The local post office is going full potato.
They've always had that ubiquitous "no guns in the post office" sign on the bulletin board inside, but now have posted another one beside the entrance.
I guess they are scared of that tiny loosening of the draconian anti-gun "laws" in Texas, where those who beg and pay government for a permit to exercise an inalienable right to own and to carry, everywhere they go, in any manner they see fit, any type of weapon they choose, without ever asking permission of anyone, can maybe begin to openly carry a gun (depending on the whims of local badge bullies who might just murder you anyway and say "oops") in ways very slightly less infringed upon.
Hate to tell you, post office, but as a government facility it is a serious crime for you to pretend to have the "authority" to ban guns on your premises. That's what the Second Amendment says and what it means, and since government employees are the only ones the Bill of Rights applies to- by forbidding certain things you might want to do to the individual rights of people- you are a criminal by doing this anyway. Of course, you won't care because you'll continue to get away with it.
Until the day you don't.
And it won't be at my hands, so don't misconstrue this as a threat. But, it is history: those who rely of the protection of government always have a nasty surprise coming when the winds change. And you, as an anti-liberty bigot, are on the wrong side- the losing side- of history.
.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
Monday, January 04, 2016
Who would do such a horrible thing?
(Previously posted to Patreon)
What is your gut reaction when you see a "No guns" sign?
Do you think "Thank goodness! I'll be safe here!"
Or, do you instead recognize the facts of reality?
For me, it is like walking into the restroom of a fast food place and seeing a sign warning employees and customers to not wash their hands after relieving themselves.
Or a sign at the doctor's office saying "Please smoke".
A "no guns" sign is a declaration that your health and safety don't matter at all to the management.
It is an admission that a political agenda based upon superstitions and delusions (but I repeat myself) takes precedence over your life.
What kind of person would do that? Certainly no one you should associate with or spend money with.
.
What is your gut reaction when you see a "No guns" sign?
Do you think "Thank goodness! I'll be safe here!"
Or, do you instead recognize the facts of reality?
For me, it is like walking into the restroom of a fast food place and seeing a sign warning employees and customers to not wash their hands after relieving themselves.
Or a sign at the doctor's office saying "Please smoke".
A "no guns" sign is a declaration that your health and safety don't matter at all to the management.
It is an admission that a political agenda based upon superstitions and delusions (but I repeat myself) takes precedence over your life.
What kind of person would do that? Certainly no one you should associate with or spend money with.
.
The video blogs
I'd like to know what you think of the videos. Right now I'm just kind of playing around with them- getting a feel for it all.
Should I continue vlogging, or is it something I should have stayed away from altogether?
I know they are short- that is kind of the point. So many make these long video screeds- which can be very good- but I wonder how many people stay with them to the end. Especially people who might not already be on the side of liberty.
Like most of my blog posts, I intend to have stuff short enough that the point is made before the unsuspecting statist realizes what is going on and turns it off.
I realize my subject- and myself- are not for everyone.
Also, do you think it is better to have the transcript with the video, or just the video?
It is my intention- if nothing changes- to do a video or two every week. At least for a while.
If everyone hates them, that would be something changing to alter my plan.
.
Should I continue vlogging, or is it something I should have stayed away from altogether?
I know they are short- that is kind of the point. So many make these long video screeds- which can be very good- but I wonder how many people stay with them to the end. Especially people who might not already be on the side of liberty.
Like most of my blog posts, I intend to have stuff short enough that the point is made before the unsuspecting statist realizes what is going on and turns it off.
I realize my subject- and myself- are not for everyone.
Also, do you think it is better to have the transcript with the video, or just the video?
It is my intention- if nothing changes- to do a video or two every week. At least for a while.
If everyone hates them, that would be something changing to alter my plan.
.
Sunday, January 03, 2016
The Oregon occupation and stand-off
The standoff situation at the National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Oregon, in support of ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond, is simple and tragic:
What you see is opposing groups of statists squaring off and making threats at each other.
And they are all operating under the same flag. The supposed patriots are waving the flag of those they claim to be upset with- because make no mistake: the US flag, "The Stars and Stripes", belongs to no one but the US federal government.
