Government clubs could work

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 19, 2016)

Make liberty popular again (my chosen headline)

Why isn't liberty more popular? Every libertarian eventually ponders this question.

The answers they arrive at vary. Some are negative-- people are lazy, cowardly, don't want responsibility, and are addicted to theft and bullying. Some, slightly nicer-- people don't understand liberty because they have been indoctrinated against it, or they don't realize they lack it after a lifetime of being told they are free.

I suspect a mix of all the above.

Self responsibility is hard. The easy way is to let someone else be responsible for you-- like a child or a slave does. Liberty can also be scary. If you are responsible for yourself, who can you blame when you make a poor choice, or when something bad happens?

Some people do rely on theft and aggression. Not exclusively in government, of course, but those who are freelance face a greater risk of painful consequences. They lack government's public relations success at making victims docile.

It's time to mature. While it's up to you to make it happen, liberty offers everything you ever wanted.

Unless you want to push people around and take their stuff. In that case you are out of luck.

However, I can see a way even those people could become productive members of society. It would just take a little creativity, and presents exciting market opportunities.

There are fantasy football leagues, and mixed martial arts matches, so how about fantasy governing and "government clubs" for those who can't break the addiction?

With fantasy governing leagues, the lust to govern could be satisfied, but for the first time in history, no innocents would be harmed.

If hands-on is your style, real life government clubs could provide members-- with explicit informed consent-- the opportunity to practice all the statecraft they desire, while keeping the theft and aggression inside the club.

Each club could have a president, congresscritters, judges, scandals, and elections. If no one wanted to accept the lowly position, virtual citizens could be designed into the game. People who govern dislike encountering free-range citizens, anyway.

Government clubs could trade, use spies and diplomats and terrorists, and start wars between themselves, and no one outside the club would be bothered. It's Live Action Role Playing for former politicians and their fans.

I think it could work, leaving liberty unmolested for the rest of us. Humans could once again have a chance to aspire to greatness, unburdened by the dead weight of the parasite class. Maybe liberty would become more popular after giving the politically inclined this outlet.

-

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.




.

Before you criticize, look in a mirror

When I notice something I don't like in other people, I immediately look for that same trait in myself.

One reason for this is that I notice how often people criticize others for being some way they themselves are. I don't want to be like that.

For example, I know someone who says she hates sneakiness and when people talk about others, but she's the sneakiest, most backstabbing person imaginable.

Well, I don't like jealous control freaks who archate. So I try to make certain I'm not disliking people who are just like me.

-

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


(Steemit link)

When the imaginary causes trouble

Politics, government, and "laws" are like a battle between leprechauns and fairies.

The leprechauns and fairies can't hurt you, but those who believe in them can. And do. Their whole struggle is based on imaginary things and conflicts between those imaginary things. And yet, the believers are willing to see you harmed over their hallucinations.

Government (or more accurately, The State) doesn't exist outside the human mind. This firing of neurons that makes government seem real to some people inspires the afflicted to steal money and erect buildings, send others to murder and die on the other side of the planet, and make up unnecessary or harmful "laws".

But this mental glitch has no physical reality. It's not even something that can be studied like "love".

Which is probably why I was uncooperative in "government" classes; the teachers are pretending to teach facts about something imaginary. Something completely subjective.

Now, if they'd change tack and inform the students about how people behave when afflicted with this particular mental illness, I could understand such a class. In fact, I could see a value in it-- teaching kids how to avoid this superstition and protect themselves from those so infected would be important. But instead they pretend government is something "necessary", important, and worthy of respect.

So, yes, let's revolve our lives around the battles of the leprechauns and fairies, and pretend the outcome matters to the real people and the world they live in. Beyond, of course, the behavior of those who actually believe in them. Because the actions of the True Believers matters-- always in a very negative way.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Spreading liberty

Liberty, and the Zero Aggression Principle, is a very individual thing. You don't need to wait for anyone else to join you (certainly not for a majority) to start enjoying the benefits.

However, I will admit it would be easier and a lot more fun if I didn't feel so isolated most of the time.

With that, I'll recommend again- as I do from time to time- that this would be the second best time to start going through The On Line Freedom Academy (TOLFA). The best time would have been anytime before now. Check it out and share it with others.

I have spoken to several people who have completed it, and they all found value in it. The only person I know of who didn't complete the course was a guy who had just enrolled in a military academy. I had high hopes for him, but the conflict may have just been too much.

