Why I won't v*te

There have been a lot of strawmen erected around the reasons that people like myself won't v*te. I'm sure you've seen plenty of them yourself.

But, here are the real reasons I won't v*te:

• I don't "believe in it" anymore. I used to. I felt like I was doing something; doing the right thing. I would v*te for the candidate I thought shared at least many of my values. Usually, that candidate lost. When that candidate won, I always found out that he didn't share my values at all. He had lied to get my v*te. So, by helping that candidate win, I helped make the situation worse. I had helped give a bad guy power. I had undercut my own interests.

• My liberty is not up for a v*te. If every person v*ted for the rights of the one holdout to be violated, it's still not right to violate them. V*ting is mob rule. Might doesn't make right; neither does majority.

• I feel like if I v*te, I am making an illegitimate system look legitimate, or at least make it look like I support the idea that the opinion of the majority should be forced, at gunpoint, on the minority. (Ignoring that the "winning side" is only a majority of v*ters, not of the population.) Even if "my side" wins, and gets to force liberty on people who don't want it, how is that a good thing? You can't force people to be free.

• I get the "v*ting in self defense" argument. However, v*ting isn't aimed. It strikes the aggressor and the non-aggressor equally- if at all. Just because some people in a crowd threaten you, it doesn't justify spraying the crowd with bullets. Know your target and know what is behind your target. 

• No one but me can represent me. It simply isn't possible. The idea is even more absurd when the "representative" is supposed to represent thousands or millions of people. This is magical thinking at its craziest. So, why go through the motions for something that isn't going to happen? That is impossible at its very foundation? It's like making a ritual of reading horoscopes religiously. 

• I don't enjoy it. It's stressful and frustrating. Chances are, if I v*te for someone, that person would lose. If they win, all I can celebrate is that the other person lost. Then I can look forward to the winner treating my liberty just like the other guy was proposing to treat it. Just more slowly, or violating it in a slightly different way.

• It's unnecessary. Look, there will always be bad guys out there. To archate is a primitive human desire- politicians turned it into an art form. You can spend your life worrying about them, or you can live your life in spite of them. Does it enhance your life in any way to spend time thinking about politicians? Do you really look to them and their opinions for guidance? Do you let their opinions prevent you from doing what you know is right? Or force you to do what you know is wrong? I understand recognizing that what you are doing is "illegal" and not announcing it to the world, but if it's the right thing to do- or even if it is ethically neutral- just do it. But do it quietly if you don't want to get molested by employees of the State. Don't intentionally step in the dog crap, but step around it. And government employees are dog crap.

I would never try to stop anyone else from v*ting.

Some believe they "need to" in order to defend themselves from bad guys who are employed by government. But whether it's statists or muggers, bad guys will always be there, always seeking to impose their will on the rest of us. V*ting is as effective in the real world as chanting and shaking rattles to cure cancer. But, if it makes you feel better, go for it. Just don't get upset when others won't participate.

Just don't fall for the delusion that you have "done enough" by v*ting. If anyone stops at v*ting OR non-v*ting, and believes they have accomplished something, they are fooling themselves.

Which is part of why I think v*ting is irrelevant- you haven't actually done anything useful either way. You have GOT to do more to have accomplished something of value. And, just like in math, where something that appears on both sides of the equation can be ignored, the rest is what needs to be focused on.

I see someone who insists that I should v*te as saying "Well, mugging isn't ideal, but it's the system we have, so we'd better use it to our advantage".

Maybe v*ting can delay the collapse of civilization (I doubt that, but whatever). If TSHTF now, I am here to help. If it happens years down the road, I may not be able to help. People will probably be even less able to survive, having been softened further by government dependency. Putting something off almost always makes it worse in the long run. Might as well get the show on and see what becomes of it.

I'm sorry if that isn't what you want to believe. Reality is harsh.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Government ‘help’ solves nothing

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 23, 2016- I honestly believe this is one of the worst CNJ columns I have ever written, and for that, I apologize.)

If you want something done, do it without forcing your will on anyone else, and without forcing others to pay for what you want. Good ideas don't require force.

After the recent SpaceX rocket explosion, I saw someone arguing that this was why space exploration should be left to governments, thus financed with taxation. After all, the apparent cause of the blast was something NASA solved fifty years ago.

While this may be true, you'll also notice tax-financed space exploration stagnated decades ago. Long before commercial rockets became a reality.

If you want space exploration to get anywhere, you need people trying new things and taking new risks; innovating, not just copying solutions found long ago.

Even when government does innovate it's as likely to make things worse as to make them better.

Government got involved and started regulating and de facto rationing health care over a century ago. This increased the cost of health care, which caused some to demand government "do something". Government did, and now we have ObamaCare regulating and rationing health care even further. When people start feeling the failure, some will scream for government to do even more, and the situation will accelerate toward a total collapse.

This belief, that government should get involved anytime someone sees a problem, creates even bigger problems; ones more meddling can't solve.

Government, if it is to exist at all, must stay within its limits. If it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution as something government is allowed to do, then it is a crime for government to do it, regardless of how many believe it's a good idea. A more permissive view would still limit government to protecting the life, liberty, and property of those who consent to its control. Government meddling does none of those.

Government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with space exploration, health care, education, travel, or even something as simple as pets.

When people decided government needed to "do something" about pets we ended up with animal control ordinances and animal shelters. For government extremists it wasn't good enough to let private individuals approach the problem-- if there was a problem. Force was used, and this coercive system is failing again.

Governments don't understand economics. When you raise the price of anything, especially if you charge for mandatory features people may not want, you reduce the demand for it. Yet they seem surprised at the decrease in the number of adoptions.

There are always consequences for letting government meddle. Government breaks everything it touches.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


.

Cops and politicians- parasites?

Are cops and politicians really parasites? After all, they do "give back" in exchange for what they take. That makes some people disagree with the assertion that they are parasites.

But what they give back is harmful and unwanted (at least I don't want it). They give back rules and aggression in exchange for the liberty and property they take. Is that a good trade? Hardly.

I can't steal $100 from you, then give you a Twinkie (or a bruise on your head) and call it even. Consent has to be part of the equation. It's the most important part. Without consent, any act is a violation.

The cops and politicians could even give back more than they take, but when there is no consent in the taking, they are a parasite.

