Slow to speak up

It might surprise you to hear this, but it usually takes a long time before I'll speak up in a new situation.

If I join a group, get a new job, or hear about something new that I haven't yet considered, I don't immediately start giving my opinion. I prefer to sit quietly and absorb what's going on, and only then to speak up. If I feel the need. Speaking up only happens once I understand something pretty deeply and see a problem I know has a solution (or an angle) that other people aren't seeing.

First of all, I know that speaking up when you don't understand what's going on doesn't help anyone, and only makes you look foolish. I look foolish often enough even when I know what's going on; I don't need to add to it.

So, usually, if I share an opinion or an idea, you can be sure I have thought about it a lot. I have probably considered every side I can imagine, and tried to find sides I can't yet imagine at all. Then I've probably followed every argument down every rabbit hole I find in it; twists and turns and dead-ends right up to the monsters in hidden lairs. To the logical conclusion and the absurd conclusion. I may still be wrong, or may have reached a different conclusion than you, and maybe there are points to consider which I missed, but I've thought about it thoroughly, and suggesting I haven't isn't going to get you far. And, I respect others when I can tell they've done the same.

A lot of times, in discussions with statists, they refuse to make a case for their position. They'll just make an assertion and refuse to explain their reasoning when asked. I suspect they can't explain, because they haven't thought it through, but are simply parroting something that sounded "right" to them. It feels right. That's not going to impress me and it's certainly not going to convince me of anything.

I know it is said that unless you can explain something in language simple enough for the "average person" to understand, you probably don't really understand it, yourself. Maybe. There are things I believe I understand pretty well, but that I have no way to explain to other people. Sometimes the adequate words don't exist for concepts I see inside my mind. But that may just mean I don't understand it as well as I think I do. That's probably a safe bet.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Even best president* no role model

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 10, 2018.
*Their words, not mine! I don't write the headlines.)

When Ronald Reagan began his first successful run for president, I wasn't quite old enough to vote. I liked what he said and I put a Reagan campaign sticker on my car.

During his first term, I felt Reagan did a good job as president, and I voted for him in the next election. Then he did something unforgivable: he colluded with Congress to further regulate guns.

This was one of the main reasons I had never supported the other side. Gun laws were a non-negotiable betrayal in my book. Being young and naive, I hadn't educated myself about Reagan's anti-gun history in California. I just took people's word that he was on the side of less government power and meddling. He said the right things, but failed to live up to them.

It was a rude shock; one I have never forgotten.

I reluctantly supported Republicans for several more years, but kept noticing they acted just like the guys I was counting on them to stop as soon as they got into office. Continually infringing on gun ownership and other matters of individual rights.

I began to notice other troubling things. I value liberty-- the ability to exercise the rights all humans possess. Even the politicians who claimed to be on my side were scared of liberty. They wanted it in a box, carefully monitored. They understood it was the natural enemy of government. They kept stabbing me in the back as soon as it was convenient. The politicians I didn't support never even pretended to be on my side.

What was a man to do?

I grew up. I stopped looking to politicians as role models or moral examples. I came to realize they were concerned with getting elected, and frequently with imposing an agenda they and their supporters wanted, whether it was good for people or not. Anti-liberty laws are never good for people, even when people foolishly believe they are.

Beyond that I came to realize the politician doesn't matter because the system is rigged to destroy individual liberty. Government is part of the problem, not the solution. You can't fix it by electing a different person to a position which shouldn't exist, to do things no one has a right to do. The problem is too deep. The solution is individual responsibility, not politics.

The realization was very liberating. It was also just the beginning of freeing myself. I should be grateful to Ronald Reagan for the betrayal which first opened my eyes.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Hans-Herman is lying

"Real libertarians – in contrast to left-libertarian fakes – must study and take account of real people and real human history in order to design a libertarian strategy of social change, and even the most cursory study in this regard – indeed, little more than common sense – yields results completely opposite from those proposed by libertarian fakes." ~ Hans-Herman Hoppe

Sorry Hans, but if you are advocating something which violates the ZAP, you are not a "real libertarian" by definition no matter what sort of name calling you engage in. No matter what you believe your "study" has shown you. If your advocated violation hinges on allowing (employees of) the State to violate the ZAP then you are lying and advocating statism. 

Your dishonest use of the term "left" is very telling in this regard-- because by this you seem to be hinting you are a "right libertarian", while libertarians are neither.

It has nothing to do with a "strategy" or "social change"-- those things are a distant third to ethics and principles if you are libertarian. 

If you don't strenuously follow the ZAP, and if you support the State, then just be honest about it and stop soiling the name "libertarian" by association. It doesn't matter to me how famous you may be, or how many followers hang on your every word which they believe gives credence to their anti-liberty bigotry-- if you are claiming your position is "libertarian" you are lying. You, Mr. Hoppe, are the fake "libertarian".

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

How to irritate people

I know, they are supposed to be enlightened ways to communicate, but... the Socratic Method, E-Prime, and Nonviolent Communication (NVC), are all good ways to piss off the people you use them on. I mean, look what happened to Socrates!