Don't be that guy.

-

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


(Steemit link)

One year

It's been one year.

And, to be honest, the past few weeks have been rough for me. To the point I have been having trouble functioning, sleeping, and thinking. But, I mostly pulled out of it last year, and I will again.

It's almost totally arbitrary- this idea of the "anniversary". Time isn't cyclical. But, for me, this date on the calendar now has a stain, and will serve as a reminder each time it comes up again. I feel as though even acknowledging it with this post is probably counterproductive, but this is all I cared about today.

I will say this, though. This blog and you, my reader, have given me something of a purpose over the past year. A constant reason to think of other things. Even the recent election distracted me as this date approached. My son and 9 year-old daughter (and especially her, being 9 and keeping me busy) also helped immensely.

I just want to thank each of you for sticking by me and giving me some purpose.

Thank you.

-

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


(Steemit link)

My scheme has so far failed

Just so you know, when I become a "celebritarian" I will use my fame to obtain sexual favors from willing women. I warn you of my intention now so as to avert any scandals later.

Plus, I've admitted in the past that I'm here for the groupies (they do seem to be sorely lacking so far).

However, there will be no contracts. No possessiveness or jealousy. No threats. No gaslighting or browbeating. I only want totally willing and enthusiastic participants.

I expect things to heat up any time now. Any time...

Hello? Bueller? Anyone? Oh well.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Please reject revenge

I am not a supporter of revenge. Not at all.

However, I have been guilty of it in the past- once (years ago) I was even quite creative plotting and setting up a revenge situation, although I have no way of knowing what ever came of it. And I realize now it was wrong of me.

Actually, I knew it was wrong when I did it, too, but I did it anyway and felt quite pleased with myself. I am not perfect, but I try to do better all the time. I wouldn't feel good about myself if I did something like that now.

So, I don't advocate revenge, but I can certainly understand it.

In the same way, there are people who do things so bad that I can't help but feel a bit of pleasure when someone else gets revenge on them.

I realize I am probably wrong to feel satisfaction when a bad guy "gets his". Even when it is someone who, from personal experience, I feel "deserves" whatever he gets.

The problem with revenge is that it is an initiation of force. It doesn't matter if it is called "punishment" or "justice"- if you are not in immediate danger of being violated, you become the aggressor if you attack.

But, I will say this: in a case where the history of the victim of revenge makes me sympathize with the person who got revenge on him, he shouldn't come to me seeking my help in arbitration, because I would be biased. I know that is probably also wrong of me.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Government feeds on your fears

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 12, 2016)

Liberty is more powerful than fear (my chosen headline)

Government needs you to be afraid.

They depend on your fear of crime, including terrorism (and, apparently clowns) to make you believe you need them. This fear causes you to give away your liberty and dignity for the illusion of security they promise. The solutions they offer are designed to feed your fears by making you focus on nearly-nonexistent threats.

Above all this they want you to fear them and their abilities. If they can also make you feel guilty, even better.

They let it slip that they are reading your emails, texts, social media posts, and listening to your phone calls, because they want fear to cause you to censor yourself. If you censor your words, your thoughts may soon follow suit.

They want you to fear what will happen if you don't ask permission for one of the thousands of activities they pretend to have authority to license. Once they stop issuing the licenses, you'll forget your ability remains.

They make examples of some people they catch to demonstrate the cost of disobeying their directives, because they want you to fear arrest. This way you won't try to do any of the perfectly ethical things they prohibit.

It's quite a scam they've got running, yet the moment you stop being afraid, they lose their power over you. And that terrifies them.

They fear you and me more than we fear them. Consider all the ways government shows it's afraid.

Notice how many government buildings now hide behind concrete barriers and "controlled access" entrances. Look at the road closures around government facilities.

Hear what a cop actually means when he insists on disarming you "for both our safety". Here's a hint: it's never about your safety when an armed antagonist disarms you.

Stop for a moment and reflect on the level of cowardice behind "no guns" signs, metal detectors, and pat downs. They are terrified of their bosses-- you and me-- being armed, even though they have armed minions among them whom they exempt from the rules they impose on you.

They also fear you knowing what they are hiding from you, to the point they ponder killing, with drones, your champions who expose them. This isn't the way it was meant to be.