It's not OK for me to take your pizza and give you my car, if you don't agree to the trade. Maybe you have no use for a car, and are starving to death. I can't claim you should be happy with the trade, so you should just shut up. Or, I can't without looking like a thug. And this is what cops and politicians do. It is what they are.

Without consent, their taking- even if they imagine they give something up in return- is theft. They are parasites on society, because they are parasites on some individuals. Maybe not on you, but they are parasites feeding on me without my consent, and one person is enough to prove the claim.

Cops and politicians ARE parasites.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.

(Steemit link)

It's your right, but is it a good idea?

Just because it isn't a good idea to exercise a right, does that mean you don't have the right to do it? No.

This usually comes up with regards to "bearing arms". You have the right to carry a full-auto AK-47 openly down the streets of NYC, and into a courthouse. And you would be murdered by government employees for doing so. I would argue this makes it not a good idea. But it is still within your rights.

This follows along with the right to commit suicide. Usually, I think suicide is not a good idea. But you have that right and no one can take it from you. And, I am sure other examples could be found everywhere, if one looked.

It's not always smart to do everything you have an absolute human right to do. Not in every situation.

Why do people get confused over this?

Know what you have a right to do.
Stay within those rights.
Weigh the costs.
Be aware of circumstances.
Be smart.
Accept responsibility for your actions.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Those who "believe in obeying the law"

A while back the newspaper editor posted a link to the story about how more people were caged for "marijuana offenses" than for all violent crimes combined.

Of course, some copsuckers had to pipe up to tell us why we should just obey the opinions of evil people ("laws").

It is a very good illustration of the sick mindset of statists. It's actually an argument in favor of Anonymous' "Kill 'em all" comments, even though I hate to admit it, and I won't do that even if I could.

Anyway, here is a sampling of the comments from one of the law lovers regarding Cannabis prohibition:

"Last I knew it's still against the law."

Like running away from the slave plantation? If you let "law" dictate your ethics or morals, you have none.

"Not going to argue the point. You don't drive down main st. At 90 mph or steal from Wal Mart. Legalization is only a few years away but they can't wait. It's just a misdemeanor and unless they're carrying weight no jail time. I just believe in obeying the law."

Driving down Main St. at 90 MPH might be wrong if there are other people present, and if you present a credible threat to them or their property. But there is nothing inherently wrong with it just because someone made up an arbitrary "speed limit"

Stealing from a store is a violation of property rights. That makes it wrong. It would still be wrong even if legislation said it was OK- as with "taxation", for example.

So, you think slaves should just have waited until the "laws" were changed, and they were wrong when they tried to escape? If you believe in obeying the "law", without qualification, you are a fool and a moral cripple. Good people can't "just believe in obeying the law", but delusional State worshipers can. And do.

"My point is we don't get to chose which laws we will obey or disobey. I'm sure you didn't negotiate with your kids or your parents on their rules."

Actually, you do get to choose which "laws" to obey, just like the BadgeScum choose which "laws" to enforce against whom. If a "law" mandates you to do the wrong thing, or prohibits you doing the right thing, and you have ethics and principles, you will not obey that "law"- at least as long as you can break the "law" without being shot or kidnapped right now. I choose which "laws" to obey all the time.

And most people (well, smart people anyway) did negotiate with their parents regarding the rules. And they may even get some of the arbitrary or harmful rules eliminated through negotiation. I would rather my daughter be able to think for herself, and make a good argument against bad rules, than just be obedient. And I let her know that. Does it make parenting harder? Yep. Too bad for me- it will turn her into a much better person than demanding obedience ever could. Obedience is for slaves.

"It all has to do with sociopathic behavior. I don't need to play by the rules so when I go downhill it's somebody else fault. Play by society's rules. If your tailight is out. Get it fixed!"

When the rules are harmful, only sociopaths enforce them, and only cowards willingly obey them. If you go downhill, either because you "broke the rules" or for any other reason, it's your own fault. Ask for help, and if you haven't been a jerk, help may be offered.

Society is NOT the same as government. Government's rules are often very different from society's rules. Society's rules have evolved over time, government's rules have been dreamed up by insane bullies and imposed by force. Often, government's rules oppose society's rules, to the detriment of society.

Yes, if your tail light is broken, get it fixed. You'll probably be safer, and I would appreciate your courtesy. I'll even let you know if I see it broken without using that as an excuse to steal from you, waylay you, or violate your privacy. Only a really nasty bully would see a broken tail light and use it as a pretext for those violations. And, yes, cops are just that sort of nasty bullies.

And there you have it. This is why "we can't have nice things". Because evil idiots like this guy believe they are the "voice of reason" when they advocate unreasonable things. When they excuse the inexcusable.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

Bad words!

Here's something I end up telling my 9 year-old daughter frequently: There are no such things as "bad words"; there are only words that upset some people when they are spoken.

Or written.

And, yet, words which represent true evil aren't usually included in that list by most people.

Words like "government", "police", "laws", "State", "arrest", "vote", and things of that nature are actually much worse than the words most people get upset over  and call "profanity" or "obscenity". They represent the mainstream acceptance of truly evil acts. Acts of archation.

I apologize for the foul language used above. You'll live. 

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.


(Steemit link)

"Never discuss politics or religion"

Here's a secret: I don't like discussing politics or religion with people face to face, in real life.

It makes me very uncomfortable. Almost to the point of panic. Especially when it comes at me out of nowhere.  I am almost never the one to bring up such subjects in real life. I just don't do it.

Yet, so many people want to discuss these things with me. They know I have an opinion- and generally even know what it is. But they don't want to learn- they just want to hear me talk about it so they can disagree.

Sometimes I just refuse to talk about it. Sometimes I'm caught off-guard and start talking before I realize what has happened. Then the "fight or flight" kicks in as soon as I realize where the conversation has gone. Probably not a good thing at all.

If there were going to be a good, honest discussion, it would be one thing. But it's not. It's always an attempt to trip me up (doesn't happen); to fling questions at me in rapid succession so I don't have a chance to answer one before 2 more have been tossed out (almost always), or find the areas where I have no simple answers (happens a lot).

In those type of "discussions", there can be no communication.

Yes, these are topics of critical importance. The quality of life- sometimes life itself- depends on getting the answers right. Carefully and thoughtfully. But, people are going to believe what they believe. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind under those circumstances.