Maybe, just maybe, once upon a time it stood for something else, but if it did, that ended with the federal defeat of the secessionists in the 1860s. Now the "stars and Stripes" is strictly an anti-liberty symbol of Big Government. One unfortunately embraced by some people who are on the side of liberty. But, I doubt any of those people are participating in the situation in Oregon.
No, there it's just one flavor of statism against another flavor of statism, and they taste about the same to me.
But pro-liberty people will somehow be blamed along with the anti-establishment statists who are actually involved. I distance myself from them.
.
The fate of parasites
Pretending that cops and politicians are important to society- or worse, that they somehow define society- is like pretending tapeworms define the person and that the person depends on them.
Parasites are parasites. Don't put them on a pedestal. Parasites are not in a symbiotic relationship with you- they harm you, but they can't exist without harming you. Letting them continue to feed off of you is the most destructive form of welfare.
Expel them and let them writhe on the ground, dry up, and die. It's more consideration than they have earned.
.
Labels:
advice,
cops,
DemoCRAPublicans,
government,
responsibility,
society,
tyranny deniers,
welfare
Saturday, January 02, 2016
Friday, January 01, 2016
Something big is in the works
Tomorrow look for something new here. It may surprise and shock you. It might even horrify and disgust you. You will never be the same.
Stayed tuned.
.
Stayed tuned.
.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
So long, 2015... and bite me
I'm tempted to say "Good riddance, and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out" to the year 2015. Not a good one for me by just about any measure. It will be a blot on my life forever.
But, 2016 will be better! Whatever I have control of, I will do better. Whatever the year throws at me I will try to handle better. I'm determined to NOT let the past get me down, and not let it defeat me.
Not even the event of November 17th.
A neighbor across the alley lost her 19 year-old daughter to a car wreck back about 5 or so years ago. She aged a lot afterwards. She rarely gets dressed, and is withdrawn, sad, and tragic. When my daughter was killed I made up my mind that wouldn't happen to me. It would be a horrible legacy for someone I love. And I think I have done fairly well.
For weeks afterward I wanted to stop every stranger I passed and tell them what happened. I didn't, but I wanted to. I mostly limited talking about it to this blog and Facebook. That was therapeutic and allowed me to get things off my chest without letting them take over my life. So, say what you will about Facebook (and I agree with the criticisms), it did serve a vital purpose in my mental health this past month and a half.
Anyway, I am determined that, to the extent I can control things, 2016 will be better.
And I hope yours is better for you, too. See ya next year.
.
But, 2016 will be better! Whatever I have control of, I will do better. Whatever the year throws at me I will try to handle better. I'm determined to NOT let the past get me down, and not let it defeat me.
Not even the event of November 17th.
A neighbor across the alley lost her 19 year-old daughter to a car wreck back about 5 or so years ago. She aged a lot afterwards. She rarely gets dressed, and is withdrawn, sad, and tragic. When my daughter was killed I made up my mind that wouldn't happen to me. It would be a horrible legacy for someone I love. And I think I have done fairly well.
For weeks afterward I wanted to stop every stranger I passed and tell them what happened. I didn't, but I wanted to. I mostly limited talking about it to this blog and Facebook. That was therapeutic and allowed me to get things off my chest without letting them take over my life. So, say what you will about Facebook (and I agree with the criticisms), it did serve a vital purpose in my mental health this past month and a half.
Anyway, I am determined that, to the extent I can control things, 2016 will be better.
And I hope yours is better for you, too. See ya next year.
.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Blaming others for your failure
Those who believe bad guys "out there" justify "borders" and cops here remind me of the puppeticians of Chicago and DC who blame their staggering murder rates on the freer regions (those with slightly less horrible anti-gun "laws") surrounding them.
There will always be somewhere else that you'll see as a threat when your carefully crafted scheme fails to deliver what you promised. Because governing is a lie, you will always fail.
Unless you have a "one world government", someone will be outside your (always illegitimate) jurisdiction and will have influence in your domain.
The solution isn't to more fully dominate and molest the people near you- it is to step away and stop governing and let people solve real problems (which are much more rare than the statist's imaginary ones) themselves.