That's not the stated purpose of any of those communication tactics, of course, but that's where they almost always lead if the people pick up on what you are doing. I've seen it time after time, and I have also felt the same anger when they were used against me. It feels like I'm being manipulated. I'd rather someone just call me nasty names.

Now, each of those tactics might have their place, when used sparingly and when abandoned as soon as they start angering the other person in the conversation. Unless your point is to make people mad, that is. That probably has its place, too.

Those aren't the only communication styles which irritate people. Using logic can also trigger people and cause emotional explosions. So, you probably need to tailor your approach to your audience. One size doesn't fit all. And some people are going to dig their heels in and defend their faith no matter what you say or how you say it.

I'm not saying I communicate in any way better. I know I am not everyone's cup of tea. Whatever the method is that I use (if I have a method) isn't going to be appreciated by those who prefer one of the methods listed above. But maybe, for those who feel manipulated by the above communication tactics, I and others might have something to contribute. And, I'm always trying to communicate more effectively, even if I don't buy into some of the styles others find helpful.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Which came first?

Almost everyone I know personally follows the statist religion.
The vast majority of people I know personally also claim to be Christians.
I often wonder which religion came first to each individual.

Did their statism come first, to have Christianity added on top in an attempt to justify their inexcusable statism?

Or, were they first Christians who then misunderstood Christianity as a call to also follow the religion of statism?

Or, are the religions completely unrelated, with any overlap purely accidental?

It seems quite the task to hammer the round peg of either religion into the square hole of the other, but it also looks like most people are content with the messy results of the attempt.

I do know that when combined, the ChristoStatism which results is a deadly ideology. And very smug and self-important as well. You'll never face a nastier statist than one who believes God wants him to force you under his State.

I can get along with anarchist Christians much more easily than I can get along with "atheist" statists (no such thing, really, since they are still worshipping a god-- the god of the State).

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Your... duty?

Do you have a duty-- a responsibility-- to government?

Yes, you do. You have the duty to keep it from violating you or anyone else. The same as your duty toward any other thug.

Anyone who imagines other duties is hallucinating or doesn't understand duties, responsibilities, government, or rights.

This is very common among those who fear rights and don't want to see rights put ahead of whatever brand of collectivism they love. They whine about how people "only talk about rights", preferring to emphasize responsibilities instead, while ignoring that living within your liberty, and not violating the liberty of others, is your main responsibility. It is where all your other responsibilities come from. You can not separate responsibilities from rights and liberty. It simply isn't possible, unless you turn your back on the responsibilities that don't feel good to you.

And make no mistake: government extremists HATE rights and liberty, no matter what they say. They want to pretend you have a duty to prop up the State with your life, liberty, and property. They lie.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Where we're going, we don't need... roads.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Convince me

Convince me that humans have the right to initiate force and damage the usefulness of each other's property.

Then convince me that government-- the State-- is the proper way to put this into action.

Convince me I'm wrong, or convince me that I've stated the problem incorrectly.

Really. Convince me. If I'm wrong, I want to know. I want to know why I'm wrong and how I'm wrong.

And here's why: I don't feel like a success. I've always been financially broke, even long before I embarked on making money (or trying to) through writing. If I weren't wrong, I believe I might be (or feel) more of a success. I see those around me who embrace statism profiting greatly. I realize the sample is skewed since those are the only people around me.

No, I'm not jealous or envious, but I can't help but see their success as a finger of accusation pointing right at me. Pointing out my shortcomings. And, I'm perfectly willing to accept that my problems might stem from some other personal flaw, having nothing to do with my post-statism. Still, if I'm wrong, I need to know.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

If archation is OK

Maybe archation isn't a problem. Maybe you do have the right to initiate force and take, damage, or otherwise violate the property of others.

Where does that lead, if that's the case?

Theft, murder, rape, kidnapping, vandalism, trespassing... it's all fine. If you have the right to do it, then no one has the right to stop you.

Or, maybe some would argue that only a government-- a group of people claiming "authority"-- has the right to do those things, and only as necessary to do the "job".

Where would that lead?

To the exact same place, but with people pretending it's all fine. Individuals shouldn't do those things, but if an individual who belongs to group that claims "authority" does them, well that's just peachy.

That's part of why statism just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

But, if I'm wrong... well, I'll leave that for tomorrow. See you then.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

It's a shame politics not harmless

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

After almost a year of President Trump, half the country is in an absolute uproar over the ruination of America being caused by the man.

Exactly like the other half of the country gnashed its teeth for eight straight years over the way President Obama was destroying the country.

I wish both halves weren't so close to being right.

I also wish politics could be kept in a virtual world, like fantasy football or Pokemon Go. It could exist in apps for your phone or computer, and nowhere else. Finance it with licensed product sales, ads, and subscription fees. Let the people who play be the only ones affected by it, and leave the real world alone.