I suppose it's the danger of being known as outspoken and opinionated.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

Government is slavery

It was near the beginning of my online life that I realized I am an abolitionist. Slavery is the ultimate anti-liberty. While no person can actually own another, the pretense that they can has been the justification for all sorts of evil throughout human history.

Most people don't seem to realize that slavery is still a big problem- and not just the kind that comes to mind when they think of the word "slavery"- but forms of slavery they they may not recognize and may even support.

Government- The State- is slavery in every sense of the word.

If you are forbidden to do what you have a right to do, you are being enslaved. If someone claims to have a right to tell you where you can live, what you are allowed to put into your bloodstream, how to use your property, can take your property from you against your will, and says they can forbid your right to own and to carry tools, they are trying to enslave you. If they kidnap and cage you for doing what you have a right to do, the slavery has gone from the abstract to the concrete.

How much you allow them to succeed is up to you.

In one sense, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

On the other hand, you must pick your battles. You are no good to anyone if you are dead.

And I can't make that choice for you. No one can. Because you are not a slave, no matter how many want to enslave you, as long as you take responsibility for your own choices.

As long as you do that, I am proud of you.

Be pro-liberty. Be an abolitionist. Be the anti-slave.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

Liberty, anarchy go hand in hand

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 16, 2016)

 Libertarians advocate best government (my chosen headline)

What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

Libertarians advocate liberty. Specifically, maximum liberty and minimum government, because the two are inversely related. The more of one you have, the less you have of the other.  What's the minimum level of government you can impose on others?

"That government is best which governs least" wrote Henry David Thoreau. The best government is zero government.

In the Tao Te Ching, written around 2,600 years ago, Lao Tzu observed "When the government is quite unobtrusive, people are indeed pure. When the government is quite prying, people are indeed conniving." Unfortunately that's what it takes to survive being governed. Government breeds distrust and dishonesty.

There can't be "too much liberty" because liberty, being the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate others, is self-regulating. If an act violates someone, it's not liberty.

Anarchy isn't about chaos, "Mad Max", or "kill or be killed". Those popular misconceptions come from people taught in schools controlled by the state, which has an interest in promoting fear and ignorance concerning a lack of government.

Anarchy isn't a rejection of rules, but of people who rule. You govern yourself, without imposing control on anyone else. The buck stops with you. You are responsible for your own choices; there is no one else to blame.

Anarchy isn't about throwing bombs and growing bushy beards. It isn't against free enterprise. It most certainly isn't socialism or communism- although those groups sometimes misuse the label for propaganda.

Libertarians who don't eventually become anarchists fail to mature. They are ignoring inconsistencies in order to avoid discomfort. They seem to be trying to justify the government functions they support by pretending those aren't based on theft and aggression.

Anyone who carefully considers what liberty means, without making excuses, will eventually see there can be no such thing as a good government, and that evil is never necessary. He may not want to call himself an anarchist, but labels are only words. What matters is what you do, not what you call yourself.

As long as you don't use violence against the non-violent, you respect the property of others, and don't make excuses for people who refuse to follow these non-negotiable rules of society, you are on the right side.

Besides, hasn't this presidential election shown you the folly in seeking political answers to anything?

So, what's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About six months. Or so the joke goes.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.



.

Do you have the right to defend yourself violently?

If you don't have the right to defend your life, liberty, and property, with violence, from ALL who threaten or violate them, government employees included, you have no rights at all.

Yet, there are those who seriously say you have no right to use violence against aggressors, because doing so violates their right to life.

Those who make that claim are wrong.

And, no, it isn't that aggressors "give up" their right to not have violence used against them when they choose to archate- it's that they had no right to do so, and by choosing to do so they violated you, and you have the right to defend yourself. With violence if necessary. They made the choice; they can deal with the consequences.

So, yes, you have the absolute human right to defend yourself- with deadly force if necessary- against violators. Regardless of whether they work for the State or not, and regardless if those who work for the State are "just doing their job". If their "job" is a violation, they are no different from any other violator, and should expect to be treated any different. If they don't like that, they should quit and find an honest job.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

The value of liberty (PINNED)

... and of those working to promote it the best we know how.

Even though my subscriptions are down by $55 from last year, I have been scraping by. That is due to donations which often come in the nick of time. Mostly, it works. Which amazes me.

I love my donors.

I also love my subscribers.

I would really appreciate a few more of both. Or either.

I know these begging posts are annoying- they annoy me, too. I can't expect each reader to subscribe to the order of $100 per month, or many one-time donations that knock my socks off (and I don't expect either), but whatever you can do, if you consider this blog to be of value (and if you can afford it) is greatly appreciated.

Either way, know that I value each and every reader (yes, even you) whether you've ever subscribed or donated or not, and I hope you are getting something of worth each time you show up to read a post. Well, all the real posts, anyway. And I sincerely thank you.

Enjoy watching the train wreck called "politics", if you're into such things. Creepy clowns, indeed.

And if other liberty ideas are more important to you, I welcome your advice on topics you'd like me to explore from my perspective.

Have a great day!

.

From the Extraordinary Claims Department

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim, not with those who scoff at the claim..

Such as the claim that government employees should be allowed to kill people as long as it is called "capital punishment" or "war".

It doesn't matter that governments have been doing both-- and getting away with it-- for thousands of years and few have stood up to say it's wrong. It is still an extraordinary claim.

I can't accept this claim without extraordinary evidence in its favor. And I have yet to see any evidence, extraordinary or not. Lots of claims and emotions and name-calling; religious and statist claims, but nothing more. That won't cut it for me.

My thought on the issue of capital punishment remains the same-- it is murder motivated by revenge. It is a primitive, superstitious cleansing ritual. It taints everyone involved-- no one comes out the good guy. When you hand government the power to kill, there is nothing left to hand it. You have accepted total State domination. It is wrong. Just because you approve of some of the murders doesn't change it.

The ONLY ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge. I understand the lust for revenge in some cases, but I also know it's wrong.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.

I come not to praise democracy...

I'm always seeing these embarrassing videos praising democracy and telling people why they should v*te.

What a crock of male Bos taurus fecal matter.

Here's one example, and my response to it.

Video link

Sayu, you are badly off-course. Democracy isn't something to strengthen or promote. There is no good in it. It is mob rule. (As is a republic, which will always evolve into a democracy anyway. Before someone gets their constitutional panties in a wad. Both are just mob rule- "majority makes right" is wrong.)