You deserve greater liberty. Stop letting anyone convince you to be afraid. Be responsible for yourself and help others who can't help themselves. Your life will improve noticeably once you've discarded the fear.

-

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.


.

Appreciating small "favors"

I don't v*te, so I obviously don't v*te for "the lesser of two (or more) evils".

That doesn't mean I can't appreciate when one of the lesser evils gets imposed on me instead of the greatest evil.

And, make no mistake, I am firmly convinced, due to decades of experience, that Hillary Clinton was that greatest of evils.

Just because I'm relieved the blizzard hit my house instead of the tornado doesn't mean I wanted the blizzard. (OK, bad example- I generally love blizzards. But you know what I mean.) I also don't believe it would make any difference if I petitioned the weather and requested the blizzard over the tornado. I'm better off preparing for both rather than begging the atmosphere to respect my wishes.

I'm slightly relieved when the one I believe (and it is ONLY a belief) I'm better equipped to survive strikes. I won't choose a lesser evil, but I'm glad to avoid the greatest evil.

Yes, Trump has many insane ideas which would be disastrous for liberty- "stop and frisk", a border wall and mass deportation, and "protectionism" of various sorts. However, I expect him to break those promises- as all presidents do- if he doesn't get assassinated by the Hillarites first. That's why even his scary promises don't worry me too much. I will still oppose "laws" which violate anyone's Rightful Liberty, no matter the justifications, no matter who they come from.

Whatever happens, I will continue to behave as I always do; hoping for the best while preparing for the worst.

-

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


(Steemit link)

"Why don't they talk 'Murican?"

Sometimes it's expressed "Why don't they talk right?" or "Why can't they just learn to talk like us?"

Usually said by people whose grammar is atrocious.

Sometimes I think people see more evidence of intelligence and humanity in the look in a dog's face than in the conversations of people speaking a language they don't understand.

But they forget that window works both ways.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Cops, and my emotional response

My emotional response to cops can be illustrated by imagining finding half of a decomposing mouse in the burrito you have been eating.

My emotional response to those who support cops in any way can be illustrated by imagining watching someone eating, and enjoying, that burrito after they've discovered the rotting mouse.

When they notice me vomiting in disgust, they hate me and call me names, and get in my face to scream "You can't seriously believe society can get by without these wonderful mouse nuggets in our food, can you? That's Utopian!"

But, that's emotion. Emotion is obviously wrong to experience, and foolish to express. Just eat your burrito, ignore any strange smells, textures, or flavors, and love those heroes in blue.

-

I will say this, though: Expressing support for cops is expressing support for murder, rape, slavery, theft, and every other evil. You can deny it, and complain that I exposed it for what it is, but that is the absolute, unalterable fact. It's not emotion; it's not opinion. Cops are what they do, because "police" is a set of behaviors, not a person, and if you support them, you are supporting their acts. Yes, you really are- stop denying it. Do what you will, but civilized folk are watching you.

-
(The Steemit link for those who do that sort of thing, and would like to help without sending $$)

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

Message for Hillary supporters (and Trump supporters, too)

-

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


(Steemit link)

The election is rigged

"In this case, a rigged election is largely assured. Because, as I have taught you, shenanigans always happen when you have the following situation:

1. Huge upside gain from cheating.
2. Opportunity
3. Low odds of getting caught, or low cost of getting caught." (link)

And, yet, people will play the rigged game in spite of it all. You'll get what you ask for.

-

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

V*ting, demonstrated

-

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


(Steemit link)

Evil "energy vampires"

Presidential candidates and sitting politicians are a perfect analog for those "energy beings" from the classic Star Trek series- you know the ones.

The ones who feed- vampire-like- off of negative emotions and aggressive energy.

The only way to make those entities go away, or starve to death, is to stop feeding them. Stop giving them what they need to survive. Notice what they are, and how they are using you, and refuse to be used one more day.

I can't make you, of course.

But, it sure would be a nicer world if you'd laugh at them and make them scuttle away and leave everyone alone.

They are NOT legitimate. They don't deserve your respect. They are not "leaders", but seek to be rulers. They are parasites and vermin. Treat them as such. They have earned it.

(See also this video)

-

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


(Steemit link)

My anti-v*ting guide

Cold, hard logic would suggest that you refuse to keep playing a rigged game against professional cheaters. But if you are going to v*te anyway, here are a couple of thoughts I have for you.