Politicians are just bullies who create problems, then promise- and fail- to solve the problems they created.
Liberty works while bullies twerk.
.
There will always be somewhere else that you'll see as a threat when your carefully crafted scheme fails to deliver what you promised. Because governing is a lie, you will always fail.
Unless you have a "one world government", someone will be outside your (always illegitimate) jurisdiction and will have influence in your domain.
The solution isn't to more fully dominate and molest the people near you- it is to step away and stop governing and let people solve real problems (which are much more rare than the statist's imaginary ones) themselves.
Politicians are just bullies who create problems, then promise- and fail- to solve the problems they created.
Liberty works while bullies twerk.
.
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Life’s never perfect, but still good
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 27, 2015)
For Cheyenne.
For Cheyenne.
You already know this, of course, but you may not think about it very often: You never know what the next moment will bring. The worst days start exactly like the best days.
I was in the middle of writing last week’s column when I got the news that my 24-year-old daughter had been killed in a car wreck. Nothing can prepare you for something like that.
In the days to follow, in the midst of traveling and attending services, I realized Thanksgiving was approaching. Thankfulness, after this? Well, yes. I know I still have so many things to be thankful for. I have to admit to having a little trouble maintaining the thankfulness this year; it's competing with a profound sense of loss.
I'm thankful for the time I spent with my daughter. I'm thankful for my other two kids, and the rest of my family.
I'm thankful for how caring people can be. In words, and in actions, too. I was reminded, first hand, of the kindness of people, including strangers. And how willing people are to reach out to those in pain. So many people offered words of comfort and sympathy, and even financial help so I could travel to her service. I have been thankful for everything and the spirit in which it is offered. It's still a roller coaster. Life is never perfect, but there is always something good.
This has also shown yet again the futility of making up "laws"- and enforcing them- to supposedly protect us. Bad people won't obey; good people are harmed by having their liberty stolen using the bad people as excuses. You don't get safety in a police state. Never. It simply doesn't work that way.
Life is better lived in liberty than with the harmful illusion of safety. I wish my daughter had been able to live her life in the free society I envision and advocate, rather than the police state that is growing around us, but I'm also grateful there is as much freedom left as there is, and that she was able to enjoy some of it in her too-short life. I'm glad for every bit of liberty she grabbed when she had the opportunity.
So, yes, I am thankful. And I will continue to fight the liars who demand you give up essential liberty for the illusion of safety. For all our sons and daughters, but especially for the memory of my daughter, Cheyenne Rose.
.
I was in the middle of writing last week’s column when I got the news that my 24-year-old daughter had been killed in a car wreck. Nothing can prepare you for something like that.
In the days to follow, in the midst of traveling and attending services, I realized Thanksgiving was approaching. Thankfulness, after this? Well, yes. I know I still have so many things to be thankful for. I have to admit to having a little trouble maintaining the thankfulness this year; it's competing with a profound sense of loss.
I'm thankful for the time I spent with my daughter. I'm thankful for my other two kids, and the rest of my family.
I'm thankful for how caring people can be. In words, and in actions, too. I was reminded, first hand, of the kindness of people, including strangers. And how willing people are to reach out to those in pain. So many people offered words of comfort and sympathy, and even financial help so I could travel to her service. I have been thankful for everything and the spirit in which it is offered. It's still a roller coaster. Life is never perfect, but there is always something good.
This has also shown yet again the futility of making up "laws"- and enforcing them- to supposedly protect us. Bad people won't obey; good people are harmed by having their liberty stolen using the bad people as excuses. You don't get safety in a police state. Never. It simply doesn't work that way.
Life is better lived in liberty than with the harmful illusion of safety. I wish my daughter had been able to live her life in the free society I envision and advocate, rather than the police state that is growing around us, but I'm also grateful there is as much freedom left as there is, and that she was able to enjoy some of it in her too-short life. I'm glad for every bit of liberty she grabbed when she had the opportunity.
So, yes, I am thankful. And I will continue to fight the liars who demand you give up essential liberty for the illusion of safety. For all our sons and daughters, but especially for the memory of my daughter, Cheyenne Rose.