Governing yourself is a good idea. Even necessary. Governing your neighbor? Well, that just makes you a thug- whether you do it personally, or v*te to have someone do it on your behalf.

Publicly praising democracy is the same as publicly praising other forms of theft, rape, kidnapping, and murder. Don't do it- and if you insist on doing it anyway, own it. Accept what you are praising and promoting. Understand why this makes you a bad guy. Understand that your condemnation of your critics is as empty as the protests of any other bully when people stand up and refuse to pretend you have some imaginary "right" to bully them.

Calling what politicians do "public service" is a lie. A nasty one which harms the innocent.

It doesn't matter what "race" or gender a politician is, or where it was born or hatched- NO ONE has the right to violate another using the excuse of governing.

A good politician (if such a thing were possible) wouldn't advocate for (or against) anyone based on "race" or gender or anything else, because all humans have equal and identical rights. It wouldn't matter who or what that politician is.

If you violate one person, you are violating everyone. If you leave everyone to live their life as they see fit (free of archation on their part), and free to defend their life, liberty, and property from those who violate them, it doesn't matter who you are. Just like it doesn't matter who you are if you violate others.

It doesn't matter who is governing- it matters that you allow governing to happen right in front of you. That's wrong.

You do get one thing right though: You admit that politics is about fear and taking things away from others. And yet, you want to promote more of this. Sayu, politics makes people stupid. Looks like you are suffering from exposure and you need to find a cure. Or, at least take that first step. You can't even know the meaning of liberty or freedom until you turn away from politics. I hope it's not too late for you.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

What are people worth?

In politics, one's worth is almost entirely subjective.

Sure, all humans have a baseline "worth" simply because they are humans. From that level ground, they either add to their worth during their lifetime by being kind, helpful, or productive, or they subtract from their worth by being aggressive, unpleasant, or parasitic.

Since politicians are some mix of both- with the unshakable reality of aggression and parasitism attached by definition to the poor choice of being a politician- they have to appear to lean heavily toward the positive human traits to break even. Very few manage it even for a short time. Think Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi as prime examples of those who gave up even trying to appear pleasant. Or even human.

Someone is not worth more due to being president, a congressvermin, or any other political position. In fact, by my estimation, the very best possible outcome for a politician's worth is that he'll be as worthwhile as any random person you might encounter on the street. That's just hypothetical, of course, since the reality is none have even approached that level.

But, for those blinded by the star-power of politicians, they imagine them to be of a higher class than the rest of us. "Worth more". It's a silly opinion, but it's what they believe. You aren't going to reason them out of their delusions.

Your worth is also subjective to a politician. What can they get from you and how can you be used? Beyond that, you are nothing to them, no matter how they act to your face.

-

(Steemit link for those of you who "do Steemit" and would like to help out without actually donating or subscribing.)

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.

When "Don't tread on me" just isn't enough

(Steemit link)

Prohibition dangerous as addiction

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 9, 2016)

Prohibition is drug abuse‏ (my chosen headline- I didn't even try to come up with something they'd use this week)

Drugs can make people crazy. For proof, just look what drugs have done to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.

His craziness apparently doesn't come from taking drugs, but from his murderous lust to prohibit them. Like so many prohibitionists in the US.

He's a perfect role model for supporters of the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Particularly for those who have the political power to continue to impose prohibition on society.

People who support prohibition are some of the most dangerous drug abusers out there. They abuse the excuse that some people will use drugs, some of those who use drugs will abuse them, some of those who abuse them will become addicted, and some of those who become addicted will be harmed to find justification for harming everyone; drug abuser or not. In fact, the drug war has been used as a model for the equally perverted war against gun owners. This chain of linked excuses can be used to violate any liberty you have.

Drug abuse is dumb, but prohibition is evil. Prohibition never has the effect its pushers claim, but instead adds crime and corrupt law enforcement to the list of harm the drugs may do, without preventing the harm done by drugs.

Most of the harm claimed to result from drug abuse-- legal trouble, loss of jobs and social standing--  can be traced more to the effects of prohibition than to the drugs themselves. And prohibitionists are OK with that-- anything to punish drug users. To prohibitionists, it's worth any collateral damage.

Those who advocate prohibition are effectively saying "Drugs are bad for you, and to prove it we will destroy your life, and maybe kill you, if we suspect you possess drugs". It's one of the craziest acts ever committed in the name of "for your own good".

Prohibitionists are on the wrong side of morality, and on the losing side of history. One day their crusade will look as backward and evil as the acts of those who supported the runaway slave acts. On that day those who enforce prohibition will be seen in the same light as those who captured and returned-- or killed-- runaway slaves in the name of "enforcing the law". In fact, growing numbers of us already see them this way.

Some of us also see them as absolutely crazy, like President Duterte, and hope they come to their senses before they do more damage.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


.

Rule yourself

There are those who prefer the idea of autarchy over anarchy. I believe they are basically the same thing- if you have no king, then you rule yourself... which means you are your own king.

Get your own crown

The only "problem" with the word "anarchy" is that bad guys have used the word to describe their non-anarchist acts, and other bad guys embraced and spread the misinformation. Not much you can do about that, besides use the word correctly when you use it.

Maybe the word "autarchy" has less baggage (not none), but if it started being talked about, it would gather baggage very quickly. I don't really see much point in abandoning a word you like to use due to baggage. But, whatever.

None of that changes the basic fact: You are the rightful king of your own life- including of your liberty and property. No one else has a higher claim on it, and if they try to act as if they do, they are the bad guys. It doesn't matter if they call themselves "the police" or the mayor, or anything else. No one else has a legitimate claim on your life, liberty, or property unless it is due to a debt you took on. You can't take on a debt by being born in a particular place, or by a gang coming together to assign a debt to you.

Those who believe they can create a debt for you to owe, against your will, or without you archating, are liars. Don't fall for their lies.

If you let someone rule you, they are probably going to violate you in some way, and they will definitely have you violating someone on their behalf- even if it is just through your silence in the face of the evil they do to others.

Anarchist, Voluntaryist, abolitionist, autarchist, libertarian... whatever you call yourself doesn't really matter, as long as you don't archate, and don't support or excuse those who do. You are your own king. Be a good one.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.


(Steemit link)

What do I know?

I prefer to only blog about what I know.