If politics were harmless, even while its enthusiasts were fanatical about it, I might sit back and enjoy the show with some popcorn. Would this year's version be called "Sharknado 6: Sharks in the White House"? Or "The Governing Inferno"? If the show got too boring or ridiculous, I could shut it off and go back to meaningful pursuits, leaving the two sides to squabble and squawk at each other.

The trouble is, politics has real-world consequences, and those squabbling sides keep grinding the rest of us between them. That's not very nice.

Every official presidential act has victims. That's the nature of politics-- winners only win by making someone lose. When neither side understands liberty, it's the first thing sacrificed to the squeaky wheels on the altar of political expediency. Almost no one understands what liberty is, and won't miss it because they've never had it, so it's easy to give it away. Presidents know they can buy votes by trading liberty for false national security, for false economic growth, for false ... well, you get the idea. And voters are happy to accept the illusions.

People are more concerned over presidential "tweets" than they are over stolen liberty. Many people get the most upset when the president doesn't help Congress steal enough liberty from the other side. They scream "Close the loopholes!" Loopholes are what they call the last places liberty can hide from its enemies. The situation is crazy, and likely to only get worse.

The good news is, no president can extinguish liberty, as much as he might try. When liberty is outlawed, only outlaws will have liberty. That tiny bit will be enough to reignite the flame when the world is ready for liberty once again.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Statist apologetics

When I was a kid and I noticed examples of how horrible the US government was (and commented), I got the standard apologetics mantra: "Democracy is the worst form of government- except for all the others."

This knee-jerk bit of propaganda shows such a lack of understanding, I don't even know where to start.

First off, yes, democracy actually is a horrible thing. It is nothing more than mob rule. That's why the otherwise misguided founders of America didn't "do" democracy, but chose to set up a republic instead. Regardless of what most Americans seem to believe, America was never supposed to devolve into a democracy.

Never mind that those "founders" ignored the fact that republics always degrade into democracies, and that no form of government is within anyone's rights to impose on others.

And, yes, maybe the US government is less evil than many of the other governments throughout history-- or even most current ones-- although that's debatable. It's a low bar. As many have pointed out, it's like getting the low achiever award at a mass murderer convention. Or, perhaps more realistically, like a mass murderer who smiles and pretends to be polite.

You can't justify your evil actions by finding others who did worse. You've got to straighten up and stop doing wrong even if no one else joins you. Don't do evil.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Reality isn't your enemy

Reality. It has good points and bad points.

I don't believe accepting reality-- good and bad-- makes a person unhappy. In fact, it seems to affect me the opposite.

Now, stating reality to those who don't want to hear it can make them very unhappy, and they often project their misery on you for pointing out reality to them. But that's their problem.

What is, is. Yes, you can work to change it if you don't like it. I hope you do. But pretending reality is something other than it is probably isn't healthy, and probably won't even make you happy in the long run.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Reduce the misery

I believe in reducing unnecessary misery. That's why I don't want you violated even if I was violated in the same way in the past.

This is a HUGE stumbling block for so many people.

They were forced to get up painfully early to go to school under the pretense of "education", so everyone else must suffer the same indignity.
They were robbed using the excuse of "Social Security", so now it's everyone else's turn to be robbed for the same excuse.
They have lowered themselves to be licensed by The State to do various things humans have a right to do, so everyone else must do the same.
They (or their forebears) "immigrated legally" (or, more likely, before there was any such silly concept as "illegal immigration") so everyone else should be forced to jump through the same hoops.

Seriously, if I thought that way I would say that because I lost my daughter, everyone else should be forced to suffer the same agony. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.

Reduce the misery in the world; don't perpetuate it. Don't share it. Don't demand it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

My evil self

In the past I did things I now consider evil. Things which violate my values, principles, and ethics-- or at least the ones I have now. Some of those things I even considered evil when I did them, yet I did them anyway. What's up with that?

I feel a lot of guilt for some of those things, but am learning to move on. And I will make up for them.

I realize I am not the same person that I was back then. In very real ways. Pretty much all my cells are different now. Just about every atom in my living systems has been replaced over the years. And my mind, my self, is vastly different-- I have different, more consistent, and more coherent (better) values, principles, and ethics.

I'm far from perfect, but it is now rare for me to do anything I consider evil. Stupid, yes. But not usually evil. I consider that an improvement.

But I know that if pushed, I still have that dark side. Sometimes I feel it. The trick is to control and channel it, and to not let it come out at the wrong time. To never let it archate. To only let it out in times when defensive violence is necessary. And then, to let it be a focused beam, surgically applied to the problem. "Collateral damage" is not an option.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

State of the "union" in 2018?

There is no union. It's a big lie.

Are prisoners held in the same cage necessarily united? Do they share goals beyond getting out of the cage? Is that enough to make them a cohesive group? Not really.

The people of the formerly "united" states of the late America are no more united than those prisoners. In fact, they are probably less united because most former Americans have been brainwashed into not even considering escape as an option. They can't even conceive of liberty from bondage anymore.