.
Don't spit on your idea by turning it into a State
The Islamic State is something I hate and could never support.
But, not necessarily because it is Islamic- although I am not a fan of Islam.
The same would be true for a Christian State, a Jewish State, or an Atheist State.
I would oppose a Dog Lovers' State, a Football State, or a Coffee Drinkers' State.
And even a Libertarian State, or a "Free State".
The problem lies in declaring a State.
Creating a State around your idea- even if it's otherwise harmless or good- negates the harmlessness and good. A State is automatically a bad thing; built upon aggression, coercion, and theft.
I get it: people want to say "This area, defined by these boundaries, is different from those areas beyond these boundaries. This area is better than those areas for lots of reasons". And, they may even be somewhat right. But as soon as your area meets the definition of a State it has lost the moral high ground. You have trashed your idea, no matter how great it might have been to begin with.
.
But, not necessarily because it is Islamic- although I am not a fan of Islam.
The same would be true for a Christian State, a Jewish State, or an Atheist State.
I would oppose a Dog Lovers' State, a Football State, or a Coffee Drinkers' State.
And even a Libertarian State, or a "Free State".
The problem lies in declaring a State.
Creating a State around your idea- even if it's otherwise harmless or good- negates the harmlessness and good. A State is automatically a bad thing; built upon aggression, coercion, and theft.
I get it: people want to say "This area, defined by these boundaries, is different from those areas beyond these boundaries. This area is better than those areas for lots of reasons". And, they may even be somewhat right. But as soon as your area meets the definition of a State it has lost the moral high ground. You have trashed your idea, no matter how great it might have been to begin with.
.
Monday, December 28, 2015
"For-your-own-good laws"
(Previously posted to Patreon)
I despise "for your own good laws".
They come either from those who mimic the angry, controlling father, or those who mimic the hovering, controlling mother. Controlling what other people do is a sickness.
I understand: some people are obsessed with controlling others. As long as they limit it to people in their personal circle- people who can say "No" and back it up if need be, then it's just an individual flaw.
But when this sickness is expressed in "law", backed up and enforced under threat of death, it becomes really damaging.
Statutory rape "laws" are one of these sorts of "laws". They are really no different from bans on large sodas. Or anti-gun "laws".
These "laws" come from the control-freak mindset that you can't make your own choices which could potentially harm you- or at least harm some people under some circumstances. Why can't you be allowed to make your own choices? Because you wouldn't make the "right choice"- the choice those who dream up the "law" insist you make. So you must be prevented- I mean "protected"- from making unapproved choices. This means someone else must be empowered to make your decisions for you- using the overbearing wisdom of the control freak. Anyone stepping out of line and daring to make their own decisions will be punished.
This is often hidden behind "someone would otherwise take advantage of you" by offering you a choice the controllers have determined you shouldn't make.
And, of course, those who support such "laws" will always justify their "laws" by making excuses of why those "protected" by such "laws" can't consent, can't be trusted with making their own decisions, or whatever, and some of their justifications may have a kernel of truth and may sound reasonable.
I even see many liberty lovers who mouth support for such "laws", particularly with regard to "statutory rape"/"age of consent", due to their fears of what might happen otherwise. Expressing doubt about the ethics of such "laws" can be met with raging hatred and threats of violent death.
But think about this: why would you let The State set and define the terms? One day an act is aggression, and the very next day- actually it could be the very next second- the identical act isn't? It's absurd, and will always be absurd. By letting the statist control freaks lay out the boundaries for thought and discussion you are handing them the keys to your self determination. You are pretending they occupy the high ground- but it's really a guard tower looking over your prison camp.
Once these "for your own good" opinions get made into a "law" all reason is gone. One-size-fits-all NEVER fits all.
As I say, if you believe there needs to be a rule covering some "for your own good" things, make the rule for those you are personally responsible for, and fight them for control. But stop at that and keep your filthy "laws" to yourself. I want no part of it.
.
I despise "for your own good laws".
They come either from those who mimic the angry, controlling father, or those who mimic the hovering, controlling mother. Controlling what other people do is a sickness.