That's fairly easy because that's what I find myself being passionate about; what I want to write about.

Of course, there's always a chance that in my passion I am wrong- and if I am I hope you'll straighten me out (but you have to convince me with reason rather than with emotions or superstitions).

But, really, what chance is there that theft and aggression are better things to incorporate into your life than mutually consensual, voluntary interactions- and self defense against those who refuse to reject theft and aggression?

The rest of the stuff I'll either not talk about, or I'll tell you what I think, while letting you know I am not sure about it. That's why you don't see some subjects that other blogs dwell on here.

I hope that works for you.

-

(Steemit link, for those who are on Steemit. I sure could use some upvotes...)

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.

Politics- bullying writ large

In the past I have referred to politics as an attempt to live among people you hate.

Now, I think I'd modify that somewhat and call it an attempt to force people you don't like or trust to do what you want, while avoiding seeing yourself as a bully.

But, if you use politics and v*ting (or anything else) to force your opinions on others, you are still a bully.

Yes, I realize "they" are doing the same to you. They are bullies, too.

I wish everyone would just leave me out of their childish, yet deadly, squabbles. Keep your filthy politics and evil government to yourself. Hands off my life and the lives of my kids.

Of course, this is easy for mature people to do, but almost impossible for DemoCRAPublicans to live with. For them, it's all about the politics. And that is really sad.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.


(Steemit link)

America to USA to ?? GIF

Judgmental, but not controlling

For all my faults, I am not a controlling person.

I notice that things others do, things which don't bother me in the slightest, drive some people nearly insane. I look and try to figure out what the exact problem is, but all I see is "they are doing something I don't like!!"

As long as a person isn't archating, I'm going to be pretty much OK with whatever they do. (If they are archating, then it's my business because violating anyone violates everyone.) Sure, I might recognize that what they are doing isn't something I would do, and I might even consider it disgusting or immoral, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it.

But in most cases I see, it's nothing even that serious.

Whether it's a neighbor who hasn't mowed in ages (I can be guilty of that myself), or who has a lot of (what I see as) junk in his yard, or a house with "too many cars", or "possibly illegal" Mexicans living a couple houses down. Whatever.

I really see no reason to start trying to tell them how to live.

It strikes me as strange when others think any of those things are their business, and I see it as wrong when they sic the State on them in order to have their opinions forced on others.  

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.


(Steemit link)

Trump's taxes, and everyone else's, too

I don't want Donald Trump to pay any taxes.

Nor do I want Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson to. I don't even want Bernie Frickin' Sanders to pay taxes.

I don't think churches should be taxed.

There is no such thing as "your taxes", no matter who you are.

For one thing, the word "tax" is a lie.

Taxation is theft, no matter who the target is, and I don't want a single, solitary cent going to fund government at any level. I'd rather my worst enemy keep all his money than to force him to give any of it to government.

If the money was collected dishonestly, give it back to the victims without giving a cut to The State. If giving it to the victims isn't possible, let him keep it. It's still better than letting the government get any of it.

Now, if anyone is so stupid as to want to send government his own money, I wouldn't stop him. Anyone can waste their money any way they want- even to the point of giving it to thugs who will hire bullies to try to molest me. I have the right to stop those bullies and those who sent them, obviously.

People who are in favor of taxes could easily send as much of their own money to the State as they want. But that's not what they really want. They want to force YOU and ME, at gunpoint, to send our money, too. That's evil.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Just get it DONE!

(Previously posted to Patreon)

But, maybe not quite the "it" you imagine.

I recently found a guy on Youtube who doesn't beat around the bush. Well, I mean, he does beat around The Bush, but in a very constructive way.

The guy does Stone Age living skills in Queensland, Australia and I am utterly in awe of his skills. He makes me feel like an absolute amateur.

I mean, he does some of the same things I can do, but he does them more "naturally". Like he's not even trying- but I realize that's not the case, it is just how it looks to someone who hasn't got his skills. But, having barely enough skills to appreciate what he does makes me recognize the almost unimaginable amount of work he puts into learning, practicing, and perfecting the skills he demonstrates. Again, I am totally in awe of him.

I don't have any idea of what the guy's "political leanings" are, or if he even has any, but I would love to hang out with him for a while, learning at his side. I can't imagine a man who took the time to learn the skills he has learned would be a cowardly, needy statist- but I could be wrong. He has things to teach me in any case.

And, this brings me to another point.

I wish I could do for liberty what he does for self-sufficiency with mud, stone, and plants. I spend more time than you might imagine reading, absorbing, internalizing, and then pondering the ideas and principles to draw out more connections and conclusions concerning liberty than you might think. But is it enough? Is it even "the right thing"? Does it make any difference?

Who knows. All I can say is that I can't imagine doing anything else. Even if I were out in the Bush building mud huts with self-fired terracotta roofing tiles, I would still be pondering liberty. I know, because of prior experience in somewhat similar situations.

 I know I am not nearly as impressed by what I do as I am by what he does.

He doesn't just talk about Stone Age skills (in fact, in his videos, he never says a word), he just goes out there and does it. And, when it comes to promoting liberty, just living it makes a lot more difference than a hundred people like me yammering on about it.

When something matters, you need to just do it. If liberty matter to you, you'll do more than read about it. So, prove to yourself that it matters and get out there and live it the best you can.

(And on he's on Patreon, too! So if you feel inspired by his efforts, throw him some support.)

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you. 
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 

Government real outlaw in crises

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 2, 2016)

 People naturally solve problems (my chosen headline)

Recently, in Belarus, smugglers took a neglected gravel road and fixed it. They made it better for their own purposes, while helping others in the process. Just what were these black market villains smuggling on their newly improved road? Drugs? Weapons? Slaves? Not exactly. They were smuggling fruits and vegetables.

In another show of outlawry, the recent floods in Louisiana brought out neighbors in boats to rescue people from danger. They willingly accepted risk to themselves to help people they may not even know. These heroes are known as the "Cajun Navy".

Louisiana lawmakers want to make sure events like this are prevented from happening again. Not the floods, but the unregulated rescues. In fact, so deep was their concern, they sent police to stop rescuers from getting to the people in need. It was more important to stop people from helping, than to actually help.

When there is a problem, the natural tendency of people is to solve it. Unless, apparently, they have banded together as government to prey on the population. In which case, obedience to rules becomes sacred.