NEVER Hillary Clinton. Just not ever. No way, José. Years ago I had a friend who was friends with the Clintons and he told me to NEVER trust her. His advice in every area was always excellent. He never lied to me or steered me wrong. And, believe it or not, I just googled him and he's apparently still alive.

NEVER William Weld. I'm agnostic about Gary Johnson, but William Weld is a non-negotiable toxic lump of dog crap. He's not simply not a libertarian, he is actively and enthusiastically ANTI-libertarian. He illustrates "anti-liberty bigot" as accurately as Hillary herself. To v*te for the LP candidate this time is like continuing to eat at a restaurant that serves you a giant cockroach in your meal, and refuses to apologize for it. You simply can't reward that sort of behavior, and your v*te IS a reward. Just don't- I plead with you.

You are going to do what you do. Think long and hard about it first.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Being good is right, even if illegal

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 5, 2016 - from now until whenever, my CNJ columns will appear in the Wednesday paper.)

 Dare to be a good person (my chosen headline)

What is a good person, and why bother trying to be one? I define a good person as someone who doesn't intentionally harm innocent people or their property, makes it right when they harm someone by accident, and who does their best, whenever possible, to help those who need it.

I can even be talked into scratching the part about helping others as long as no intentional harm is committed against the innocent. Mind your own business and don't hurt anyone and you are most of the way there. I wish I could honestly say I always live up to my own standards.

Most people act fairly good the majority of the time. Why? Well, why do you, personally, act good? Do you behave yourself only because you are afraid you'll be punished if you don't? In that case, you aren't good, but only pretending. Being good when you are afraid of consequences is empty. If a person refrains from attacking and stealing only because someone-- whether human or supernatural-- might punish them, they aren't a good person.

But there is even more to it. Doing something just because the law says it's OK, or even required, is not good. Obeying the law has nothing whatsoever to do with being a good person; often quite the opposite. Some of the best people are outlaws, and some of the worst are bad specifically due to their support for legislation which intentionally or incidentally harms the innocent. Such as ObamaCare, or the barbaric War on Politically Incorrect Drugs-- the 21st Century version of Prohibition which they didn't even bother to make quasi-lawful this time by amending the Constitution.

Allowing laws to stop you from doing the right thing is also not good.

How many people neglect to defend themselves or come to the aid of others because they are afraid of the legal trouble they could get in? How many fail to consistently carry the proper defensive tools just because government pretends to have the authority to regulate them?

How many people comply with legislation and taxes which destroy their ability to provide for themselves or help others financially? Opening a business is good; interfering with the free market is bad. Every business which never opens due to all the government fees, taxes, licenses, and red tape is a lost opportunity for good.

Why be good? Because it works, and is always the right thing to do, even when it's illegal.

.

-

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 only thing you don't have a right to do

The list of things you have a right to do is an infinite list.

You have an absolute human right to smoke pot, carry a gun, be fat, act silly, trade with others, be a racist, believe in a "flat Earth", drive a car, say offensive things, have sexist thoughts, speak your mind, wear a hat, travel, learn, have mutually consensual sex, read, own and modify a home, pick your nose, or uncountable other acts.

Really there's only one thing you don't have a right to do: to archate.

As long as the thing listed above is done without archation, you have a right to do it.

Archation comes in many guises. The mugger and the IRS employee are archating. The cop and the little parasite "playing" the "knock out game" are archating. The burglar and the game warden are archating.

Archation is the opposite of anarchy. It is the use of the political means, rather than the economic means. While not limited to those calling themselves "government" it is behaving as a State acts; using aggression or violating private property. If you add archation to anything you otherwise have a right to do, you don't have a right to do it. Not that way.

And, if you try to prevent people from doing anything they have a right to do, you have become the bad guy. It is no different to use a "law" than to use a gun- if you are archating, your method is irrelevant.

You have no right to govern other people. To attempt to do so is an act of archation. Your victim has the right to defend himself (and others) from you. If you don't like that reality, stop being a thug.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Let people be wrong

If you believe in liberty, I believe that must include giving other people the freedom to be wrong. To do the wrong things. To do things they have no right to do sometimes. Things that embarrass you.

I think that includes not demanding that they not v*te, not hold a government job, stay off welfare, or whatever.

Even if they are family members.

Liberty is never controlling.

Tell them where you stand, why you think they are wrong to do what they are doing. Then step aside.