If there ever was a union, it's been gone for some time now. Good riddance.

It's time to move on. To do what you have a right to do and to reject and shun those who want to molest you. It's time for liberty. For externally imposed government: Time's up. Get out of my life.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The nature of government

All governments are evil and corrupt. All of them. Every single one of them which has ever existed or ever will exist. It's the nature of the State and no amount of wishful thinking or justifications for its existence will ever change this harsh reality.

Pointing this out hurts people's feelings, especially those who work for government in some capacity but still want to believe they are a good person. And, for that, I'm sorry. But denial isn't healthy, and the truth is the truth and it needs to be acknowledged and accepted.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

OurobSoros

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
I could definitely use some donations or subscriptions right now.

Follow me on Steemit

Cage fight!

The wider an area you wall off, the less sense it makes if your goal is protection from your enemies.

I don't want to be trapped in an enclosure with the Clintons, the Bushes, Obama, Chuck Schumer, Joe Arpaio, or any other large-scale archator.

In fact, there are very few people I would want to be kept in the same box with.

House walls are a positive thing because it is fairly easy to be sure you're not trapped inside with people you hate, and you can effectively keep those types of people out. If they get in you can throw them out or leave pretty easily.

The same goes for fences around private property. Fence off your yard, and control who you let in.

Walls around cities are less optimal, even if you ignore property rights, because you are going to be inside with some people it makes no sense to share a controlled space with, but it would be doable to move to a different city if you found yourself locked in with your enemies.

But walls around a country? It's absurd! Most of the people inside with you want to violate you, as do those who build and control the wall. You are trapping yourself with people who are just as bad as those you want to be protected from. Often, even worse.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Government still dividing America

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 27, 2017)

As the year 2017 draws to a close, it is disappointing to see America more divided than at any time since the 1860s. The main cause being government. Almost everyone complains about government, at least sometimes. It's a natural thing to do.

The reason is, with political governance, one side only wins at the expense of the other side. This leads to a fracturing of society, where the winners and losers-- the Right and the Left-- hate each other. It really is that bad.

Government is collectivism at its worst, so everyone is going to be unhappy over many of its actions, even if they like some things it does.

As a libertarian, I am constantly amused by people who complain about the inevitable results of politicized government, while thinking they can have the parts they like without the parts they don't like. Sorry, but that's not the way it's set up to work. But it could be.

Even if you got exactly the type of governing you want, just about everyone else would be unhappy. If the tables turn so someone else gets exactly the sort of governing they want, you would be the unhappy one. It's a disastrous system. This is what happens with one-size-fits-all schemes. The one mandated size actually fits almost no one. Square pegs are hammered into round holes, or round pegs get wedged into square holes; either way, no one is pleased with the result.

This is the result of pretending there can be a right to govern people other than yourself.

There is a reasonable solution: replace violence-based political governance with consumer-controlled governance. This way you, individually, choose whether you want a service, choose whether it is worth the price, choose who to get it from, and if they don't meet your expectations, you can unilaterally fire them and try something else. Without being told to move to Somalia.

No one else is bound to your choices; they make their own. Your choice in services never denies others the parts for which you have no use. They are perfectly free to choose them. You don't have to partake in everything, you just have no right to impose your choices on anyone else. It's the civilized way to live among others.

Maybe the coming year will see more people decide to give liberty a try by rejecting the obsolete system which is tearing America apart, right down the middle. I will always hope.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Long month, short money

The money ran out before the month did, and if anyone can (and wants to) donate or subscribe so I can have some gas money, it would be greatly appreciated.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Take me where I cannot stand..."

I've always thought that if I had my own spaceship or space station-- at least until or unless artificial gravity is invented-- I would prefer (all else being equal) to hire crew who had no legs.

In such an environment legs seem like trouble. They just fly around knocking into things and taking up space. Sure, you can use legs/feet to anchor a person in place by strapping them in, but there are space-saving ways to anchor a person in place when you don't have to take those useless (in microgravity, at least) appendages into account.

I think all the government space-access prevention agencies, like NASA, have missed a great opportunity by not encouraging the legless to apply. Just think of the public relations coup (assuming no "flight anomaly" resulting in crew loss).

It's a blind spot I hope liberated market spaceflight will notice and fix.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The Trump wall

No, not that one.

Trump is like a high wall with a narrow walkway along the top. On one side of the wall is irrational Trump worship, and on the other side is irrational Trump hate. You only stay rational by not falling off on either side.

It must be hard to walk along that path without falling off on one side or the other, even for liberty lovers, because so few manage it in this time of Trump. It makes me appreciate those who stay sane.

Trump has probably done good things, and he has done bad things. No one should be president, ever, but a president Trump isn't an excuse to join the borderist insanity on one side OR the antifa/SJW madness on the other. Keep your head, stop acting like an idiot, and stay on the narrow path of reality on the top. And stop letting politicians occupy your brain so much.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Women shouldn't be allowed to v*te

And neither should immigrants, or felons, or government employees, or men, or Bonobos, or any other living thing. Robots, either.