I understand: some people are obsessed with controlling others. As long as they limit it to people in their personal circle- people who can say "No" and back it up if need be, then it's just an individual flaw.
But when this sickness is expressed in "law", backed up and enforced under threat of death, it becomes really damaging.
Statutory rape "laws" are one of these sorts of "laws". They are really no different from bans on large sodas. Or anti-gun "laws".
These "laws" come from the control-freak mindset that you can't make your own choices which could potentially harm you- or at least harm some people under some circumstances. Why can't you be allowed to make your own choices? Because you wouldn't make the "right choice"- the choice those who dream up the "law" insist you make. So you must be prevented- I mean "protected"- from making unapproved choices. This means someone else must be empowered to make your decisions for you- using the overbearing wisdom of the control freak. Anyone stepping out of line and daring to make their own decisions will be punished.
This is often hidden behind "someone would otherwise take advantage of you" by offering you a choice the controllers have determined you shouldn't make.
And, of course, those who support such "laws" will always justify their "laws" by making excuses of why those "protected" by such "laws" can't consent, can't be trusted with making their own decisions, or whatever, and some of their justifications may have a kernel of truth and may sound reasonable.
I even see many liberty lovers who mouth support for such "laws", particularly with regard to "statutory rape"/"age of consent", due to their fears of what might happen otherwise. Expressing doubt about the ethics of such "laws" can be met with raging hatred and threats of violent death.
But think about this: why would you let The State set and define the terms? One day an act is aggression, and the very next day- actually it could be the very next second- the identical act isn't? It's absurd, and will always be absurd. By letting the statist control freaks lay out the boundaries for thought and discussion you are handing them the keys to your self determination. You are pretending they occupy the high ground- but it's really a guard tower looking over your prison camp.
Once these "for your own good" opinions get made into a "law" all reason is gone. One-size-fits-all NEVER fits all.
As I say, if you believe there needs to be a rule covering some "for your own good" things, make the rule for those you are personally responsible for, and fight them for control. But stop at that and keep your filthy "laws" to yourself. I want no part of it.
.
Don't be backward
"Cultural elites", like politicians and celebrities, have interesting ideas of what makes someone "backward". If you value property rights, self defense, and other things vital for survival, they will look down on you and think of you as backward. They will call you names.
The "loyal opposition" to those "cultural elites" also always find things to fault about those who don't want their "help". Self ownership, thinking for yourself (thinking at all, probably)- and again- actual property rights, and self defense apart from their beloved "law" imposition goons are frowned upon.
But, to me, there is a clear backwardness to the brutal anti-survival, anti-civilized agenda of both sides*.
The things that are truly backward are things like prohibition, anti-gun/anti-self defense "laws", "taxes", property codes/zoning, anti-sex "laws", and permits. These hearken back to the old superstitious belief in "authority". Antiquated throwbacks which have no place in any decent civilization.
If a person wants to progress, to not be a Neanderthal (although this is probably insulting to the memory of Neanderthals) there is one path: Embrace and advocate Rightful Liberty. That's it. Anything less is obsolete.
*This is misleading, because they are not different "sides", but one and the same: the anti-liberty bigot statists.
.
The "loyal opposition" to those "cultural elites" also always find things to fault about those who don't want their "help". Self ownership, thinking for yourself (thinking at all, probably)- and again- actual property rights, and self defense apart from their beloved "law" imposition goons are frowned upon.
But, to me, there is a clear backwardness to the brutal anti-survival, anti-civilized agenda of both sides*.
The things that are truly backward are things like prohibition, anti-gun/anti-self defense "laws", "taxes", property codes/zoning, anti-sex "laws", and permits. These hearken back to the old superstitious belief in "authority". Antiquated throwbacks which have no place in any decent civilization.
If a person wants to progress, to not be a Neanderthal (although this is probably insulting to the memory of Neanderthals) there is one path: Embrace and advocate Rightful Liberty. That's it. Anything less is obsolete.
-
*This is misleading, because they are not different "sides", but one and the same: the anti-liberty bigot statists.
.