The Louisiana situation is a repeat of what happened after Hurricane Katrina in 2005: people left to suffer, and volunteer rescuers threatened with violence, because government employees believed they had a monopoly on assistance-- while refusing to do anything toward that end. In fact, government's "help" made the suffering worse.

To those who believe government is a solution, things like this may be dismissed as extreme cases. But they aren't.

In the example of the Belorusian road, as soon as government noticed the increased traffic, they sent agents to steal from the entrepreneurs. They call the theft "customs".

The black market road builders are heroes, and those who follow them to rob the traders are the bad guys.

The Louisiana lawmakers may be even worse.

If you want to help people, do it. You can't foresee and avoid every eventuality. It isn't possible. There are too many crises which can happen; too many circumstances where people need help. There are always risks.

Going into a situation where someone's life is in danger puts you in danger. You still have an absolute human right to try to help, without asking permission from anyone. Some even see it as a responsibility. True heroes don't wait for permission to help, and accept that there are consequences to every choice. True heroes don't look to government for guidance.

-

 A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.

Be relentlessly annoying

If you see a person walking toward the edge of a cliff while wearing a blindfold, should you say anything to them?

If they don't react the first time, should you continue to say something?

Is this "harping on it"?

Well, people who continue to archate or support those who do are walking straight toward a cliff, wearing a blindfold, in the dark. If they notice your warnings, they usually just get angry and want the noise to stop. They are on a determined path, and nothing is going to stop the vast majority of them.

But, occasionally, you get through to one individual who will stop, take off the blindfold, and try to find a light.

That's what keeps me going, in spite of the anger of the majority who deny the existence of the cliff.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Government is wrong

Government, and support of government, is parasitic. It is wrong. Just so wrong.

The political means is the method of the parasite. Where one lives at the expense of others. Where there is a winner and a loser. The political means is what rapists and muggers and cops and burglars and DMV employees employ. It is wrong. Even if you can't imagine life or civilization without it, it is wrong.

Its opposite- the economic means- is the method of the decent person; the non-parasite. Where both parties win. Where interaction is by mutual consent. Where there is no punishment for choosing to not interact.

You can see the evil inherent in the political means more clearly by using the economic means as a mirror. Doing so, honestly, you can't fail to see that government- The State- and all associated with it are in the wrong.

Is this judgmental of me?

Yes.

I am judgmental toward people who commit acts of pure evil and destroy the lives of others; who act as parasites so that they can win while others lose.

The question is, why would anyone not be?

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Willful blindness?

The nicest government employees are blind to what they are doing.

They are like crew on a cruise ship. They see the beauty surrounding them, and see the things they produce and believe those things are good. They see the satisfied passengers and believe that is a clear sign that they are doing the right thing. They feel pride in what they do.

They don't recognize that their ship floats on an ocean of crushed bodies, is fueled with human lives, and uses people as the raw material for everything it produces. Bodies and the property of the innocent and guilty alike; stolen and fed screaming into the furnaces and the grinders to provide fuel and raw materials for everything they do. They don't see it. Maybe they choose to not see it, because it would make them uncomfortable.

The worst offenders are those who do see the dirty side and refuse to admit what it is. Or those who empower the destruction. Those are the politicians, bureaucrats, cops, judges and others whose job involves manning the death stations in one way or another.

Those who are a step removed could be excused for failing to see the death and misery beneath all they accomplish, but those involved in stealing lives to feed to the ship have no excuse, and should face serious consequences.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Experts vs bullies

People get very confused over words which have multiple, even contradictory, meanings. One of those is the word "authority".

"Authority" can mean experienced expert in some specific area, or it can mean a bully.

In politics, it only means the second one.

That's because no one can be an experienced expert at running other people's lives. Sure, they might be experienced at doing it, and they may be an expert at getting away with it, but they are still only a bully.

It's why I never soil the reputation of an expert by calling him or her an "authority". It is just too dirty a label.

I respect experts, and love to learn from them. But I despise bullies and never feel bad when they pay for their evil. "The authorities" are among the lowest scum on the planet. Always and forever, and there's nothing which can ever change that reality.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

The best argument a statist has

Someone on FB made a post about Donald Trump and his "taxes", or lack thereof. People were piping up with all sorts of irrelevant tangents, avoiding the core issue.

So, as I try to consistently do, I made an inflammatory comment:

Me: "Taxation" is theft. I never want anyone to be robbed, and I never want government to have ANY money.

Some guy got his petticoats ruffled soon after I posted:

Him: Taxation is not theft. Never has been, in a democratic society. Every argument you make after saying that is immediately discredited 

Wow. That is so convincing! Ha ha!

 Me: Why not post something other than an assertion which ignores the definitions of both "theft" and "taxation"? https://youtu.be/H585nogZWpQ

 So, he came back with a killer rebuttal:

Him: Why post stupid comments no rational person, including our founders believes? Your statement was stupid rhetoric and I said so. Deal with it. 

Ah well. Let him have his beliefs. We have to respect every belief, right?

 Me: Denial is so cute. That's OK honey. You just go on believing that legislation can magically turn wrong into right. I guess you have to get moral direction from somewhere.

Statists are so silly. And delusional. And devoid of decency.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Into the dark and twisted mind of a cop supporter

The statism! It burns!

I read someone's "interpetation" of Trumps evil "moar Law n' Orderz" statement, and I didn't respond. To her. I actually started running in circles around the room from the agony of being exposed to her stupidity. But I didn't reply. It wouldn't have done a bit of good, and I know it.

But it was just too much to stay silent on, so you get to be subjected to it.

I interpret Mr. Trump's statement as saying we need to allow our Police Officers to do their jobs without fear of retribution for doing so. 

"Our police officers"? I don't own one of the nasty things, and if you do, you need to keep that brute to yourself. And you are responsible for anything he does as long as he is yours.
What exactly are "their jobs"? Enforcing "the law", even those which violate life, liberty, and property- which almost all of them now do. No, "we" don't need to let them do their "jobs", just like we don't need to let rapists rape, muggers mug, or trespassers trespass. If they don't want retribution for committing evil acts of enforcement, they need to go get an honest job. Bad guys should always fear retribution and righteous acts of defense against their violations. It's what can help keep bad guys' numbers under control. Never coddle bullies.

We need to get behind our police force and support them for the very difficult and challenging job they do to protect and serve. 

