed necessary at the time.

I stand in unqualified support for online anonymity.

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Probably not your first choice

This pistol was my daily carry gun for several years. Yes, really. Not concealed carry, for obvious reasons.

It wasn't my only carry gun, nor was it my first. 

Certainly, it wasn't the best choice for daily carry. It was a single shot, which is one reason there was a backup gun. It was difficult to wear while driving a car; my car had some wear from contact with it. It was vulnerable to weather conditions, and my accuracy with it was less than spectacular. In normal circumstances, this gun would stick out like a sore thumb.

Surprisingly, that pistol probably wasn't the first thing people noticed when they saw me, though. See how much I've managed to adapt to fit in? I still think this world/society is strange and I can't really adapt any further. Many days, I want to unadapt.

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Is it you or your liberty they hate?

If someone hates (or fears) your liberty, I can't help but think that actually hate (or fear) you.

Every day I see people advocating for taking away someone's liberty-- maybe even everyone's liberty (somehow they'll exempt themselves). They strike a savior's pose, but that's not what they are. When you confront them about it, they'll try to change the subject. I can't blame them.

No one wants to believe they are the bad guy-- I've heard people trying to justify the most horrible things and play the hero while doing so. Just listen to cops for a minute if you don't believe me.

These liberty haters may lie and say it's about safety or protecting someone's feelings. But it's about enslaving others. No one is better off if anyone's liberty is violated. Not even those who are scared of you and are afraid you'll exercise your liberty in ways they don't approve of.

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Leave that loser stuff in the past

Back when I was a teenager I could clearly "see" the future when humans lived on Mars. And obviously, I "saw" that Earth governments would assert their absurdly toothless rulership over the Martians. 

It was equally evident to me that the colonies would eventually have to revolt.

I even "saw" the Confederation of Martian Colonies that came after the successful revolution.

Of course, I'd rather they grew out of the childish need to govern each other at all. Not that a confederation would necessarily be a political government of any sort. It could just be a mutual assistance agreement.

When humans finally emigrate from Earth they'll be getting a unique chance to do things right this time. With their origins in the cesspool of politics back on Earth, I'm not too hopeful of the possibilities for most of them, but eventually, someone will do the right thing. Even if it's only one colony out of billions-- at first. It's inevitable, and I hope no one screws it up so a liberated future can begin as soon as possible.

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Promises of politicians impossible

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 2, 2022)

Politicians are always promising to do things politicians can't do. Either they believe they are magic, or they want you to believe they are.

Sometimes they promise things they can't legally do-- things which violate the Constitution-- and other times they promise to do things which aren't possible within the laws of physics in our Universe. Do they believe you are gullible enough to fall for it? Probably.

Often they promise to violate economic reality, which is nearly as immutable as the laws of physics.

I've seen them promise to cap medication prices. I saw one suggestion that the cap for the price of insulin should be $0. Who did she think would continue to make insulin for free? Who would they enslave to do the work without being paid? Who will they steal the raw ingredients and facility from?

Did she mean everyone except the person getting the insulin will be forced to pay for it? This is usually what politicians mean by "free".

Economic ignorance is common in politicians, but it's not the only domain where they fail.

They are never good with scientific reality, as shown by "Save the planet", "Save the climate". and "End fossil fuels".

The Constitution is a frequent target of their delusions of power. Regardless of what the Constitution allows or forbids, they promise to secure the border.

With zero understanding of human nature, they believe legislation and cruel enforcement can end drug abuse.

They promise to ban an imaginary category of firearms: the "assault weapon". A name they made up so they could put anything they don't like into the meaningless category. It's still a lie, and they've been corrected enough times to know it by now. If they banned everything they label an "assault weapon" it would increase crime in a very real way. Prohibition always does.

The promises they make never end. Fortunately for us, they rarely get fulfilled. To a politician with ambitions to rule, reality is inconvenient to their goals and gets ignored as much as possible. Politicians can choose to ignore reality, but reality won't be cheated. The piper will be paid and gravity will pull them back down.

If you keep falling for political promises, you deserve what you get. My hope is that you'll see through their lies and avoid the pain which comes from trying to cheat reality to get what you want. Magic isn't real, and politicians are never Dumbledore.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

What liberty means to me

I wouldn't write about liberty if it didn't matter to me-- if I didn't have a passion for it. 