Yes, you have the right to defend yourself, but you are not always required to do so. Weigh each situation. Are they directly archating?

You are also not required to let someone violate you. Again, weight the situation. Maybe you simply need to get away from certain people. Or to put your foot down if they want to make you go along with them. To say "you may not violate me" isn't controlling anyone- although I have heard people make that claim with a straight face.

Letting people be wrong is probably one of the hardest things I ever do. And one of the most essential, when dealing with statists.

Let people be wrong. Don't hide the consequences from them- let them see the connection between their poor choices and the results. Maybe, if they mention it later, suggest a better way. You don't know who it may get through to.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Set it and forget it? Nope.

One of the sillier arguments against self responsibility (also known as anarchism) is "If you get rid of government, someone will just start another one. Humans always have and always will."

So we should never do anything that's not permanent? Like eat, bathe, or anything? If a battery would have to be recharged, there's no point in even using a device?

Yes, the tree of liberty needs to be periodically watered with the blood of statists. And your toilet needs to occasionally be flushed. It's just reality.

Almost everything in life needs to be repeated. Nothing is permanent. Even statism requires periodic elections, appointments, rituals, and the replacement of employees who finally become good government employees by getting embalmed or cremated.

If you want a permanent fix which can be done once, then ignored forever, you aren't mature enough to be responsible for yourself.

-
(If you do such things, please go "thumbs up" this on Steemit)

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

The religious ritual of v*ting

The only reason I can see for a liberty-leaning statist to v*te for Gary Johnson is as an attempt to break the hold of the DemoCRAPublicans. He's no libertarian and his running mate William Weld is an authoritarian monster and anti-liberty bigot right up there with Donallary Clump (and actually much worse than one half of that twisted statist chimera).

But since it's all a superstitious ritual anyway, even that's a weak justification. Politics matters only to the extent you let it matter.

I will admit this, though- the v*ters are right about one thing. V*ting in and of itself is not an act of aggression.

Demanding that I go along with the results of your v*te, however, IS an act of aggression. If you would impose the results of your election on me by force, you are an aggressor. A thug. A bully.

You wouldn't want to be a thug, would you? Then have your election and leave me alone. I do not consent.

So, v*te, but keep it classy and non-aggressive. Remember that it's nothing but a religious ritual, and the results don't apply to those who aren't believers in your religion of Statism. You can't demand that atheists tithe or go to confession, and we laugh at your threats to excommunicate us. Nor do we fear your Anarchist Hell, knowing it is really much preferable to your Statist Paradise. Your religion doesn't have any hold on us.

I will not abandon my home just because the mafia moved in. So keep your "If you don't like it, move to Somalia" comments to yourself, or I'll suggest that if you love authoritarian government so much, perhaps you'd be happier in North Korea or Venezuela.

V*te if it makes you feel as though you've accomplished something, but keep your filthy government off my life. Thanks.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Hillary's weiner

Don't misidentify things

Once, in a high school zoology class, the teacher set out a bunch of preserved samples for us to classify. It was for a quiz or a test. We were to study them, and then be able to identify them on a test the next day.

I noticed that a flounder was mislabeled as a "skate" or "ray"- a completely different type of fish.

I pointed this out to the teacher.

He said that since he only had that one specimen as an (incorrect) example of "Chondrichthyes" I needed to pretend that's what it was for the test.

I told him he was teaching the students something that was wrong- misleading them. Giving them bad information. He insisted that it didn't matter, and I needed to just go along.

I refused. I kept saying "but it isn't what the label says it is!"

He had a bit of an outburst and said I was beating a dead horse.

I dropped the matter, but didn't ignore the lie.

I don't remember the outcome, other than I refused to call it something it wasn't just to satisfy him. Did he mark my answer as "wrong"? Or, did he give me credit for the unwanted right answer?

I'm still the same way. I won't misidentify something just to make a liar more comfortable. And they still don't like it.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Taking Teddy Bears

There is a situation someone was sharing on Facebook that made me really angry.

A friend's daughter had a stuffed toy rabbit she'd had and loved since she was a baby- maybe since she was born. She is now 13 years old and still loves and sleeps with the toy.

And someone stole it, just to hurt her.

If that's not evil, then nothing is.

Her dad believes he knows who stole the toy, but can't prove it. Without proof he can't go kicking in doors and choking suspects- because he isn't a bad guy.

