Government shouldn't be in medicine

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 10, 2017)

It's 2017, ObamaCare has morphed into TrumpCare, and it's still not about "care". Instead, it's about government controlling a huge segment of the economy, taking away choice, and robbing people to pay for things they may not want. Government has no business meddling in medicine.

People are also still arguing over whether health care is a right. All rights concern what others have no right to do to you, not what others owe you. For example: no one has a right to forbid you to own and carry a gun-- to "keep and bear arms"-- but you have no right to demand someone give you a gun to "keep and bear".

Health care is also a human right. You have a right to do whatever you feel you need to in order to stay healthy, or to get healthy again if you are sick or injured. You have the right to use, grow, manufacture, or buy any and all drugs, services, or practices you believe will help your health, or help you deal with physical or emotional pain.

No one has the right to interfere-- not in the name of preventing drug abuse or anything else. No politician's opinion (often mistakenly referred to as a "law") can change your rights into crimes. The DEA, and its War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, is wrong even if you approve of their crusade against Americans.  If your choices cause worse problems, you are back at square one and no one is obligated to rescue you.

Although health care is a right, you have no right to force anyone else to provide your health care; to force doctors, nurses, or hospitals to give you their services. You have no right to force pharmacists to give you medicine you need to survive. You have no right to force others to pay for your health care, not with their money nor their time and labor. To pretend otherwise is to promote slavery.

Socialized medicine-- any government involvement in health care whatsoever-- is unhealthy, whether it comes from Barack Obama or Donald Trump. To quibble over details is to ignore the real issue: you have the right to any kind of health care you can buy or negotiate for yourself, no one can ever have the right to meddle in your choices, but you have no right to demand anyone be enslaved on your behalf. Insist on a separation of medicine and state.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Run all you want

Telling kids "Don't run!" is a waste of breath, and causes frustration for everyone.

I understand the reasons for it, but I also see that it is completely pointless, and probably counter-productive.

Running is how kids naturally and normally move from place to place. It just is. You aren't going to change that with rules. Nor should you.

Instead, let them run. In the process, maybe they'll learn to watch where they are going and how to not fall. Or learn how to fall well, and bounce back up. There will be bumps and bruises, and maybe knocked-out teeth and concussions. The alternative is probably worse in the long run.

It's the same with adults. Let them take risks, make mistakes, and fail. How else will they ever learn? The State and all it's "laws"-- imposing someone's ideas about "safety"-- are making people pitiful, delicate, and inept. It's going to hurt when that bandaid gets ripped off... and it WILL get ripped off sooner or later. The longer the delay, the more it will hurt, and the more who will not survive.

Yet, this is someone's idea of "safety"? You aren't protecting. You aren't helping.

Might as well say "No breathing"

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Truthishness"

Some things seem as though they might be true... until you actually think about them. Like the cartoon above.

If you believe you can get food, housing, clothing, or anything else you require for survival without working for them at all, try it. Even thieving is work.

People also need things to trade for the things they can't grow, make, or build for themselves. Money, of whatever sort, is the best way to have a widely accepted trade good. But, you don't need for there to be money for the cartoon to be wrong.

Also, "taxation" isn't specifically about stealing money-- it's about stealing any sort of property. Do these people believe government would hesitate before stealing a percentage of their crops or livestock? Or enslaving a firstborn child or wife for "the common good"?

Most ideas are based on fantasy. The idea expressed by the rose-holding ball is a good example. And, if AnCap Ball doesn't see the false premise behind Rose Ball's flawed claim, he'll be falling for a lie soon. Either this one, or the next pleasant-sounding one that comes along.

Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Terminal Stockholm Syndrome- is there hope?

"Our government"
"Our Constitution"
"Our president"
"My congressman"
"Our flag"
"Our troops"
"Our military"
"Our police"
"My taxes"
The above phrases are symptoms of a terminal case of Stockholm Syndrome. They indicate a person so deep into the brainwashing they may never dig their way out, and will willingly sacrifice others-- or even themselves-- for those beliefs. Beliefs which are nothing but a silly, yet dangerous, superstition.

There is a cure, but it seems too scary for most of the sufferers to consider.

The E Plebnista beats and whips you for your own good

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

At someone else's expense

I have mentioned the book Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, at least once before.  Here is another point he makes that really struck me.

He says if we could see people's innermost private thoughts and motivations, we would see that their wishes and hopes are almost invariably at someone else's expense. 

For most people, operating under the most common systems of belief, that's probably true.
But, there's a big exception.

The principled stance of libertarianism (particularly, once all contradictions and inconsistencies are stripped away) doesn't come at anyone else's expense. It doesn't cost anyone else.

You can't seriously make the point that stopping theft or an attack on the innocent costs the archator. He might wish you believed that so he could guilt you into staying out of his way, but it's simply not reality. Stopping someone from violating you doesn't burden them.

I know from experience they'll whine that it does.