Labels:
advice,
cops,
Counterfeit Laws,
DemoCRAPublicans,
future,
government,
guns,
Law Pollution,
liberty,
Permits,
personal,
Property Rights,
society,
taxation
Sunday, December 27, 2015
They can't be trusted with a gun
Of all those people you might argue can't be trusted with guns- drug addicts, "felons", hot-heads, cops- there is only one group I could never trust with a gun- or anything else: Those who are loyal to government. Any government.
Not just those who lower themselves to work for government and impose its policies and opinions, but even the "nice" guy down the street who supports government as long as "his guy" is in office. Or the guy who says you need to "respect the office", if not the person in the office. Or, even the guy who fears what might happen without government.
The democides are always carried out, and justified, by such cracked individuals.
I'm sure you've seen the old photos of monsters in uniform aiming to shoot some individual who they have on their knees by a ditch. Those photos crop up everywhere, and are horrifying. All those murders are committed by people loyal to government.
Loyalty to government- even to the idea of government- is one of the most dangerous moral shortcomings imaginable. It is the inspiration for so much evil.
I'm not saying it is the only evil- obviously there are people out there committing great evil who hate government. But when you compare the damage each ideology inspires, loyalty to government creates much more death and destruction than is done by the others.
I am not loyal to government. Not any of them. I spit on the very idea of government. I pity and look down upon those who excuse and try to justify government.
I am not saying I would support a "law" barring guns to those who are loyal to government (that would be looking to government to protect you from itself- a silly idea), but I am saying that such a person can't be trusted. Not with a gun, not with a pencil. No need to hunt them down. Just know who they are, and act accordingly.
.
Not just those who lower themselves to work for government and impose its policies and opinions, but even the "nice" guy down the street who supports government as long as "his guy" is in office. Or the guy who says you need to "respect the office", if not the person in the office. Or, even the guy who fears what might happen without government.
The democides are always carried out, and justified, by such cracked individuals.
I'm sure you've seen the old photos of monsters in uniform aiming to shoot some individual who they have on their knees by a ditch. Those photos crop up everywhere, and are horrifying. All those murders are committed by people loyal to government.
Loyalty to government- even to the idea of government- is one of the most dangerous moral shortcomings imaginable. It is the inspiration for so much evil.
I'm not saying it is the only evil- obviously there are people out there committing great evil who hate government. But when you compare the damage each ideology inspires, loyalty to government creates much more death and destruction than is done by the others.
I am not loyal to government. Not any of them. I spit on the very idea of government. I pity and look down upon those who excuse and try to justify government.
I am not saying I would support a "law" barring guns to those who are loyal to government (that would be looking to government to protect you from itself- a silly idea), but I am saying that such a person can't be trusted. Not with a gun, not with a pencil. No need to hunt them down. Just know who they are, and act accordingly.
.
Saturday, December 26, 2015
How would you want to be remembered?
Someday, our descendants will judge those who facilitate "executions" by knowingly providing deadly drugs to state employees for the purpose just as harshly as those who knowingly sold Zyklon B to the Nazis are now judged: as evil incarnate.
And those "medical professionals" who help in any way will not be immune, either.
.
And those "medical professionals" who help in any way will not be immune, either.
.
Labels:
advice,
Crime,
future,
government,
police state,
responsibility,
society,
tyranny deniers
Thursday, December 24, 2015
I'll embrace the label
Out of (possibly misplaced) consideration I let my second ex-wife know of Cheyenne's death. They were once close.
The details of how our marriage ended aren't important- neither of us was innocent. The past is the past, and I hold no grudge against her. I can't say the same for her, considering the response I got several years ago to a friendly "hi".
The response I got back this time had me shaking my head, wondering just exactly what her reality looks like.
She wound up saying some nice things about Cheyenne, but not before beginning the message by saying: "I never had another thing to say to you after i walked away. You truley [sic] have a problem and need help."
The funny thing is, I remember what happened in our marriage, how it ended, and I know what her life has been like since it ended. Talk about people in glass houses and their poorly aimed projectiles... Anyway...
At Cheyenne's memorial, her mom- my first ex-wife- made a point of telling me several times, with a smile, that I am crazy- without specifics. But, it's clear to me she still likes me as a person.