You might think a 13 year-old ought not be that attached to a toy. I might agree in principle- but I have to admit I can completely empathize with her. She wasn't hurting anyone. Whether she "should" be that attached to a toy isn't the point- she was, and someone violated her property and hurt her. On purpose.

That infuriates me.

I know there are others who are just as attached to other things- or even myths they mistake for things- that are harmful. Like The State.

If what they love so much didn't directly violate other people, I would say you need to leave them alone and let them keep their figurative teddy bear. The problem is, with the State, their teddy bear only continues to be as long as it is fed the blood of innocents.

These are the people who- as long as they can't stay out of the lives of the rest of us-  need to have their beloved thing ripped from their hands and destroyed. Not innocent 13 year-old girls whose beloved possession isn't harming anyone.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Presidential debates have no value

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 30, 2016- Please note, my CNJ columns have moved to Wednesdays. The paper made some cuts, and dropped some opinion columns, but I survived the cut.)

Presidential debates are trivial entertainment (my chosen headline)

Is there value in time spent watching two liars trying to out-lie each other?

A lot of people seem to believe so. They watch presidential debates, and pretend they matter.

People have been fooled into believing "it's a two-party system" and a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote, and the debates confirm this belief. So, they continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, ignoring the fact that there are multiple evils to choose from.

Therefore, one of those two debating liars will soon be declared the president-elect of the tax-farm called "The United States". This winner will be using employees who will try to force you to behave in certain ways, and using your stolen property (stolen through "taxation") against you.

So you watch the debates.

It isn't necessary.

You want to know what to expect from the next president, right? I can give you a preview of what to expect right now.

The declared winner will build upon the misdeeds of his or her predecessors in the office. Even those things they criticized while campaigning. It's easier to condemn actions before you have the power to get away with committing them. I'm sure the new president's intentions will be pure, though. They always claim so.

All campaign promises will be ignored, but it will be explained that the promises aren't being broken; you aren't smart enough to see the Big Picture. As soon as a new president is let in on all the government secrets kept by the unelected people actually in power, it becomes clear why the indiscreet promises must be forgotten. It probably concerns the superstition called "National Security".

There's still hope. While no president is anywhere near as decent as his supporters want you to believe, neither is any president as bad as his opposition claims. Presidents are simply the gunk which floats to the top of the political soup, to be scooped up and held aloft as someone more noble than the rest of humanity.

Contrary to claims I have seen, presidents are unfit to imitate. If you believe a president-- any president-- should be a role model for children, you should probably put down the bong. Or pick one up. Because whatever you're doing isn't working.

As long as you are entertained by presidential debates, and don't take them too seriously, have fun watching. I have more important things to do, such as alphabetizing my cereals and sorting my cats' whiskers by length.

-

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.

Here's your "stupid" sign

Around town I see a couple of signs that warn me to not spend money with certain businesses.

"Support the Blue. We do"

"Support law enforcement"

No. I won't support dangerous gangs. I don't support those who violate peaceful people, no matter what their justification might be. And I don't support those who do. It's a pathetic quisling act to go out of your way to announce your support of scum.

I will not be spending any money at any business that advertises their support for gang activities. Policing is NOT about a person; it is about a set of aggressive, thieving behaviors. Behaviors no decent person would ever commit or condone.

It's a good thing that those who love rapists, murderers, thieves, and other molesters (with badges) let me know that they support the bad guys, so I can choose not to spend my precious dollars with them. If only all thug-lovers were so open about it.

But, I'm sure they are rewarded by copsuckers far beyond the loss of my piddling purchases. It's what "polite society" does. "Polite society" worships the parasites that feed on it.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Should be embarrassed, but not smart enough to realize it

"All taxes are theft and should be abolished? That means police, firefighters, the entire justice system, the military, all public infrastructure like roads and bridges, etc. should be funded through private donations? All those generous, philanthropic Americans out there would just graciously donate money to these groups even without a tax deduction (since there would be nothing to deduct from)? That sounds like the apocalypse, and would go over like a lead balloon. But at least the 'taxes steal our money' argument would disappear because there would be no Treasury or U.S. Mint to print the money we use. There will be no Federal Reserve either, so who's going to set interest rates, people on Wall Street? The SEC? Haha! Within a decade we'll be back in the Middle Ages trading chickens for grain. Sounds awesome. And don't tell me we could just privatize the Department of Treasury since that idea is so inherently flawed that the premise itself is illogical."