There is very, very little that is legitimately up for a v*te, and liberty and rights are never among them.

If you want to v*te on pizza toppings, while not being forced to chip in for a pizza you won't eat, go ahead.

If you want to v*te on how much of your neighbor's money will be stolen, or what people will be allowed to do with their own property, or whether self-defense tools will be criminalized, or how to punish those who ingest things you don't approve of-- sorry, but that's not within your rights. No matter who or what you are. No one has the right to v*te to archate against others. Not ever. The "right to v*te" doesn't exist and can't be created.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Good cops" and other imaginary beasts

"Police officer" or "cop" are words used to describe people who commit specific acts. Just like "rapist", "child molester", or "mugger" are words to describe people who commit specific acts. It's not really about the person, but about the acts the person chooses to commit.

Objecting to those acts being committed or to those who commit them isn't at all similar to racism or sexism, because it is based only on actions and the individual person who commits them. Nothing else.

To say "not all police officers are bad" is a nonsense statement. You are denying the description and the definition.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "sheep" is defined as "a white, hoofed mammal with wool". In that case, a black sheep wouldn't fit the definition of "sheep"; you'd need to make up a new word to use for it. And, a tuna clearly wouldn't be a sheep.

Well, a "cop"/"police officer" is a person who enforces laws-- both the unnecessary and the harmful-- and violates property rights while claiming to be protecting them, with violence or threats of violence, on behalf of a government. That isn't a good person, by definition.

To pretend there is something you would call a "cop"/"police officer" who doesn't do the above is to describe someone who doesn't fit the definition of a cop or police officer. You are talking about a completely different set of acts the person commits-- as in the case of a free market "police" analog. You are calling a bald, black unicorn a sheep.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Fixing government?

Here's a truth which seems to be agonizingly painful for a lot of people: You can't "fix" government by electing principled people.
That's like arguing that you can make child molestation "better" by only having principled molesters.

If the person has principles that are worth anything, they won't commit the act at all. If they will commit the act, then how are things "better"?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Misdirection by anti-liberty bigots

It doesn't matter if "gun control" [sic] actually prevents murder. That's the wrong question, because no one has the "right" to forbid others from owning and carrying guns. That "right" can't exist and can't be created.

This bothers a lot of anti-liberty bigots. So they keep focusing on the wrong question-- and I suspect lying about the data in order to get others to come to agree with their conclusions. But, either way, it really doesn't matter.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Christmas good holiday for outlaws

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 20, 2017)

Christmas is a good holiday for outlaws.

No, not for criminals. For outlaws. What? You don't know the difference?

Let me explain why outlaws are not your enemy and why Christmas is a great outlaw holiday.

The difference between an outlaw and a criminal is that the outlaw breaks bad laws, never throwing the first punch and never taking or damaging anyone else's property. Everything is through mutual consent. Criminals, on the other hand, attack the innocent and steal, vandalize, and trespass.

Who is an outlaw? The public school principal who has the assembly stand to be led in prayer at an official school function is an outlaw. So is the neighborhood drug dealer who peacefully ignores prohibition. The preacher who feeds the homeless is an outlaw in many parts of America. As is the activist who educates jurors about their responsibilities-- against the wishes of the court.

I would argue that Jesus was an outlaw, although those who desperately want to legitimize government might claim he only pushed the envelope-- going as far as he could without technically breaking any laws. Which is a very "outlaw" thing to do.

In the classic Rankin/Bass Christmas special "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town", Kris Kringle is an outlaw who violates the Burgermeister's toy prohibition.

Christmas is a wonderful excuse for "strawman purchases", where you buy something government wants to track, then give it to someone government didn't scrutinize and approve as worthy to own it.

People get sneaky around Christmas; hiding gifts, being "secret Santas", snooping under the tree.

It isn't mandatory to celebrate the holiday any specific way, or to celebrate at all. It's anarchy! That's what makes it fun, and what makes it work.

As mentioned above, some people use the holiday season as an excuse to feed the less fortunate-- without a food preparation permit or a restaurant license. And somehow, no mass poisoning occurs. Sometimes, arrests do result, though. Such arrests are an example of a much greater wrongdoing.

Author and founder of The On Line Freedom Academy (tolfa.us), Jim Davies, refers to government employees who impose and enforce these harmful laws as "kriminals". They are a special kind of criminal. Their harm may be legal, but it's neither right nor ethical.

In various times and places, even Christmas itself has been outlawed, which seems to mean only outlaws would have been the ones celebrating it.

This Christmas, if you feel so inclined, be a good outlaw, not a criminal or a kriminal. Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Collective ownership

There is legitimate collective ownership, and there is illegitimate "collective ownership".

The difference is consent. Not "implied consent", which isn't a real thing, but actual consent.

If I join together with some people and we all chip in to buy a plot of land, and understand explicitly how the land will be used (or choose to not be involved in that decision), then the land is collectively owned. Great! There is Unanimous Consent; this makes this collective ownership legitimate.