Liberty is the key to everything good. Even things you may think are unrelated to liberty. They aren't. 

Without liberty, there's nothing that can't be taken from you. Liberty helps protect your body, your faith, your family, your property, and your life. Anyone who doesn't want you to exercise your liberty to the fullest is not on your side.

There is no legitimate compromise that can be made when liberty is on the table-- it should never be on the table.

You can't give up liberty for the greater good because liberty is the greatest good. Never budge an inch!

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

"Hey, Look at this other shiny thing over here..."

In the hours leading up to the story about Twitter's suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story I watched those on the BiDenmocrat side panicking and trying to redirect focus to what Trumpublicans (or those associated with that side) did or might have done.

Boring.

Yes, yes, all politicians are crooked and everyone associated with them probably is, too. But trying to divert attention from the ethical crimes of those trying hard to protect your guy by pointing out the crimes of someone else's guy probably isn't going to work with anyone who isn't already on your team... or totally apathetic. 

Unfortunately, the Leftstream media is mostly on your team and will be helping hide the truth. Again. This is how this situation was created in the first place-- so I guess you didn't learn. Or maybe you did learn that it works well enough. (I would count all their work on behalf of Biden as a campaign contribution, because it is one.)

To me, your panic mode makes it look more like you think Daddy Joe "The Big Guy" Biden is guilty than if you just shut your yaps. 

Let the info on Twitter's suppression of the laptop news come out and take your lumps. This is about Twitter's dishonest behavior, not about the Biden family's crimes, anyway. And, it seems like Twitter's BiDenmocrat partisans thought the Bidens did something they needed to help hide, whether or not that is what happened.

If you think anyone other than your team is going to decide to care more about old news than current events... well, since politics makes people stupid, you might be right. Nothing will really change, anyway (I would love to be proven wrong about that).

Watching the reactions on Twitter for a couple of hours shows one thing: this is a perfect example of people seeing what they want to see. Maybe what they are primed to see. 

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Be aware, not w0ke

Being "woke", or as I prefer to spell it, "w0ke", seems a rather low bar. As long as you aren't actually unconscious, I suppose you are awake-- "w0ke".

I prefer being aware to being merely "w0ke".

Fictional zombies are minimally awake but aren't aware. Not on any mental level beyond instinct. Most of the political w0ke seem about the same-- which is why I sometimes refer to them as xombies.

Most of these xombies would argue that being w0ke means they are aware. They are mistaken. I'm certain they probably feel they are aware. They mistake the feeling of awareness for awareness.

It's not that they are always automatically wrong about everything. It is good to rise above silly things like racism, sexism, nationalism, etc. That is a sign that you may be aware, but if you dive too deep you'll lose awareness and replace it with w0keness, and that's a giant step backward.

Most w0keness will advocate violating liberty in some way; often in multiple major ways. The w0ke might claim they don't trust the state or corporations, but then they are thrilled when the state/corporation imposes their w0ke policies. Often they encourage the state and the quasi-state (corporations) to impose and enforce their w0ke agenda under threat of violence or cancellation. 

This demonstrates a lack of awareness of the consequences they are setting in motion. Which isn't exactly surprising. W0ke people seem the least aware of anyone, or at least equally unaware as the political reactionaries who oppose them with their own anti-liberty political agenda. Politics makes people stupid, after all.

Be aware, not w0ke.

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Getting comfortable in your chains

When I lived in Colorado I noticed that I burned as much firewood before Thanksgiving as I did the entire rest of the season. Once I got used to the colder weather I didn't need as much firewood to stay comfortable.

Your comfort level adapts to the circumstances. That's great for some things, but...

I never want to get comfortable enough with tyrants trying to violate my rights that I don't resist by living free in spite of them.

This is what I see from people who live in some other countries (or states, even). They've gotten too comfortable with being violated, and they get mad when others don't accept the same violations. They do all they can to convince you to accept what they've accepted.

It's just not going to happen.

If they are content with their situation, that's fine for them. Not for me. 

I value liberty above everything, so I'm not going to willingly give it away in exchange for convenience, comfort, or "safety". Not "for the children", because I know the children would benefit more from liberty than from your pretend safety. No argument will make any difference to me. I can't be "shamed" into accepting the chains you offer. I'm not getting on that bandwagon. Go in peace, but go.

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.