Our son has a quite different take on the matter of who is crazy. At least, from what he's said to me. I guess it depends on perspective.
But, neither ex mentioned what my perceived problem might be, or in what way I am crazy.
Sure, I should take such pronouncements with a grain of salt, and consider other factors. Still, it does nag at me.
On the other hand, looking around at the world and society these days, perhaps being told I "have a problem" and am "crazy" might be endorsements. Going along with what is going on might be "normal", but it can't possibly be right. If being right indicates a problem, or a sign of craziness, I'll be happy to wear that label. How about you?
.
The details of how our marriage ended aren't important- neither of us was innocent. The past is the past, and I hold no grudge against her. I can't say the same for her, considering the response I got several years ago to a friendly "hi".
The response I got back this time had me shaking my head, wondering just exactly what her reality looks like.
She wound up saying some nice things about Cheyenne, but not before beginning the message by saying: "I never had another thing to say to you after i walked away. You truley [sic] have a problem and need help."
The funny thing is, I remember what happened in our marriage, how it ended, and I know what her life has been like since it ended. Talk about people in glass houses and their poorly aimed projectiles... Anyway...
At Cheyenne's memorial, her mom- my first ex-wife- made a point of telling me several times, with a smile, that I am crazy- without specifics. But, it's clear to me she still likes me as a person.
Our son has a quite different take on the matter of who is crazy. At least, from what he's said to me. I guess it depends on perspective.
But, neither ex mentioned what my perceived problem might be, or in what way I am crazy.
Sure, I should take such pronouncements with a grain of salt, and consider other factors. Still, it does nag at me.
On the other hand, looking around at the world and society these days, perhaps being told I "have a problem" and am "crazy" might be endorsements. Going along with what is going on might be "normal", but it can't possibly be right. If being right indicates a problem, or a sign of craziness, I'll be happy to wear that label. How about you?
.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Bigots
When someone is utterly consumed with bigotry, it's nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion with them. Especially where the object of their bigotry is concerned.
And almost no one is more bigoted than anti-liberty bigots- particularly anti-gun/anti-self defense bigots.
About all you can do is point out their bigotry for others to see, then move along.
They will lie and fling hate at you. It's their only weapon.
They are sad little people. Damaged people. And they don't know it.
.
And almost no one is more bigoted than anti-liberty bigots- particularly anti-gun/anti-self defense bigots.
About all you can do is point out their bigotry for others to see, then move along.
They will lie and fling hate at you. It's their only weapon.
They are sad little people. Damaged people. And they don't know it.
.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Dragging others slows everyone
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 20, 2015... I was right in the middle of writing this one when I got the news about my daughter. As soon as I remembered what I had been doing, I just submitted it "as is" and never tried to finish it. I still don't know how heavily it was edited.)
Are there some things that can’t be accomplished without forcing people to go along?
Let’s say you are trying to hike back to civilization after your plane goes down in a remote area.
If your group is divided on the best way to survive, do those who want to walk out really want to be dragging along those who want to stay put?
Would that be good for either group; improve the odds of survival and allow you to get help faster? Or might this slow everyone down and take precious energy and resources from the chance for the survival of either group?
So why would anyone believe this is a good way to attempt a society?
Some fear doing everything by unanimous consent would mean nothing would get done. I think it means more would get done, and be done faster and better without the reluctant being dragged along.
Let's use national defense as an example. Let's imagine you aren't being taxed at all, nor are any of the products or services you use taxed in any way at any step. This means you could multiply your real wealth and spending power by many times. If you were just a few times richer, and could spend all that money any way you want, would you contribute to national defense? If not, then you don't value it enough to justify forcing others to share the cost. If so, then it is obvious it is valuable enough to be funded voluntarily.
The same goes for everything currently financed through the theft called "taxation". There are things currently funded by taxes I would gladly pay for- especially if I weren't being taxed so I could afford it. There are other things I don't want, but wouldn't stop you from funding. It's the difference between being civilized and being a society based on mutual violation. Plus, since it's cheaper and more efficient to accept donations than to pay swarms of agents to threaten people to pay up "or else", there's more money to go around.