No. Not just no, but &%@$ NO! Again, they are not "our police force". If their "job" is difficult and challenging, it is because it can be hard to spend your life as a parasitic scum, especially among people who don't pretend you are anything but what you are. The only serving and protecting they do is to the bad guys (politicians and bureaucrats) who use them as hired guns, and to the other cops out there. You are NOT on their radar as someone to serve and protect, and you never will be.

Let leadership deal with the occasional bad apple appropriately,... 

They are all bad. Even pretending for a moment that they don't exist due to theft ("taxation") and that the majority of the "laws" they enforce aren't evil and harmful and anti-liberty, if there were good cops, they would drive out the bad ones. They don't. They cover for them and support them against you and me. The bad apples have spoiled the whole barrel because cops were too cowardly to pick out and discard the bad apples. Now they are all bad (and always were). This "leadership" she believes can deal appropriately with the bad apples only exists to protect the bad apples from the consequences of their evil. So that plan has utterly failed. What does Princess Archation suggest next?

...but we need to stop assuming guilt every time an officer takes action against an individual who is not complying with an officer request.

It's not an assumption, Deary. If a cop makes a "request" (they really only make demands) which goes beyond any request you or I have a right to make, then the cop is guilty. Period. And by "takes action", you are referring by cold-blooded murder-- stop using lying euphemisms. You have no obligation to comply with such a request-- in fact, you have a right to refuse and back your refusal with deadly force. Yes, the Blue Line Gang will murder you for daring to assert your rights; I'm just letting you know they are evil for doing so. You'll probably comply with their evil demands. Your compliance is pragmatic and understandable. If I make a request or demand which would violate your Rightful Liberty, and back that request with a credible threat of death, you have every right to kill me to stop me. No excuse I can make holds up. A badge doesn't change that reality.

I am convinced she's either a cop or is in a relationship with one. It's hard for me to believe there are people this open about supporting evil, but you and I know there are. Copsuckers are disgusting.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Do-it-yourself

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Liberty is a do-it-yourself project. It always has been.

You can't buy it from someone else. No one else can give it to you. The best anyone else can do is point you in its direction, but you have to be the one to grasp it and refuse to give it up.

The Declaration of Independence didn't create liberty. Your own declaration can, as long as you don't wimp out along the way. And it won't always be easy. Liberty is natural, but that doesn't mean it's without difficulties.

When you feel tempted to archate against someone else "for their own good", or because you disagree with them, or fear them or what they might do, you are in danger of chipping away at your own liberty. Or utterly destroying it.

Liberty is fragile and slippery.

Laws, as they are recognized today, are almost always liberty's mortal enemy- its polar opposite. It is nearly impossible to use the law against another person and hold on to your own liberty, undamaged and unstained.

Most people don't want to hear this disturbing news. They want to have their cake and to eat it, too.
One of my biggest, most ridiculous wishes is that I could write an essay that would flip a switch in the mind of anyone who reads it, giving them an instant understanding of, and unquenchable hunger for, liberty. But I can't do that. Better people than me have tried and failed.

It doesn't mean I will stop trying. My hunger for liberty won't let me. And I can't help but believe that if anyone else actually gets it, and understands what it means for their own future, and the future of their kids and grandkids, they would love it just as much as I do, and despise the plague of statism that infects the world. I can always dream.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

Need for government crazy idea

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 26, 2016)

 Government is an unnecessary evil (my chosen headline)

Of all the crazy ideas humans have come up with over the centuries, one of the most destructive is the idea that government-- or more accurately, the State-- is necessary.

What gives people this idea? What makes them believe that without the State society would collapse?

The twelve-plus years of indoctrination by employees of this organization, beginning in early childhood, to view it as something other than a criminal gang plays a part. Due to this schooling most can no longer see the truth behind the curtain, and will defend government's existence at every opportunity.

Few understand what the State is, or what it does. The State is an institution established to commit theft and aggression over a particular area. Of course, they call the theft "taxation", eminent domain, asset forfeiture, property codes, licensing laws, fines, and so forth, and call the aggression "law enforcement", "compulsory attendance", "arrest", and checkpoints.

The State is not the same as society, but is its worst enemy, with opposing goals and methods. Instead of using the "economic means", where both parties win, the State employs the "political means", where one party wins at the expense of another. Roadside peddlers use the economic means; muggers use the political means.

Lacking this basic understanding, the people support theft and aggression as long as it is "legally" committed by government employees.

Some believe this protects them from bad guys.

A big problem is that the bad guys who want to violate life, liberty, and property without facing the natural consequences of doing so are drawn to government jobs where they get a free pass. Or nearly so.

Maybe some believe that without the state, grand projects could never be completed. One of the most common expressions of this fear is "But who would build the roads?" Well, obviously, the same people who build them now. But financed voluntarily, by people who can be held accountable if poor design, shoddy workmanship, or faulty maintenance causes bodily harm or property damage. Try suing the state over icy roads, or the pothole which never gets properly repaired, resulting in property damage, and see how accountable the state is for the roads it claims to own.

If something is wanted or needed, someone will find a way to provide it, and someone will be willing to help finance it. Guaranteed. You don't need something as anti-social as the State to provide good things to the individuals who make up society.

-

A big "thank you!" to those of you who support this blog, with your visits, shares, or money. If you get any value from my writing, consider a subscription or a one-time donation to keep this blog going. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during the ten years this blog has existed, and believe I have more to contribute, help me keep writing without the added difficulty of having a boss to offend.
.

Anyone, even cops, can do good things

It seems to really befuddle the copsuckers, even though it seems very simple to me. That cops are bad, but can sometimes do good, and that people who don't buy into the cult's propaganda can recognize the good acts as good without falling for the cult.

If a cop shoots a guy who is making a credible threat to kill an innocent person, he did a good thing. Just like if (or when) a shoe shine boy shoots an attacker he has done a good thing. Or, the same goes for a serial rapist shooting another bad guy who is in the process of archating, saving an innocent in the process. Or, if one of these examples protects private property from violation. A good act is a good act regardless of who does it or why.

You can be UltraHitler and still, in one situation, do the right thing. Your past and your future have no bearing on what you do in that moment. And I would be grateful to you for doing the right thing.

But, that one moment doesn't excuse all the other bad you have done and will probably continue to do. No, it really doesn't.