Twice I have caught someone trying to cheat me in very expensive business deals, and both times, when I backed out as soon as the dishonesty was discovered, I was said to be the bad guy.

In one case the person had her lawyer husband call and threaten me unless I went through with the deal-- he couldn't even dispute the facts I had discovered. He simply said I had no choice but to go through with the deal. I didn't.

Years later, another person who was trying to scam me told everyone in town I had cheated her and broken a contract-- and even years later her husband tracked me down on MySpace to tell me what a "piece of ____" I am. I feel sorry for him, because apparently he wasn't aware of what she had done (he was a good guy; his wife was a crook).

Even apart from business and money, I've been told that not allowing someone to control me is the same thing as controlling the would-be controller. That not allowing someone to force their will on me is the same as forcing my will on them. What? Twisted "logic", to be sure.

So, while most people cost others, those who stick to voluntary associations and mutual consent don't. Even though those who want to violate you will pretend it does. Statism-- it's not caused by rational thought or consistency.

DemoCRAPublicans and other socialistic parasites

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Late Night Horror Movie of your own making

Dilbert's Scott Adams says everyone sees the world as a sort of "movie" playing on a screen in their mind. Different people see the same events differently, depending on the specific "movie" they are watching.

Mostly, he's been using this observation to explain how different people can disagree so strongly over things Trump does. I believe it also explains how people see "immigration".

For example...

Movie 1:
America is being invaded and destroyed by lazy, filthy greedy foreigners who will v*te for the Democrats (who promise to hand them America's wealth and culture) only to waste their opportunity and turn America into the same kind of craphole the foreigners left. Only Big Government can save America-- with a border wall, deportations, arrests, checkpoints, national IDs, etc.

Movie 2:
America is being destroyed from within by Nazi politicians and the deplorably ignorant v*ters who support them. It can only be saved by Big Government bringing in new blood-- the helpless victims of the US's wars of aggression (but don't end those wars!) so they can make a new start, keeping their old lives, cultures, and values, free from restraint. You can't ask them to change anything about the way they live- that would be racist and bigoted. And, obviously, they need handouts (financed by "taxation") to give them a fair shot.

Movie 3:
Everything government does ends badly; everything it touches turns to crap. Growing or empowering government, for any reason, is suicidal.
This is the movie I am watching. I believe it is the most accurate, and is verified accurate daily. Your opinions may differ (in other words, you might be wrong 😉).

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Temporary is still worthwhile

The statist excuse for rejecting anarchy is that it would only be temporary. Some evil moron will always try to set himself up as Ruler, and idiot followers will let him. Until he comes along, those idiots will keep looking for someone to push them around. "It's human nature", the statists say.

So what if it is?

Do you not bother with anything "temporary"?

Well, everything is temporary.

Each individual life is always temporary.

Life will always end in death, so does that mean living isn't worthwhile?

Anarchy is life.

Even if anarchy is always temporary, replaced by the next dumb idea until that idea inevitably fails and anarchy happens again, does that mean it's wrong? That it was pointless? Never!

Establishing a State is always the wrong thing to do. It's always stupid and will always lead to bad things. And it will always fail. When it does, don't beg for a new State. Enjoy the liberty until the short-sighted idiots around you set up their next failure-to-come. Temporary liberty is still better than never getting a taste.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

City-run range would be misfire

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 3, 2017)

I love libraries, parks, and zoos. However, I'm not selfish enough to believe other people should subsidize things I enjoy. For me to force someone to hand over their hard-earned money to pay for something they don't want and won't use would be wrong. Every dollar I take is a dollar someone can't use for things such as food, the electric bill, toys for their child, or medicine. My wishes don't change theft into something moral.

To have government do the taking on my behalf, through taxation, doesn't magically change wrong into good.

Government should never do anything which could be done privately and funded voluntarily. I believe this covers everything which should be done at all. If something isn't popular enough to be funded voluntarily it should go away. If people miss it, they can bring it back and pay for it.

I mention this because there's apparently still talk of establishing a city-run shooting range. While I love to shoot, it would be a mistake to let the city use tax money this way, and to let the city be in charge of such a facility. Government employees and guns are a bad mix.

Noise is also a problem. If you move near a shooting range you have no right to expect them to stop shooting just because the noise bothers you. However, if someone starts a new shooting range near your house, they are responsible for accommodating you. If they go ahead with their plans, they owe restitution for the harm they cause you by their presence.

Unfortunately, when the offender is government, the offender makes and interprets the rules, employs those who enforce the rules, and choose winners and losers. When government is the bad guy, innocent people are usually out of luck. Even if restitution is paid to the victim, it doesn't cost the offender, but is stolen from the injured party and his neighbors through the fraud of taxation. The bad guys can't lose.

Of course, I've been around long enough to know once some government gets a notion, the idea never truly dies. Not even when you believe it's defeated. Government ideas are real-life zombies. Kill one and It keeps crawling from the grave again and again, with the knowledge that eventually no one will be paying attention and the program can be imposed on the reluctant population. They do it because they get away with it, and it works.