If your idea has worth, you don't need to force participation. If you have to force participation, your idea is worthless.
Doing things collectively isn't necessarily bad. Only when it is not voluntary. I'm a fan of working together to accomplish things none of us can do alone. I'm not in favor of enslaving and robbing others to get what I want. Let everyone pay for what they want, not what they don't want, and pay for what they voluntarily choose to use.
GoFundMe?
.
Let’s say you are trying to hike back to civilization after your plane goes down in a remote area.
If your group is divided on the best way to survive, do those who want to walk out really want to be dragging along those who want to stay put?
Would that be good for either group; improve the odds of survival and allow you to get help faster? Or might this slow everyone down and take precious energy and resources from the chance for the survival of either group?
So why would anyone believe this is a good way to attempt a society?
Some fear doing everything by unanimous consent would mean nothing would get done. I think it means more would get done, and be done faster and better without the reluctant being dragged along.
Let's use national defense as an example. Let's imagine you aren't being taxed at all, nor are any of the products or services you use taxed in any way at any step. This means you could multiply your real wealth and spending power by many times. If you were just a few times richer, and could spend all that money any way you want, would you contribute to national defense? If not, then you don't value it enough to justify forcing others to share the cost. If so, then it is obvious it is valuable enough to be funded voluntarily.
The same goes for everything currently financed through the theft called "taxation". There are things currently funded by taxes I would gladly pay for- especially if I weren't being taxed so I could afford it. There are other things I don't want, but wouldn't stop you from funding. It's the difference between being civilized and being a society based on mutual violation. Plus, since it's cheaper and more efficient to accept donations than to pay swarms of agents to threaten people to pay up "or else", there's more money to go around.
If your idea has worth, you don't need to force participation. If you have to force participation, your idea is worthless.
Doing things collectively isn't necessarily bad. Only when it is not voluntary. I'm a fan of working together to accomplish things none of us can do alone. I'm not in favor of enslaving and robbing others to get what I want. Let everyone pay for what they want, not what they don't want, and pay for what they voluntarily choose to use.
-
GoFundMe?
.
Hold on to your butts...
“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” ~ H.L. Mencken
But, I'm not normal.
I don't spit, I hoisted the black flag long ago, and my version of slitting throats is watching the v*ters elect Trump. Or Sanders. Or Clinton, part 2. Or Paul, Cruz, Rubio, or any other of the toxic vermin running for president. They are all socialistic scum- the very flower of collectivism.
V*ters will get the president they deserve- unfortunately, they force the stupid bugger on the rest of us.
Is it bad that I hope the worst candidate "wins"? And the worse the president, the better I think it may actually be in the long run?
History shows that every president will be worse than the one before. Yes, even the ones from what you see as some Golden Age- because if they didn't void everything that was done before they took office, they added to the problem.
Now I no longer care how bad a president is- I just do what I must to survive his rule. I wouldn't exactly say I'm enthusiastic for an apocalypse, but I do sometimes think "Let's just get this over with." Sometimes you have to walk toward the fire- and then through it- to survive. You will suffer damage, but that's life. Do the best you can in less-than-perfect circumstances.
.
But, I'm not normal.
I don't spit, I hoisted the black flag long ago, and my version of slitting throats is watching the v*ters elect Trump. Or Sanders. Or Clinton, part 2. Or Paul, Cruz, Rubio, or any other of the toxic vermin running for president. They are all socialistic scum- the very flower of collectivism.
V*ters will get the president they deserve- unfortunately, they force the stupid bugger on the rest of us.
Is it bad that I hope the worst candidate "wins"? And the worse the president, the better I think it may actually be in the long run?
History shows that every president will be worse than the one before. Yes, even the ones from what you see as some Golden Age- because if they didn't void everything that was done before they took office, they added to the problem.
Now I no longer care how bad a president is- I just do what I must to survive his rule. I wouldn't exactly say I'm enthusiastic for an apocalypse, but I do sometimes think "Let's just get this over with." Sometimes you have to walk toward the fire- and then through it- to survive. You will suffer damage, but that's life. Do the best you can in less-than-perfect circumstances.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