This is the so-called "thinking" of a statist. Posted without shame and free of irony on social media.

The flaws in his premises are so obvious they don't even seem worth pointing out. Feel free to do so anyway, in the comments. And they are numerous. Every scenario he apparently fears is based on an utter misunderstanding of how reality works, and what the bullies of "government" do.

I'll address just one of his delusions: money.

Money requires no government. If people want it, they will create it- without a "Federal Reserve" or a "Treasury Department" making bad money and ordering them to use it. And people WILL want money for most trades. I guarantee it.

Interest rates don't need to be "set" by anyone- they'll find their balance. Interest rates are like any other price. The market will find a price range, depending on many factors. If the "people on Wall Street" decided on an interest rate that was not in line with the market for money, anyone anywhere could compete with them, and beat them. It takes a government to protect a monopoly.

It should encourage you to know this is what we are up against. This is how the brighter-than-average statist on the street thinks. It is also how most of those who work for government think. And this is why they will go extinct. Sure, right now they have the drop on us. They have more guns and an open season on us. That situation won't last. I don't know when it will end, but it will end.

Bide your time. Prepare. Learn. Think. Educate. Speak up in private conversations and anywhere you believe it might have an impact. There is a change in the wind, and I can smell something new.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Always move toward liberty

(Previously posted to Patreon)

You can debate whether someone's chosen path toward liberty is smart or effective, but as long as the path they follow is truly toward more liberty, I'm in support of them. And it doesn't depend on the reaction of anti-liberty bigots- you can't live your life for them.

I would say, that as far as any particular method goes, I'm an agnostic. Even if I am unconvinced, let me see it actually work, and I'll get on board (or at least keep my doubts to myself). Until then I'll try to not be too critical, but I may be very skeptical. Being skeptical isn't the same as being negative. Or, if I realize a path I formerly supported leads the wrong direction, away from liberty and toward more theft and aggression, I may try to point that out, but I can't force anyone to change course.

I saw this happen with Bitcoin. I really didn't understand the hostility some people had against it. Sure, it might not work, but it sure looked like an attempt to go in the right direction. Let the experiment run and produce some data before flinging mud at it.

Wikileaks, too. I never see it as moving in the wrong direction to expose information the anti-liberty bigots don't want known. That it endangers some of their employees just raises the cost of being a tool of the State- and that's a good thing.

Maybe the same is true of v*ting. I doubt it, based on hundreds of years of pretty clear evidence, but some people keep trying to make it work. I am skeptical it ever can, and have laid out my reasons I won't be participating, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Just show me instead of calling me names. Convince this agnostic.

Keeping and bearing arms is the same. I am completely in favor of open carry. I have done it a lot- but not here. The bullies here are of the opinion that they can make up rules forbidding it, and they are happy to murder those who ignore any of their rules. And I don't have enough who would defy along with me. I would be the nail sticking up- even more than I already am. I cheer for open carry activists. Yes, it may scare some cowardly statists to see a gun. It may "drive people to the other side". But cowardly statists aren't going to be on the side of liberty anyway- if you coddle them it just makes them feel their opinions are as valid as anyone else's... and they aren't. Open carry is a move in the direction of more liberty- even if the cowards want to push back. Maybe in the long run it won't work, but no one can know that for sure. And open carrying is part of liberty. Pretending that someone shouldn't exercise their liberty because it will offend anti-liberty bigots isn't moving toward liberty.

The same could be said of my blog. It may not "work" and bring about more liberty to anyone, but at least I don't think anyone could seriously suggest it is moving in the wrong direction- away from Rightful Liberty.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. But, make sure you are always going in the right direction- it's the only thing that really matters.

-

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


.

Competition is good!

The boots I wear all the time were good boots. They were given to me for Christmas about 8 years ago, and I wear them every day. I have climbed all over rocky canyons, walked rough mountain trails, and even crossed many a parking lot (which, in my experience is harder on footwear than anything else) in them. They have scratches, but keep holding up for the most part.

When the soles and heels start wearing out, I just run to the boot repair place and get them fixed up and ready for more years and miles. The cost has been about $25 to $40 both times I've had them fixed. Not a bad deal at all, considering what a new pair would cost me.

But, things change.

My boot repair shop went out of business a while back.

Not to worry; I knew there were more places around.

Well, now it is time for another repair. I looked and found that there were still two boot repair places listed locally. I took that information and headed out with my boots.