You have the power to foil their schemes. Use it.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Only government can..."

What worthwhile thing can "only" government (by which I mean, The State) provide?

Nothing.

I can imagine many voluntary ways to provide anything needed and wanted. But, a free society wouldn't be limited by what I can imagine, so someone would undoubtedly come up with better solutions than I can possibly imagine.

Liberty is the Mother of Innovation.

In fact, we manage to find many of these solutions in spite of government trying to stand in the way every step of the way. Just imagine where we would be without that huge, costly roadblock.

So, keeping government around, because you believe it is necessary, is very silly.

No doubt this will result in roads being built

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link for those who are on Steemit,
where you can get these blog posts the evening before.)

"Respect" women?

I'm somewhat ambivalent about abortion. I always have been, to the chagrin to those fighting on both sides of the argument.

However, when I saw a local billboard proclaiming "Respect New Mexico women", and listing "Our bodies, our families, our decisions" as the aspects of women I am to respect, I knew it was all, and only, about abortion, and instantly rolled my eyes at the hypocrisy.

But, then I realized I should give them the benefit of the doubt, so I went to their website, and yep, that's all the organization is concerned with. It's one of those times I didn't want to be right.

So, that's all "respecting women" means to them? Of course it is-- to certain political people.

Funny, but I have better ways to respect women, such as committing myself to not archate against them. The exact same way I respect men, or anyone who doesn't feel they fall into either of those categories. A level of true respect no "law" can ever approach.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

It doesn't win you any friends

Speaking truth, that is.

And, this fact has been known for millennia.

Long ago it was said "veritas odium parit"; truth breeds hatred. Which leads to "shoot the messenger".

After scolding Fred Reed for his, frankly, insane support for cops nearly a year ago, yesterday I found myself squirming on his behalf when he wrote some very honest things about "The Troops", which everyone is supposed to love so unconditionally.

The truth about cops makes copsuckers hate you.
The truth about the government's military will make "patriots" hate (and "unfriend") you.
Truth hurts those who support evil people.

That's not to say that lies about people won't have the same effect, but lies are more easily countered with truth. If someone says something untrue about your beloved gang, just set the record straight, and that's that.

When it's the truth which makes people unhappy, they have no recourse but to fall back on hatred. Well, they can lie, but lies won't get them far when people know the truth, or can figure it out for themselves.

Speaking truth is worth the hatred you'll get. Or, I believe it is. You'll have to decide for yourself.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Loot, if not bling

I updated my CafePress stuff, just in case you're interested in promoting my writing in particular, and liberty in general.

No, I don't actually make any money from this, but CafePress does, which is fine with me, and it could get me some new exposure, while making you look better and more refined.

The credibility of statists

I'm finding that the opinions of statists (of any degree) are becoming less and less important to me.

I'll still hear them out, but if they advocate a government "solution" to anything, I'm likely to simply chalk it up to ignorance and give their opinion no further consideration. Anything else is being disrespectful to my brain, principles, and ethics.

It's like taking science advice from a person who has been convinced (or, who's decided to "believe") that the Earth is flat. It makes no sense to pretend they are credible in this particular arena.

Well, if a person believes that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery (the political means) are possibly better ways to live among their fellow humans than self ownership, individual responsibility, and voluntary association (the economic means), they've lost all credibility with me on that subject.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Questions, no answers

I wish I knew why.

I keep losing subscribers, and I don't know if it is because my writing is getting worse (or more offensive), or if it is just that the economy is getting worse.

If it's due to my "content", I want to know so I can try to do better. If subscribers are the canary in the mineshaft, I need to be paying attention to them. I do know I have angered a lot of people with my honest assessment of armed government bullies of every sort-- I've seen those comments about me crop up on other blogs around the internet from time to time.

If it's due to the economy, I'm not sure what I could do other than to inspire people through my words to the point they feel compelled to subscribe in spite of the economic problems. And that just goes back to questioning whether my writing is declining in quality or relevance.

It may also be that most people interested in liberty are usually broke-- which does seem to be the case, in general.

Anyway, if you are a former subscriber who would like to weigh in, please email me privately. I promise I won't criticize your reasons for ending the subscription, whatever they may be, nor will I beg you to resubscribe. I simply want some data here.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

A diamond buried in manure

You never know where you're going to dig up a diamond.

This show-- the part about space travel and space exploration, anyway-- is simply dripping with statist elitism, but there is one bombshell hidden therein, uttered by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

"Legislation should be based on objective truths, not on some belief system you happen to have for yourself that others are in conflict with." 

He was referring to the danger of people who believe the Earth is flat writing "laws" to impose on everyone else. As if anyone else is somehow more "qualified" to make up "laws"...

Of course, I know "legislation" is counterfeit "law". If it has to be written down in order to exist, it isn't real law-- real law is discovered, fake "law" is written.