However...
If I am told that because I live in a certain place, being born there, I have a share in the collective ownership of the whole region, including other people's private property, but that no one can opt out of the rules imposed on the land without moving away, this is not legitimate collective ownership. If someone I don't like, don't trust, or don't respect claims to have the "authority" to administer the land on my behalf, against my wishes, this is illegitimate. Nothing can make it legitimate without Unanimous Consent. This is a violation of property rights, not a way to express them.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Delusions of godhood

What should be the qualities of water?
How should DNA be built?
How should snowflakes be designed?
Who should be in charge of flocks of birds or schools of fish?
How should ecosystems be run?
How should the market be controlled?
How should society be run?

All the above is meaningless drivel.

Yet, a majority of people seriously consider the last two and debate them. Society and the market are emergent systems. They can't be "run", designed, or controlled, and trying to do so harms individuals, which damages the health of society and destroys the market.

Only the pathologically evil would keep trying.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Turning your back on your supporters

I admired Bradley Manning's bravery in exposing U.S. war crimes.

I opposed Manning's unjust imprisonment for exposing the evil crimes of others.

I supported Bradley's choice to become Chelsea.

I cheered Chelsea's release from prison.

But I can't support Manning's entrance into politics-- for more than one reason. First of all, she is advocating "universal basic income". I asked her whether the money to be distributed will be stolen through "taxation" or be counterfeited and she didn't respond. (I did get one response from a guy who posted that I was "too stupid to understand taxation".)

But, anyway, it appears Manning is just another statist. Happy to use the state to violate individual rights, as long as she doesn't feel it is her rights being violated at the moment.

Nope. My support ends here. Sorry, Chelsea, you've stabbed an awful lot of your supporters in the back with this move.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

I'm offensive; not offended

I recently attended a social event. I know-- I can hardly believe it myself. But I had a lot of fun.

One of the activities was a game of Cards Against Humanity. Before the game started, someone was concerned about me, asking if I'm easily offended. A guy there laughed and said "Have you ever read his newspaper columns?" Then another guy piped up and said "He's the one who does the offending".

Ah, yes. They have me figured out. And, no, I wasn't offended in the slightest, but thought the whole thing was hilarious and great fun. I hope we can do it again.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

#NotMe

What do I mean by #NotMe?

I mean that I am neither a victim nor a victimizer.

Have I been victimized? Of course. Sometimes, badly. But I moved on. I don't dwell on it, and I absolutely refuse to get any part of my identity from it. To want to revel in past victimization is a serious weakness of character, if you ask me! It looks to me as though you are saying you are too weak to stand up and keep walking. That you can't stop reaching back to touch the terrible events in your past.

Even though I have been victimized in the past, I am not a victim.
Even though I have had broken bones, I am not broken.
I've had Rat Bite Fever, but I'm not sick.
I have scars, but I am not injured.
I've cried tears of emotional agony, but I'm not sad.

#NotMe

If you are being victimized now, you have an absolute human right to defend yourself with whatever amount of force it takes to stop the violator. You have every right to expose your victimizers and to refuse to associate with them ever again. They owe you restitution.

But to become an eternally broken victim just for the purpose of being a victim? That's just sad-- you have decided to violate yourself perpetually just because someone else violated you in the past. It's like you have decided to stay bogged in the mud, just because some archator once shoved you into a mud pit.

And, if I victimize you, shoot me. Do whatever it takes to stop me. It is your right. I'll probably fight back, but everyone has the right to do so, even the most vile monster. It's part of being alive.

Your past makes you what you are. You can decide to stagnate there, or to let that past make you better and stronger. Yes, it is YOUR decision. I want you to make the choice that builds you up, rather than the popular choice that holds you down.

If you don't feel you can do this, for whatever reason, I feel sorry for you.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Triggered into statism

I hope there's never an issue that is able to trigger me to the point that I start believing it's OK to archate-- freelance or through government. If it were to happen, I believe it would be a strike against me, not a real justification for initiating force or violating property.

I see so many people who develop a big "but" after years of seemingly advocating liberty-- until one thing comes up. For some it is some sort of sex; for some it's "borders"; others find a different trigger.

I try to understand. I really do. But I can't help but wonder why it was so easy for them to abandon liberty. And I want to make sure I am never in that same boat.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Avoid outrage fatigue this season

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 13, 2017)

To get the most out of this holiday season, and to finish out 2017 on a high note, I recommend avoiding outrage fatigue. What is outrage fatigue? It's the exhaustion, cynicism, apathy, and hopelessness which comes from exposure to too many outrageous crises at once.

Whether your outrage is over your belief that President Trump has been caught plotting with Russians, yet faces no consequences, or from your belief that the politically motivated investigators probing him are simply grasping at shadows of straws in a desperate attempt to destroy someone they despise. It depends on your perspective, but either view can make you crazy.

And what of all the recent accusations of sexual misconduct among the political and entertainment elite? True or not, it can be overwhelming to try to keep up.