Then I hit a snag. The first place seems to no longer exist, and the phone number is non-working. Oops. Well, there's still one place.

So, that's where I went.

Unfortunately, they no longer have any competition in the area. What cost me $40 at most just a couple of years ago will cost me $90 this time! (I have no idea how I'm going to pay for it, either!)

I'm hoping that a lack of competition doesn't also affect the quality of their work. I guess I'll find that out next week.

Competition has benefited me in the past, and now a lack of competition looks as though it's going to cost me. I suppose the boot repair place is happy they no longer have any competition.

Competition keeps prices down, and keeps quality (and customer satisfaction) up. Just look at what happens without it- it's like government when there's no competition. Yes, I realize I still have a choice, so it's not completely government-like. I can drive somewhere else and find someone who might repair my boots more cheaply, or I can just buy new footwear, or buy something for my feet from Goodwill (Salvation Army had better prices, but they closed the local store a couple of years ago), or I can make some moccs. There are always choices, even if I don't like any of them.

I plead to the market gods- please inspire someone to open a new boot repair shop in the area! I can't afford the situation as it now exists.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Not right, not wrong, just... is

-

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


(Steemit link)

"You have no right to" vs "You shouldn't"

(A looser than usual transcript)

Saying "you shouldn't" is an expression of  opinion.

Saying "you have no right to" can be an expression of fact.

Don't get the two mixed up.

For me, there's a short, straight line from "have no right to" to "you shouldn't". One naturally follows from the other in most cases. But, it's not necessary for that to be the case.

No human has the right to archate. To archate means to initiate force, or credibly threaten to do so, or to violate private property rights. Basically, to act like a government or other kind of bad guy. It's the opposite of what makes up anarchy.

The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) could be rephrased as the Zero Archation Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to archate against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate archation." This clears up any confusion as to whether property violations which involve no physical force are addressed by the ZAP. Whether or not they were in the past, they are now.

So, you have no right to archate, but does that mean you shouldn't? My opinion is that it usually does- but not always.

Yes, pushing a kid from in front of a bus is an initiation of force. You don't have a right to do it, but I think this is one of those cases where you should. If it were me, I'd take the chance and deal with any complaints from the kid later. I'd willingly submit to arbitration if the kid I saved believes I owe restitution for initiating force against him in this instance. Maybe I'd then present him with a bill for services rendered, just to even things out.

There may be other cases as well, and if you believe it's important to archate- to do something you have no right to do- in some instance, you ought to feel it's worth dealing with the consequences that come from your act.

So, yes, saying you have no right to do something can be a statement of fact, if you indeed have no right to do it, but translating that into you shouldn't do something is a less supportable position. It's merely an opinion. And not all opinions are equally valid.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Being nice to monsters

On one hand, I try to be nice and considerate to everyone. Whether in person, or online.

On the other hand, there are some kinds of stupidity and evil I just can't abide, and I can be pretty nasty when exposed to it. Especially when those espousing the stupidity and/or evil are nasty about it first. Statists wouldn't be statists if they didn't embrace stupidity and evil.

The moments I am most proud of are those when I don't respond in kind to the nasty, stupid, evil notions being promoted by statists. When I treat them with more respect, understanding, and kindness than they deserve. I don't always manage it-- I'm only human, and flawed-- but it is something I strive for.

My hope is that treating nasty, stupid, evil statist ideas as "worthy of consideration" will inspire the same consideration of civilized behavior from those promoting those statist ideas. When given serious, honest consideration, it is obvious that mutual consent is always superior-- ethically, morally, rationally, and pragmatically-- to coercion, theft, and aggression. People just need to be exposed to the idea.

Some percentage will still reject it-- it doesn't fit with their ideas of how "society" works, and they don't see how some things can be provided without forcing others to go along. They are wrong. Period. There is simply no excuse. But it's probably pointless to waste breath on them once they've expressed an unwillingness to be civilized. Some monsters enjoy being monstrous.

And, yet, I still want to be nice and considerate. Which means walking away and leaving them to their barbarism-- with the understanding that I may be forced to defend myself from them in the future.

-

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

(Steemit link)

I'm a bit desperate for some donations right now. If you are so inclined, and can afford it, please think about making a donation, or signing up as a subscriber.

Links to all the donation/subscription options are there to the right.

Thanks.

.

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!

.