Yes, cops can save lives. So can pet store employees, mafioso, bank robbers, grocery store cashiers, and any other person on the planet.

The only advantages cops have in the area of responding to trouble are that they are exempt from the "laws" against gun possession that they help impose on the rest of us, so they are generally prepared- toolwise- to deal with (other) bad guys without worrying that simply showing up with a gun will get them in trouble, and they have a communication network which alerts them to trouble spots. (And that advantage is going away with technology.) Even so, they still manage to avoid doing anything helpful much of the time, and quite often make things much worse than if they had stayed away. Frequently even attacking the innocent when they can't figure out what's going on. Or, if they are just having a bad day and a confused, scared person who has just been violated doesn't comply to absurd orders and demands fast enough.

Cops only appear "necessary" because most others have been legally required to be useless in situations of trouble, and cops are zealous about maintaining this special status for themselves. Stop accepting this situation.

But, just because a person is a cop doesn't mean they can never be good or helpful. Sometimes they are. But when they are, it's not their status as a cop that is to be praised- it is the actions of an individual doing the right thing in spite of being a cop that should be praised. And their helpful action doesn't apply to the cops who weren't there and didn't do the right thing.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

The buffet of liberty

In a way liberty is a buffet. You can choose among everything that doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical liberty... but with the liberty buffet, you don't have the liberty to limit the choices of anyone else.

They have the same options from which to choose that you have, although their choices from that buffet may differ, and you have no right to interfere with what they choose. Even if they make choices you hate.

If you try to take away some of their options, how can you complain when they, quite understandably, try to do the same to you?

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for some people to grasp. It's not that complicated. But, I suppose, it is "offensive" to certain sensibilities- those who feel they have the right to force people to make the "right choices". In other words, people who don't understand liberty.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

The answer the NRA should give

A blog I often enjoy and agree with (although I used to enjoy more and agree more often) has increasingly embraced a disturbing anti-liberty agenda on one small issue. But, with regard to liberty, is any issue truly small?

He asks a question of the NRA, which he says they refuse to answer.

Well, OK, I will answer for them, but he won't like my answer much.

"Can you produce credible data – not opinion, not anecdotes – something that can be independently validated, that 'amnesty' and a 'pathway to citizenship' for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and legally, with CURRENT culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners?

"Can you show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts?

"And can you demonstrate how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts and reverse gains made to date?"

No. But it's a false choice: enforce government borders or enforce anti-gun "laws". Both are unethical, immoral, unconstitutional and a violation of natural human rights. It's the same as the false choice between enforcing borders to keep out "illegals" and keeping welfare going. Liberty isn't piecemeal, and you can't keep the bits of government you like ("borders", welfare) and get rid of the parts you don't like (BATFE, gun "laws").

This is also what happens when you allow people to v*te on other people's rights. That's never going to end well, no matter what unethical "laws" you enforce, using the justification that you are trying to prevent something else.

Again, when you allow government to exist, and to violate people's natural rights, you are going to get results such as this. You can whine about the reasons and results all day long, but until you address the root cause, you'll get nowhere.

Government is a violation of human rights- the right of association, property rights, the right to own and to carry any weapon you wish everywhere you go without ever getting government permission, the right to make an agreement with anyone to work for them, rent from them, buy from them, or visit them. Once you start letting government bullies ration and violate these rights, you can't be shocked when they don't stop there.

Rights are not up for a v*te. The rights of a vast majority don't trump the rights of the one. Not ever, under any circumstances. Bad guys will always be trying to violate you- right now the worst of them just happen to call themselves "government", but they are no more legitimate than any other rapist or mugger. To pretend otherwise just gives them power.

The problem is the "system" you support and legitimize, not the fine details of how it violates people or their property. Play stupid games; win stupid prizes.

Also, as I have pointed out in the past, when you make people see you as someone who treats them as an enemy, how can you be surprised when they join the other side? You are cutting your own throat, and whining about the guy who made the razor you stole from someone else.

I am not a fan of the Constitution, for reasons which I feel should be quite obvious. But, many of those who advocate gun rights, while also advocating violating other rights, claim to be. So the weight of this inconsistency is on them. Which makes this next section stick out badly:

"And then can you then justify why NRA -- mandated by its bylaws 'To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States [and] To promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense' -- remains deliberately indifferent to the gravest threat to the right to keep and bear arms facing us?"

Because immigration control is in violation of the Constitution. You can't "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" while supporting something which is unconstitutional. It's bad when presidents do it, and it's bad when the NRA does it. If you are OK with violating it for one reason, why object to violating it for reasons other people have? If "immigration control", in violation of the Constitution, is OK, why is "gun control", also in violation of the Constitution, not OK? The NRA has its problems- I am a very disgruntled Life Member from way back when- but if it were to support violating the Constitution by doing as you ask, why shouldn't others get away with supporting violating the Constitution just as much in other ways- ways that you happen to disagree with?

"Have you incorporated this into your grassroots programs?  Why not?"

No. Because of what was pointed out above. Either they can stay on mission, or they can abandon all semblance of consistency to appease those who want government to ignore constitutionality for their own agenda.

Politics makes people stupid.

I understand how critically important gun rights are. Really. But you can't protect some rights by violating others, nor by supporting any government programs- even government programs that are currently out of favor.

-

Well, this post is sure to make the donations and subscriptions flow in. Ha. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)

Politicians' emails are "educational"

Somehow I have managed to get on the mailing lists of a few different politicians. I keep marking them as junk, but they keep coming to my inbox. But I don't really mind.

It is a reminder of the nature of politicians.

I see how they harp on the things that they believe will get them v*tes. You can see there are no principles involved- other than the principle that they lust for your v*te.

They say whatever they believe their constituency (or potential v*ters) want to hear.

I don't do that. As you've probably noticed.

I tell you what I believe. What I have come to think after years of consideration. And sometimes it drives people away. That bothers me, but it would bother me more to lie to you just to be popular. I'm not a politician (although it is amusing to me that those who wish to insult me so often use that word against me).

Sometimes I do hesitate to write certain things, about certain subjects, knowing it probably won't be well-received and wouldn't really advance liberty to write it. But I can't think of many things I have just avoided altogether. And I have never taken a position just because I thought you wanted to hear it.

I guess that separates me from the politicians. That, and I don't invade your inbox.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.


(Steemit link)