The world can look like a terrible place if that's what you focus on.

How many of those problems are new? None of them; they're just recycled crises with interchangeable actors, getting people worked up when noticed.

I'm not saying you shouldn't pay attention to world events, or that some aren't horrible, I'm suggesting you notice whether they impact you, personally. And if they do, how much? If you hadn't heard about it on the news or on social media, would it affect your life in any way? If not, maybe it's not as important as you believe. Certainly not important enough for you to make yourself unhappy over.

There are more important things closer to you. Things like friends, family, and community. Your pets probably have a bigger impact on your life than happenings in Washington D.C. or Hollywood. And certainly bigger than people or events in Great Britain, Syria, or Iraq.

Yes, those things matter to those who are personally impacted, and I empathize with them. But if you spend all your energy getting upset over those things, what do you have left for those who are around you every day? For the people and things your attitude affects?

If you waste your time and energy being outraged, even over outrageous things, when will you find time or energy to enjoy the good things in your life?

Yes, bad things happen. Politics can't solve them, but only magnifies them. Humans shouldn't rule others, and should never be in positions of imagined authority over anyone but themselves. When people are put into the foolish position of political authority, bad things are inevitable. It's not selfish or "isolationist" to focus on your personal sphere; it's being responsible.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Them furriners

Those who focus on, or obsess over, "immigrants" without making the distinction between people who archate and those who don't, regardless of where they were born, are harming liberty. Badly!

And there are those who keep beating that drum and getting angry at those who don't fall for it.

Breaking a counterfeit "law" isn't wrong. "Immigration law" is counterfeit "law".

Initiating force or violating property rights is wrong (in that no one has the right to do so) no matter who does it, and regardless of where the guilty party comes from. It is not better to have a Red, White, And Blue redneck neighbor violating you than some guy who came from Somalia violating you. The violation is the problem; anything else is a distraction. You have the human right to defend yourself from any archator, and no "law" can change that (although "laws" can punish you for doing so).

If you can't get these points through your head, you just look like a bigot. You are helping the other anti-liberty bigots. You are making it impossible for others to reach out to educate those you hate (and yes, in spite of insincere words, it is hate). You are driving them into the arms of your enemy, and then pretending to be shocked at the results.

If you notice that socialistic handouts are a problem and you don't want foreign-born people using them, END THEM instead of enabling them. End them completely and totally, and replace them with charity to be given to whoever you choose. Voluntarily. Don't say "It can't be done"- it's no less likely than "closing the borders", and if you don't believe so, you are in denial.

If you love borders better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you and promise to protect you from "those people". May your chains and walls set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you once pretended to be our allies.*

-

*Apologies to Samuel Adams

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

What kind of hole?

Yes, there really are "s#!thole countries". Living under those conditions-- created almost exclusively by States-- can definitely have a negative effect on the ethics and intelligence of the population (but that has zero to do with the rights the people there have). Government has consequences.

Pointing this out is honest, but not very nice. And it isn't racism. Denying it is statism, though.

I'll have more to say about this in a few days. (Here)

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

In need of a fence

The house on one side of me has been vacant for years. It is in bad shape, and has probably been deteriorating since being vacant. It was for sale for a couple of years, but didn't get much attention.

I guess the owner has finally decided to fix it up a little so it will sell.

But, this has created a problem.

The person working on the house-- and I don't know if it is the owner or a hired man-- parked in our yard. Repeatedly. The house is almost against the property line, less than 10 feet from it, and he kept parking beside the house on my property.

Probably, I wouldn't have made much of an issue, but he also made a big pile of trash (boxes, plastic wrap, foam wrap, etc.) behind the house, and this is a windy area, and his trash keeps blowing into my yard (and all over the neighborhood). This actually made me more angry than the parking situation.

I've not had good experiences asking people to not drive through my yard in the past, so I just put up a "no trespassing" sign right where the guy kept parking. I also wrote a note asking him to "please stop parking in my yard" and to pick up his trash.

Yes, I need a fence. If I could afford one, and could afford the survey to see exactly where to put one.

Anyway, he didn't show up for a few days, but when he came back, he parked in his own driveway and picked up (most of) his trash. We shall see how this goes now.

And then I have the thrill of possibly getting a new neighbor, if the house sells. I'm hoping for a certain type of new neighbor.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Ignoring bad questions

Many times I see people ask questions which only demonstrate they have no clue what they are even talking about; they don't even understand well enough to know what to ask. Not only about liberty, but regarding science and other things I actually know a little about.

I used to try to answer the questions, or explain why the question didn't make sense and suggest a different approach.

Now I try to ignore them.

Part of me feels bad about that. No, it's not my job to "correct" everyone, and I have come to realize most people don't appreciate it anyway. But I also feel guilty when I understand what a person needs to know about a subject they obviously have an interest in, but don't understand well enough to even ask reasonable questions. But maybe I'm projecting too much of myself onto them.

I have also come to realize people often ask the wrong questions because that's the only way to come to the conclusion they have decided they want to come to.