Yet, his statement cuts to the heart of all "legislation".

The objective truth is that if you take property that belongs to someone else, against the owner's will, you have committed theft. Calling your act of theft "taxation" based upon your belief system, which is in direct conflict with others, and with objective truth, doesn't change it.

The same goes for every other harmful piece of "legislation" which violates life, liberty, or property. All government, and the "laws" that go with it, are based on a subjective belief system, a superstition, which can be shown-- objectively-- to be false and harmful. No "legislation" should ever come from people who believe in that nonsense.

Thanks for your support, Mr. Tyson.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Memorial to what?

A very contemplative Dead Stormtrooper Day to all you supporters of The Empire.

This is how liberty died- to your flag waving, allegiance pledging, and stormtrooper supporting. The blood is on your hands. Own it.

States and Islamic losers

I've not hidden the fact that I am not a fan of Islam. I don't like any religions, but I'm particularly disgusted by Islam at this point in my life (even though Christianity actually has more of a negative impact on my day-to-day existence- but that's another issue).

This is simply my emotional reaction to it. I know all the reasons I shouldn't feel that way. All the explanations why this feeling is misguided and wrong. Emotions-- "feelings"-- have nothing to do with facts. Yes, it seems that-- unfortunately-- I am human in spite of my best efforts.

However, my personal "feelings" don't mean I want "laws" created to "deal with" Islam. I most certainly don't. States and their "laws" are worse than Islam.

How is that? you may ask. Well, Islam doesn't guarantee the commission of evil; States do by their very nature. Very few individual Muslims actually use their religion to excuse the initiation of force- but every single person involved in the Cult of State commits daily (perhaps hourly, or more often) acts of archation simply by keeping that "job". Every. Single. One. Every. Single. Day.

So, every time an act of terrorism is committed by an Islamic loser, I feel my hatred for Islam burn... but I also remember that the State is more evil, more destructive, and at the core of all terrorism. Islamic terrorist losers aren't the only losers out there. They are outnumbered by multitudes closer to home.

Terroristic losers

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

This is one debt that can't be repaid

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 26, 2017- Yes, you've probably read this before. The court tried to silence my voice, so I am using every venue I can to bypass their censorship. Feel free to help.)

Editor’s note: Vincent Heredia of Benton, Arkansas, last week pleaded guilty to negligent homicide in connection with the 2015 death of Cheyenne McManigal.
He was sentenced to 72 months in prison.
Kent McManigal’s letter was provided to the court in connection with sentencing:

Dear Mr. Heredia,

Your bad choices led to the death of my beloved daughter. But I don’t hate you, and I hope this tragedy serves as a wake-up call for you. I would like to see you turn your life around.

I am not going to add my voice to the chorus of people calling for your head on a pike, or a lifetime in a cage. Punishment isn’t justice — although most people have come to confuse the two. Justice involves restoring the violated person back to how they were before they were hurt. Nothing you could do, and nothing anyone could do to you, would ever bring my daughter back and heal the emptiness in my heart.

Nothing can replace my ex-wife's daughter, my parents' and ex-in-laws' granddaughter, my grandsons' mother, my son's and daughter's sister.

Besides, "an eye for an eye" is nothing but revenge, and is barbaric. I don't blame people for feeling that way when tragedy strikes, but it still isn't right in my mind.

I don't believe in "laws", including the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. I don't "believe in" police, or prison, or "even" government. Those things infest our lives, and yet didn't stop your actions or save her.

What I do believe in is restitution. However, there are some debts which can never be paid. This is one.

If you want my forgiveness, you have it. That doesn't eliminate your debt, though.

The one thing you might do, in an attempt to pay this debt you've taken upon yourself, is to never again choose to drive under the influence of anything. In fact, you would need to make it a personal commitment to never again commit any violence against the nonviolent, and to never violate the property of any person. That means no government "job" financed through taxes, even if it were allowed in your future, but instead an honest job where you bring actual mutual benefit to yourself and those you serve, voluntarily. You can try to contribute monetarily to my grandsons' future, but the absurdity of "laws" is such that, due to those fleeting moments which led to my daughter's death, you'll probably be prevented from ever being in the position of having money to spare for the rest of your life. You aren't a Kennedy, after all.

I hurt for myself, my family, my daughter who won't get to watch her children grow, and for my grandsons. I also feel sorry for you, and if I could go back in time to divert you from the course which resulted in my daughter's death and the situation you now find yourself in, you know I'd do it. I just wonder if you would have listened to me if I'd had the chance to speak to you beforehand.

Sincerely,
Kent McManigal

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Protecting the delusion of "good government"

I find it disgusting when someone is so dishonest they advocate "good government", as if such a contradiction were even possible.

Like this delusional statist: This is what democracy looks like

So, I posted a comment:

"Good government" makes about as much sense as "compassionate rape".
http://famguardian.org/Publications/OurEnemyTheState/OurEnemyTheState-byAlbertJKnock.pdf

Surprise, surprise, my comment was removed by TED.

Now, I just know if I had said the exact same thing, ridiculing something other than "good government"-- say, something anti-Trump or something-- they wouldn't have had a problem with it. It would have fit with their agenda. I seriously doubt their censors automatically remove any comment with the word "rape" in it. I believe they were triggered by my accurate observation which offended their sensibilities.

Prove me wrong.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

The difference between cops and other bad guys

The only real difference between cops and other bad guys lies in the beliefs-- and thus the behavior-- of their victims.

Both sets of bad guys have their own "code" with which they justify violating those around them.
Both use violence to impose their will on others.
Both demand unearned "respect".
Both archate as a matter of course.

I see no real difference between them. A difference which makes no difference isn't a difference.

Cops, just like all bad guys, are scum.

But cops have the distinct advantage of their victims believing that cops are on their side, and accepting just about any awful thing cops do to them and their loved ones. Copsuckers must be masochists and self-loathing people who feel they deserve abuse at the hands of cops, bolstered by their belief in "the law". So they don't fight back or defend the innocent from these bullies, but usually support and defend the bad guys.

The underlying belief is delusional.

But more and more people are losing those beliefs. They are crumbling in the face of the behavior of the cops.

As soon as enough people see cops for what they really are, it will be a very bad day to belong to that gang. A very bad day. That day is long overdue.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Government school IS child abuse, Chapter ... Too many to count

People who confuse schooling for education, and those who believe that because they survived the abuse (and believe they turned out "OK"), others should have to suffer the same abuse ("to prepare them for the real world/to make them stronger"), won't like this talk: Why school should start later for teens.

Even among those who supposedly watched this video, I see them trying to use the very objections she addressed in the video! That's how deep the indoctrination is. They simply can't comprehend anything that threatens their belief.

The evidence is growing that school harms kids. Homework is another issue that is only an issue because people don't want to let go of an institution that they have been led to believe is "necessary", "helpful", and "useful". Just like past forms of slavery. Let it go already.

There is no such thing as "public education". There is "public schooling"-- more honestly known as government schooling-- and there is education. The two are not connected except by accident in rare cases.

Even the tired old excuse of "socialization" is a lie. Government schooling doesn't "socialize" kids, it anti-socializes them. Go to any government school, watch the kids between classes, and tell me which of the behaviors you witness there you think my kid needs to copy and wouldn't otherwise learn. I'll wait for a sensible answer.

Death to kinderprisons!

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Justification for "taxation"?

Is taxation somehow not theft because "the government owns the land"? Statists have made this assertion, but for me it only brings up more questions.

How did the government get the land? Does it really own it, or did it simply decide it owns it?

Can I form a government today and suddenly own all the land from this moment forward, no matter who has owned it, and no matter how many generations it has been in their family? And then "tax" them based on this presumed ownership?

If not, why not? What's the difference?

Is it the belief that a collective can do things that would be wrong for an individual to do? This is nothing but a superstitious belief.

Theft is still theft. It doesn't matter where it occurs-- either at stealing the land or stealing the money from those on the land.

That statist argument fails-- as do they all.

Uncle Scam is gonna need a bigger hat

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Statism's made-up concepts, words, and delusions

Most "crimes" aren't wrong. They certainly aren't unethical, and are probably not immoral, unless the State's opinion colors your morality-- in which case your "morality" is less than worthless to me.

Most "crimes" are actually just testimony to the fact that your society permits too much government.

Things such as "smuggling", "money laundering", "drug dealing", "speeding", "truancy", "tax evasion", doing things without a "license" or "permit", "resisting arrest", and a host of other "crimes" can't possibly be wrong.

In fact, as you may notice, the believers in government had to make up words to make the acts sound different from what they really are, just so they could declare them "crimes" and initiate force against (or steal from) those they catch doing them.

In the same way, they had to make up words like "arrest", "fine", "execution", "eminent domain", among countless others, to hide the actual wrongs they commit behind these misleading words.

(Those who complain that I make up words and definitions seem to give the Church of State a pass for doing the same thing, but they do so in order to hide the truth from scrutiny rather than to open it to the light of day for all to see.)

You can't remain ethical and be "law abiding". It's simply not possible. Not even if it were possible to simply be "law abiding", which it isn't. Too many "laws" are contradictory, and you don't know what all the "laws" are-- no one does. Or can.

Once you see the acts on both sides for what they are, and stop seeing them through the dark lens of statism, you'll start losing your religion-- at least you will if you were previously a believer in government.

You'll no longer be automatically suspicious of those targeted by "laws". You'll stop believing that if a person has been arrested they must have done something wrong. You'll stop automatically believing that prison inmates deserve whatever they get.

You'll also stop being able to honor or support those who prop up the State with their acts of archation on its behalf. You'll stop seeing cops and politicians as "good guys" or role models. You certainly won't want to see loved ones taking this path.

This won't win you friends. But the few new friends you find, and the few old friends you manage to keep, will be higher quality than those you lose.

For me, it has been worth it. You'll have to decide for yourself whether it is worth it for you.

I don't accept the State's definitions, concepts, made-up words, or delusions. I don't believe in its "goodness" or "necessity". I'm an ethical outlaw. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm nowhere near this noble

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Taxation is theft by government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 19, 2017)

Tuesday was the day sometimes called "Tax Day"; not exactly a holiday, and about as far from a "holy day" as it's possible to imagine.

Some people get tired of libertarians pointing out that taxation is theft. Particularly those whose paychecks depend on this particular form of theft. Whatever you call it, when someone demands you hand over some of your property, threatening to hurt you in some way if you don't comply, it's not the act of a good person.

How excited were you to pay taxes this year?

Or, if you got some of your own money back, were you grateful for this "gift"? Even in this instance, you weren't paid the interest they owe you for keeping your money tied up. Who else gets to take your money under threat, keep it for months-- or for over a year-- then give it back (after you spend hours on paperwork, or hundreds of dollars, to prove it's yours) without paying interest?

If you believe your neighbors should be forced to fund things you want, against their will if necessary, you are on the wrong side. You are no different than someone who cheers for a mugger because he claims he'll buy them a gift or two with some of the ill-gotten plunder.

Don't fall into the trap of believing that since people have no real choice but to use some of the services and infrastructure paid for with taxes, they have no right to complain. People have every right to use something they paid for, and-- if the payment was coerced-- to complain about it. To think otherwise is selfish.

If you want to fund government services and programs, I would never dream of standing in your way. Send them all the money you want. Why would you wait for a law to tell you how much to send? Just mail a check and feel good about yourself. If more is needed, convince me and others to join in, using your best arguments. With a good enough idea, plenty will be willing to join you and fund it. If the money collected voluntarily isn't sufficient, the program needs to go away.

The only legitimate government would necessarily include whatever government you can finance with donations, without there being any penalties for choosing to not donate.

Government: the only idea so wonderful you have to threaten people with prison-- or worse-- to get them to finance it. No thanks. I'll pass.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Anti-gun bullies are natural

Anti-gun politicians, bureaucrats, and law-imposer thugs are the natural course of things. They are all anti-gun in reality.

Even the ones who claim to be "pro-gun" and get "A+" endorsements from the "gun rights" groups (which invariably love statism more than liberty) are anti-gun.

If they believe there should be even one "law" concerning gun ownership or possession, they are anti-gun.

If they believe the right to own and to carry a gun depends on "citizenship" or some other statist concept, they are anti-gun.

If they believe someone can lose their right to own and to carry a gun, they are anti-gun.

If they believe the Second Amendment gives anyone a right to "keep and bear arms", they are anti-gun.

If they believe the kind of gun makes any difference, they are anti-gun.

If they insist on guns being banned from the Mundanes in their presence, they are anti-gun.

At it's heart, "anti-gun" really means anti-liberty. They are anti-liberty bigots.

I don't like bigots- not in general.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Encounter with an irresponsible twit

This evening I saw someone do something very irresponsible. Nasty, even. It may have been an initiation of force-- it was definitely a credible threat to initiate force.

I felt the urge to ... something. I don't know what, exactly. I didn't have an urge to call the cops on him, but when I saw a cop drive by seconds later I had the shameful thought that the cop should have witnessed what I saw.

What happened is this:
A group of teens, mostly girls, was sitting at a picnic table at the edge of the park. Two teen boys were walking down the street nearest the table. As they passed, one hurled an empty Coke bottle at the table. It smashed on the concrete slab and the bricks of the partial wall holding up the roof. One of the girls at the table looked at him (his goal, I'm sure) and said "Seriously?" He said "Yeah, seriously" and kept walking and talking to his friend. The people at the table went back to what they were doing (so apparently didn't see it as a threat). I followed the boys to the corner of the park, got their attention and pretended to take a photo of their faces.

I despise people who act like that boy. I always have. Intensely. I don't beg for "laws" to be used against them. I don't want him "fined" or "arrested". I probably wouldn't use violence against him, unless he had been a continued threat to someone's safety. I can despise him without harming him in any way. But I probably wouldn't lift a finger to help him if I saw him being attacked. I'd probably suffer "temporary paralysis". I'm not saying that's right, I'm just being honest.

You know, it really doesn't take much effort to not be a jackhole. So, why do so many seem to choose that path? How do people mistake this behavior for "manliness" or "masculinity" when it seems more like a self-centered, spoiled toddler who has no thought for anyone but himself?

Oh, and I picked up the broken glass as soon as the others left the table.

Not the actual bottle- it was much more shattered than this

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Who's "bashing"?

Isn't it interesting how telling the truth about cops has become "cop bashing"?

What delicate little flowers that gang has become. They can murder you and almost inevitably get away with it, but if you say that (or anything else that reflects negatively on them and hurts their feelings), you are the one bashing their gang.

If that's the case, I'll continue to "bash" cops. They deserve it.

Because, as I say, "cop" isn't a person, it is a set of evil behaviors. If you don't "bash" evil behaviors, you are supporting them.

Someone else said it better:

"The truth is, 'evil' is not something a person is; it’s something a person does. An evil person is not one who is suffused with some malefic and primordial spiritual force; it’s one who performs evil acts. It’s not possible to be evil without doing evil, and it’s equally impossible to knowingly, willingly and consistently do evil and yet be considered good." ~ Maggie McNeill, The Honest Courtesan

Evil is as evil does

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Marx was wrong

Not that I'm surprised.

As mentioned in my most recent newspaper column, I recently read Marx's "Wage Labour and Capital" at the suggestion of someone on Steemit. Someone who disagreed with me and thought Karl Marx had the answer I was missing.

He didn't. I had always heard he was wrong, but had never seen for myself just how wrong he was. It was ... enlightening.

When you start out from a mistaken position, then build on it, things will go awry.

Marx really didn't understand anything about economics. Economics seems to be all about human motivations. He didn't seem to understand anyone's motivation except his own. And apparently he was insane.

He was completely obsessed with social position.; with "classes" of people, and was apparently very jealous of those he considered to be of a higher class.

He didn't seem to believe intelligence was of any value. Only labor.

He believed that "price" was something you could determine the correct setting of through calculations, and then you could know who was being cheated and who was doing the cheating. Especially when calculating the "fair" price of labor.

He didn't understand that no one goes to a lot of effort- physical or mental- to only break even. The worker has to feel he gets back more than he puts in, or he won't bother to show up for work, and the business owner has to feel he gets back more than he spends and risks to go into business, or he won't build a business. That business owners will stick with a business where they can't make any money, and that employees will stay with a job that won't support them (in the absence of market-warping welfare). Even if a person comes to the conclusion that working a crappy job for less pay than he'd like is better than the alternative, he is choosing that with which he comes out ahead.

Marx seems to believe the market is a set size, never to grow.

Marx mentions innovation but then forgets about it and seems to only consider production. Manufacturing processes can be improved, but apparently not products. It's like he thinks there is only a downside for everything. No upside.

Marx was wildly simplistic while being overly complicated- an odd combination. He ignored reality while making up his own economic version of epicycles. He was looking for (and imagined he could see) the laws that determined prices and the proper proportions of wage to profit. He believed the price of everything-- except labor-- is locked together and moves in step. Apparently in his mind, the price of X can't go up unless the price of everything else also goes up-- again, except wages which always go down. He believed profits could only increase when wages decreased proportionally.

And there was so much more I could go into, showing way after way he wasn't only wrong, but devastatingly so. But why bother?

His was a childish philosophy of jealousy and anger, build on delusions and wishful thinking. It's no wonder modern statists tend to be such bitter, controlling people.

Still, I have no problem at all with state-free communist (or "Marxist") enclaves. just as long as they are voluntary, don't prey on those outside the community, and allow people to opt out. They'll fail fast enough that I won't have to worry about them, unless they find a way to cheat. In which case self defense would be in order.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Refugees", "immigration", and "borders"

Government importation of people for any reason is NOT "immigration". I oppose this as strongly as I oppose government control (rationing) of "immigration" and "securing the borders".

Neither is remotely "libertarian". Neither is ethical. Neither will accomplish anything good.

Both lead to a bigger, more intrusive and powerful State. It can't be any other way. Supporting either is supporting this bigger, more intrusive and powerful State. For "pragmatic" reasons, I suppose.

It's not that I support "open borders"; it's that I recognize no borders other than private property lines-- all other "borders" violate private property. Government's "borders" are a violation of YOUR private property and right of association, as is government's plan to import "refugees" or anyone else.

Government screws up anything it gets involved in, and I don't support anything it does. Don't help it by begging for it to do anything on your behalf. It won't go anything like you imagine.

Don't forget who creates refugees: government

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Letting "laws" control you

I don't believe you should destroy the environment just to spite the socialists who use the environment as their excuse to destroy liberty. I know conservatives who do this.

I also know libertarians who make a point to break "laws" just to be breaking "laws".

I can sort of understand their reason, or at least how they feel. I am often tempted to break "laws" I wouldn't otherwise think of breaking, just because some idiot decided to make them "laws".

But, I stop short of harming myself or others just because I hate the "law". I am certainly not going to violate anyone just because some "law" happens to say doing so would be "illegal".

Back to the environmental example I began with. Pooping in your own nest is pretty dumb; doing it just because someone tells you not to is even dumber.

"Laws" make everything worse. Even if you agree with them. Even if they are based on a good idea. "There oughta be a law!" No. Not unless you want unintended consequences you may not like.

Don't be dumb. Reject "laws", but don't let them cause you to do dumb things just to show they have no "authority" over you. If you do, you are letting the "laws" control your behavior anyway. It's better to ignore them and do the right thing regardless of the vacuous opinions of bullies.

The results of pooping in your own nest

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Property rights abused, misunderstood

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 12, 2017)

Property rights is a pillar of civilization. A pillar which is crumbling from neglect, abuse, and misunderstanding.

As long as your use of your property doesn't damage other people or their property in a tangible way, it's no one else's business. This applies to trash, vermin, odors and dust, holes, and nuclear waste.

What if your mess won't stay put on your property? What about someone who drains the aquifer?

Arbitration and restitution could ease these sorts of problems, but government courts have been fairly useless for protecting private property rights. Tax money, government interests, and political cronyism get in the way-- and voters will vote for anything they believe protects their income, be it policy or politician.

Does freedom mean the right to use your property however you want? Where does your freedom end? Freedom often violates other people, because "freedom" is simply doing whatever you want to do. Liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to do what you have a right to do, and you never have a right to violate other people's life, liberty, or property.

Since you have no right to use your property in a way which will harm your neighbors' property, if you do-- if you drain or contaminate their wells or can't contain your mess to your property, and you can't reach an agreement with them-- you will owe restitution.

Some people fear if businesses are held accountable for pollution, the economy would crash; no one would do anything because of the risk of owing restitution to surrounding property owners. This might cause trouble for a while since property rights have never been taken very seriously, but business would adjust.

Property owners might be approached ahead of time, with agreements-- perhaps including a financial stake-- being ironed out before anything happens. A market could arise for tools to keep pollution contained to the property where it originates-- or to collect and ship it elsewhere to be cleaned or recycled. "Pollution" is just another name for resources wasted because we don't yet know how to profitably use them.

I'm not saying this is the only way these things could be solved-- given motivation, people are pretty innovative and will come up with even better solutions. Opposition to proper respect for property rights reminds me of those who couldn't imagine how cotton would be picked if slavery were ended. Do the right thing, then figure out where to go from there.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Adventures with the DMV's harpy

I don't believe in the legitimacy of "driver's licenses", but I have been helping someone, at their request, try to obtain one. For "pragmatic" reasons. Therefore my patience with the nonsense is a bit thin already.

Living where I do, the closest DMV office is in another town, about 20 or 30 miles away. The hours are inconvenient and subject to the whims of the office's lone surly bureau-rat.

An appointment was set to take the driving part of the test. The "new" driver (who has actually been driving for decades, but wants to get "legal") arranged to borrow a car for the test, because my old pickup is "too large" and unwieldy. The owner of that car met us at the DMV, after driving an hour out of his way to get there.

Things were set. We left the new driver and the car at the DMV and went to McDonald's to wait. Then I remembered I have no cell phone service in this town. Oops.

When we thought enough time had passed, we went back to the DMV. We were then confronted with bureaucratic evil and stupidity. The license-seeker had been trying to call me for almost the entire time, without success-- no cell signal.

Turned out the bureau-rat wouldn't administer the test because of a burned out light bulb. An inconsequential light bulb. Which the license-seeker isn't even responsible for.

The brake light in the top of the rear window has 4 bulbs. The one second to the end on the right was out. This third-- extra-- brake light was still perfectly functional without this bulb. The light bar was still perfectly visible from a distance-- and in fact you had to be close to notice the small gap in the rectangle of light. But "No test for you!!"

So, everyone had to be inconvenienced again, just because of the arbitrary whims of a tax junkie. Hooray.

The bulb was replaced, the test was rescheduled, and passed with no further trouble.

And, as it turns out, that particular light isn't even a required part of the car checklist, as you can see below from the scan of the actual checklist:

The BureauHarpy simply wasn't in the mood to give a test that day, and lied to get out of it. I expect nothing better from people of that sort-- it's government.

-

I was reminded again of the time I decided I ought to get "legal" and get a driver's license for the state I had been living in. I went in, but I didn't have all the demanded papers and documentation (or even a "legal address" for that matter), and they wouldn't give me a license. So I walked out, loudly proclaiming to the shocked faces on the waiting victims of bureaucracy: "Then I'll just keep driving illegally. Doesn't matter to me. Bye." And I did. And it saved me tons of money over the years, even including the "fines" when I eventually got caught (years later, in an altogether different state).

Ah, the joys of statism. How can people even twist their minds enough to believe this stuff is legitimate?

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

I like people

Honestly, I usually like people. Yeah, I get angry at some of them sometimes, but that's generally because they are busy harming other people and refuse to stop (cough- cops- cough).

If I didn't like people I wouldn't care when someone was violating them. I'd figure they deserve it-- in other words I would take the statist position.

Even those people whom I don't like because they are hurting others would be redeemable if they'd stop molesting people. I can forgive when someone changes.

But maybe not this person...

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)