Ignoring such questions still feels like shirking a responsibility. And it makes me uncomfortable, even while realizing it's probably the right thing to do in most cases.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The State- BAD "government"

"Government" has two aspects, one positive, the other negative.

The positive aspect is protection of the individual, through protection of their rights.

The negative aspect is the State.

Unfortunately, most people mistake the State, externally imposed government, for that which protects the individual, but it isn't. The State is completely negative and destructive; harmful and enslaving.

The government which protects the individual is totally separate from the State. Pretty much the opposite of the State. It is self-government; self-control. It is living within what you have a right to do. It is standing up for individual rights. It is living up to your responsibility to not violate others-- because that is your greatest responsibility. The State is a rejection of that grave responsibility.

When most people speak of "government", they mean The State. It's why that's how I usually use the word, too, when I am trying to communicate with them. Otherwise they simply don't understand and believe you are speaking of Texas or Colorado. But I do understand the difference.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Statists' intentions

I think that statism, while always wrong, is sometimes embraced with good intentions.

The statist truly wants to "help" and is clueless about how to do so, and they decide that theft and aggression (wielded in just the right way, by just the right people) are the way to help.

Yes, it's a ridiculous belief, but it is sincere.

But statism isn't always due to good intentions. Sometimes it is pure malevolence.

How much the statist supports punishment is probably a good indicator.

If the statist enjoys hearing about cops killing people who are breaking a counterfeit "law", they have no good intentions. If a statist hopes a person who has no individual victim will experience prison rape, there are no good intentions behind it. Most statists are very sick people who hunger to see others punished. Punishment addiction and statism are almost indistinguishable.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

It's not help if it's not wanted

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 6, 2017)

Most people enjoy helping others when they can, and when they see a deserving opportunity. It's one of the best things about human nature.

Yet it's easy to fool yourself into believing you are helping while doing the opposite.

It's not "helping" if it's unwanted.

For example, I don't want you to hire police to protect me from crime. I certainly don't want to be forced to pay for them, nor let them interfere in acts which have no individual victim.

If I see you stabbing yourself in the foot repeatedly, my intervention might not be wanted. Even if I suspect mental illness, how far should I go to stop you from doing what you want to do? As unpleasant as the reality is, you have the right to do whatever you want to your own body. I have no right to tackle you to prevent you from harming yourself, and if I do anyway, you may have a legitimate claim against me. Whether anyone would blame me is a different issue.

Often, when seeing someone who seems to need help, the most anyone has a right to do is to offer advice, then walk away if the advice is unwelcome. This is hard to do.

Giving advice falls under freedom of speech, yet no one is obligated to listen. If they refuse and you impose yourself on them, you have gone beyond what you have a right to do. You aren't helping.

You can't help by violating people's rights, nor are you helping when you assist those who do. This is the mistake which props up war and other forms of mob violence.

Contrary to popular belief, welfare isn't helping. It is not generous to force others to contribute, no matter how good you believe the cause to be. You've negated any help, only shifting the harm to someone else.

Plus, welfare creates dependency. Once in the system, it's hard to escape because of distorted incentives.

Charity is better for everyone. Voluntary acts always are. It's better for the giver because it isn't forced. If the recipient is discovered to have lied about his situation, the giver can immediately choose to keep his money in his own pocket; no need for a bureaucracy to rule on the case. Charity is also better for the recipient. It can be less intrusive and less demeaning. He can seek other sources if the charity comes with unreasonable strings attached.

I'm in favor of helping. When people help, everyone wins.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Being civilized isn't that hard

It's not that hard to not be at war. I'm not at war with people I've never met on the other side of the planet, and can't see any reason to be. Why can't others be as civilized? Is the mental disorder of Statism so powerful that it creates the desire for death and destruction on this monumental scale? Is it really that hard to resist?

If governing idiots would leave me alone, I wouldn't feel any need to fight back for my liberty, either. If we are at war, it is 100% their fault.

I don't seek to control others, why can't others be the same? It's not hard for me to stay out of other people's business and let them make their own decisions-- and their own mistakes. So why is this so hard for so many?

What is different about me? Sometimes I feel like I'm a separate species.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Once ignorance is cured, malevolence remains

I believe most people support archators out of ignorance. Most. Some people support archators out of malevolence.

Almost everyone is a fan of some archators, though, and this is strange.

Maybe some of those who support archators out of ignorance can be educated out of it. They have to be shown that those who initiate force and violate property are basically all the same. This is a very painful and difficult lesson for most of them-- they don't want to believe it. The archators they like, they want to see as doing something difficult and necessary, rather than seeing them as common thugs like the archators they don't like.

But, by initiating force and violating property, their "heroes" are doing what they don't have a right to do. They are acting as the bad guy, regardless of their justifications. They are not people to support.

If you support some archators, why not just support them all? You may as well. Especially once your mistake has been pointed out. If you continue to support archators at that point, you can't really claim ignorance anymore-- now it looks like malevolence to me.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit