Prohibition and slavery

Several days ago I compared a disgusting group's support of prohibition to support for chattel slavery. You may have thought I was exaggerating. But was I? Let's look at the comparisons.

1.

Pro-slavery people claimed that the slaves "needed" slavery. They were too childish and ignorant to survive without being "taken care of" and told what to do by paternalistic "owners". They claimed the slaves would die otherwise. In truth, many former slaves did die when slavery went away, because slavery had kept them from learning how to live in liberty. Abolishing slavery was still the right thing to do.

Prohibitionists claim that without prohibition, addicts would drug themselves to death-- they pretend prohibition is necessary, even helpful, to its victims. And, undoubtedly, when prohibition goes the way of chattel slavery, many addicts will die, having never learned self-control. Abolishing prohibition is still the right thing to do.

2.

Pro-slavery people claimed a religious basis for their support for an evil institution- and could show you passages in the Bible to back up their claim. No one takes that argument seriously anymore.

Prohibitionists claim a religious basis for their support of an evil program, although I don't know of any who pretend to have Bible passages supporting their claims. (No one claims it is a good idea to overindulge to the point of hurting your health.) And no one will take this religious claim seriously either, in time.

3.

Pro-slavers said it was the "law", and the "law" should be obeyed until or unless it is changed. Anyone who broke the "law" was a criminal and deserved whatever "justice" was brought down on their head.

Prohibitionists say the only thing that really matters is that it is the "law", and the "law" must be obeyed until or unless it is changed (although they stop supporting the "law" as soon as it does change; another strike against them). That the "law" destroys the lives of users looks like "justice" to these sick people.

4.

Pro-slavers said the end of slavery would be economically devastating. How would the cotton be picked without slaves? What about all the new people looking for jobs and going into competition? Chaos! Disaster!

Prohibitionists often have ties to the prison industry or "law enforcement" and would suffer personal economic harm if prohibition were ended. What would all that prison space be used for, and what would all those "law enforcement" bullies do?
(I shudder to imagine! Evil statists can always find new ways to molest people with "laws" and cops.)

5.

Pro-slavery people didn't like the enslaved people for "reasons"- cultural or racial. They didn't want to see the culture changed by treating former slaves like human beings.

Prohibitionists don't like "those people" who use drugs. They don't want to see them doing what they want, openly, even if they aren't harming anyone but themselves.

6.

Angry slaves sometimes killed people. Former slaves might also hold grudges and kill people. Self defense from anyone is always a viable option, no matter their circumstances or justifications or excuses.

Sometimes drug users kill people. Self defense from anyone is still always a viable option, no matter their circumstances or justifications or excuses.

7.

People didn't want former slaves to v*te or own guns.

Government's "laws" often forbid convicted prohibition violators from v*ting or owning guns.

-
I'm sure there are more comparisons which could be made, but you get the idea. Supporting prohibition is a completely unethical position to hold. Be better than that.

-

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

(Steemit link)

"We don't care if you die!"

Seriously. They don't.
And this is how they let you know for certain:

They will never be honest enough to post this truthful version instead:

Anti-gun bigots aren't honest. They are dangerous and delusional.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Don't lose your way

Over the years I have noticed a tendency for people to start out good, and then begin to veer off-course. I could list so many I have seen this happen to- both "libertarian famous" and "nobodies".

They start out rationally standing up for Rightful Liberty, or however you choose to refer to this concept which (I hope) unites us, but then something triggers them to start following a false trail.

Sometimes a politician arises that they like.
Sometimes they decide their culture, warts and all, is more important than consistency.
Sometimes they decide their religion gives them justification to violate others, and begin standing against anyone who exposes this lie.
Sometimes they get caught up in the pageantry of war; the flag waving "patriotism".
Sometimes a personal tragedy fools them into believing just a little bit of archation is necessary.
Sometimes a loved one accepts a "job" with the State and they'd rather turn their backs on the truth than remain consistent and risk their relationship.
Sometimes they just get so focused on one tiny thing that they forget to look up and see where they have wandered.

It's a sad and disturbing thing, and seems almost inevitable, given time. There are so many more ways to be wrong than to be right.

I hope that hasn't happened to me, and if it hasn't, I hope it never does. I do make a habit of taking a breath now and then, looking up from what I'm doing to look around and see if I'm still on course, and nudge myself back on track if it seems like I may be drifting.

I always know I might be wrong. I may be the evil one, or at least taking the evil position. It's unpleasant, but it's possible.

-

(There are those of course, who never lost their way. Liberty lovers have lost one of the true good guys with the death of William N. Grigg. RIP. I will miss him!)

-

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

(Steemit link)

Toxic day

Or, it sure feels that way.

I am very upset over the death of William N. Grigg. He is irreplaceable and was just a really good man.

Then, on top of that, I found out someone I care about has a (step)daughter who is becoming a cop- and while I tried to be nice in my response to the news, I probably wasn't. And the response I got back wasn't any better. They are "proud". You know how that situation looks to me. Such a tragedy and a wasted life. And you'd think people would know better.

So, yes, I am heartsick.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Are "you" what you do?

Is a person only what they do, or is there more to it than that?

You are born with certain unchangeable attributes. What you choose to spend your life doing is not one of those. It is probably a blank slate-- or close to it. What you choose to do is a choice.

What you do you can stop doing at any time. And if what you were doing was wrong, you can attempt to make it right with those you have wronged by your actions.

But, if you continue to do something which violates others, and you refuse to face that what you are doing is wrong-- and never stop or try to make amends-- then that choice is also on you. It's not "you" exactly, but you are tying your identity to those actions.

You may still be more than what you do, but how far will that go toward absolving you?

If a person commits rapes, and is truthfully identified as a rapist, does that define him? Can he still be a wonderful person, otherwise, even if he continues to rape? What if he believes he has good reasons or somehow believes he is doing the right things? What if some people agree with him? How many have to find no fault in his actions before he's a good person? Can he be a popular rapist and a good person?

Or what about someone being a good serial murderer? Is it possible?

If the answer is "no", then there can be no such thing as a "good cop", either.

Missed his calling- as a cop he would have lived longer

-

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

(Steemit link)

The situation report

You and I live in the real world. A world filled to overflowing with statism. This is just as much our reality as is the fact that the world we live in is full of disease and natural disasters.

Almost everyone around us thinks it's OK to steal and attack- and a few people even believe those things are OK when they aren't done in the name of governing.

You may as well find ways to navigate around this reality, and use it to your advantage when you can-- without joining the archation circus, of course.

Sure, we can do what we can to try to eliminate these bad things, or find ways to limit the damage they do, but they probably aren't going to stop being a problem in our lifetime. And they shouldn't prevent you from doing the right thing and prospering. Yes, it would be easier in a world without statism, but things worth doing are worth doing even when they aren't easy.

We are better and stronger and smarter than they are. We can do it.

Statism allowed free rein

-

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

(Steemit link)

Don't fight politics with politics

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 8, 2017)

Why has everything become political? It's a tragedy.

Politics drives people apart. It makes people miserable, angry, and sad. Politics makes people believe crazy things and gets them to defend the indefensible. It turns regular people into bullies and scapegoats. Politics distracts people from doing productive things and keeps them too occupied to do pleasant things.

I understand. It is said that even if you don't have an interest in politics, politics is interested in you. The same could be said of a mosquito.

It's a shame that politics, and those addicted to it, can't leave anyone unmolested. The hunger to control what other people do, even when they aren't harming anyone else's life, liberty, or property, is one of the most vile traits ever found in humans, yet is a most common failing.

I view politics as an attempt to live among people you don't like. When you like someone, politics isn't mistaken for a proper way to interact. You just get along, compromise, or agree to disagree-- and move on. With people you don't like, whom you feel a need to use politics against, you skip the civilized behavior and move straight to asking someone to use violence on your behalf against them. The more people you dislike, the more political you become.

Maybe you believe others should finance things you feel are important, but they won't do it voluntarily. Send in the guns of the State to force them to contribute, or suffer the consequences.

Perhaps they do things you don't like, but which don't actually "pick your pocket or break your leg", to use Thomas Jefferson's phrase-- so self defense isn't an option. Send in the guns of government to force them to live as you would prefer, or suffer the consequences.

This is as wrong as attacking them in person, although it has somehow become more socially acceptable.

When someone starts using politics against you-- and there's no other way to use politics than against someone-- it's only natural to be tempted to strike back. Natural, but there's got to be a better way than to fire "laws" back and forth in some never-ending "Hatfield versus McCoy" feud.

The next time someone you don't like does something you disagree with, or tries to use politics against you, why not try to deal with the situation in a mature way-- non-politically. Give it a shot and see if you can be the better person.

-

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

(Steemit link)

An extraordinarily evil "citizen"

Look at the magazine cover below:

What information can you glean about the people who publish it?

First, it is published by "Focus on the Family". I consider this group to be a political cult within Christianity, due to decades of familiarity with them, but that's obviously just my opinion.

Notice they use the political term "citizen" as the name of the publication. This indicates their focus is probably political in nature. The group would change its name to "Focus on the Politics" if they were interested in being honest. If...

The "political means" is the unethical way of interacting with others-- the means used by muggers, politicians, rapists, cops, and other bad guys-- as opposed to the only other option for interacting with others: the economic means. If you can't get what you want by mutual consent, where both participants gain, you force them-- at gunpoint, if that's what it takes-- to do what you want, with "laws" and enforcer gangs, so that there's a winner and a loser.

Being political also goes against just about everything taught by Jesus, but it would be inconsiderate to point this out to them.

"Citizen" is also a term used to indicate slave status under the State. Strange position for this "religious" group to take and promote, since this puts the State in the place of God.

It is interesting to me that a "religious" group would embrace unethical behavior so completely that they would name their publication "citizen". This is why I differentiate between "moral" and "ethical". They are behaving "morally" according to the "principles" of their group, just like the suicide bombers of other religions are doing, while being completely unethical, as illustrated by the cover story.

And, let's look at that cover story.

They obviously believe that "vices" should be crimes, and should be enforced as all "laws" ultimately are. They are claiming it is a "bad idea" to stop killing people and destroying their lives with "laws" based on lies. Lies about a plant. Lies about who should have the power to control each person's body. They believe a state refusing to stop molesting people is a good thing. Sick!

What if someone turned the tables on them and outlawed something they value?

Their twisted position in support of prohibition makes me wonder what their position on ending (other forms of) slavery would have been. Actually, I don't really wonder- I think it's pretty clear. They would have been celebrating any state which refused to get rid of "laws" legalizing chattel slavery. They would want slaves to obey the "law"-- to be "good", obedient slaves-- and be punished or killed if they didn't. They would want fugitive slave "laws" enforced, and would support the agents who enforced those "laws". If they object and claim that they wouldn't support that position with regard to slavery, then why the inconsistency? Why the hypocrisy?

The real "bad idea" here is giving people the political opportunity to meddle in the lives of others, and punish them when they don't cooperate with their own violation. No good group would condone such evil.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Killing aggressors

The only ethical "death penalty" is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything else is revenge.

This doesn't mean you are unethical if you don't kill the attacker, no more than that you are unethical if you do. Your choice.

The burden lies on the person who chose to archate, not on the person who had to react.

I only question the use of "should"

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Police" is not a "race", it's a gang

Recently there have been more and more attempts to make awareness of the scumwad nature of cops somehow comparable to racism, or automatic hatred of people with tattoos. Yes, really.

The story goes that you can't judge a person by the color of their skin, the tattoos they wear, or the uniform they put on. It's a lie. And, it seems very racist and insulting, too.

No one wakes up one morning and decides what color skin they'll have. And even if they did, skin color means nothing about the content of the person's character.

Sure, tattoos are chosen, not inborn, but again, they mean nothing about how the person wearing them will act. Aggressors could have tattoos of bunnies and unicorns, and the best person you know could have a tattoo of a gang symbol, wormy skulls, or Bernie Sanders' face. 

Police, though, wake up each and every day and make the choice to enforce harmful and arbitrary "laws" against people in exchange for money stolen from their victims. It's not about the cop as a person, it is about the aggression and theft they commit as a condition of keeping the "job". But, the fact a person would choose to do that shows something very important about their character.

Yes, sometimes cops do good things. So do other gangsters. It doesn't excuse the existence of the "job" in either case.

Cops are not a "race" or an expression of personal taste- they are an aggressive gang. The worst and most dangerous aggressive gang in America. Being aware of this fact doesn't make you a bad person, so don't feel guilty.

I understand some people are afraid and believe cops will protect them... you can't fix cowardice or stupidity.

Not a race; a gang

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Diversity"

Diversity.

Voluntary diversity is a good thing.

Forced "diversity" is disastrous.

Forced anything is.

Forced "charity" is theft. Forced "safety" is slavery.

Recognizing the disastrous nature of forced diversity isn't justification for government "borders", though, because forced division is just as harmful as forced diversity. Government's involvement can turn any idea into garbage.

Anything government touches turns to crap. Good thing government won't touch liberty with a 10-foot pole!

Diversify or else, feline!

-

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

(Steemit link)

Statists are so boring

I'm getting less and less interested in responding to statist's objections.

Their objections are boring. Mostly because their objections never change. Recycled endlessly by people who don't know their "new" objection has been addressed (and obliterated) over and over again-- over the centuries.

They don't care, because they won't hear. Or, perhaps they can't hear because they don't care.

If I respond, they'll not be moved, but will only dredge up another old, moldy objection-- seeing it as fresh and clever. And it won't be.

Sure, it's possible that a silent observer will see the interaction and come to a new realization as to how inconsistent and hypocritical- and delusional- the statist positions invariably are. So that's why I haven't totally stopped responding to these type of comments. But, especially on FB, I pause and consider whether a response would be useful, and more and more I realize it wouldn't be. So I just skip over it.

Statists bore me with their inability to think critically and outside their imaginary box. They lack originality. But they can sure type lots of words!

-

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

(Steemit link)

Understand instead of judging?

I constantly get scolded, and I'll bet you probably do, too.

We shouldn't be so judgmental.
Just accept that some people have perfectly legitimate reasons for being rapists, kidnappers. Nazis, communists, cops, murderers, or other archators.
They feel they are doing the right thing.
Just try to understand where they are coming from.
Don't be so arrogant as to believe your way-- to reject the violation of life, liberty, or property of others-- is somehow better than theirs.
They have different experiences, and different values, after all.
You should just listen to them to see their perspective. Then you'll understand that they aren't wrong; just different.

Right?

Understand them enough?

-

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

(Steemit link)

Law becoming justification for violation

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 1, 2017)

You might be shocked to learn how little regard I have for the law. Or, maybe you wouldn't. This doesn't mean I approve of harming others, their property, or their rights; quite the opposite. It just means I recognize the law for what it is. Instead of being protective, the law has become the most common excuse used to violate people. Laws, and the State which imposes them, are the opposite of civilization; they are anti-social.

As Lao Tzu observed over 2500 years ago "The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become".

America is there. Maybe not so poor, economically-- although so much poorer than we could be otherwise-- but poor in spirit.

There are only two kinds of law: the unnecessary and the harmful-- it could be argued they are the same. Laws prohibiting murder or theft are unnecessary; such laws are irrelevant to your right to defend yourself and others from the acts in question. And any law which restricts your human right to live as you see fit, as long as you don't violate others, is actively harmful. More and more, laws are the justification for violations; exempting certain people from consequences of being the violator, as long as they are acting on behalf of the law.

The disconnect between legal and right has gotten so large it is finally being noticed by ordinary people.

To say "There ought to be a law" is to plunge another knife into the chest of society. To support the laws which already exist is to twist one of those knives a little more.

It's also dangerous. The more tightly controlled any system becomes, the greater the likelihood of catastrophic collapse from unexpected events-- no room is left for adapting. If modern America isn't yet to the point where everything not forbidden is mandatory, you can see it from here. Where does this leave people room to learn to make right choices? It doesn't. Too many people think "Is it legal?" instead of "Is it right?", from a lifetime of training.

If every decision is already made for you by a law, it's easy to believe that's what you should do. No thought required. Ethics and morals become obstacles.

If forced to live in a wheelchair, your leg muscles will waste away. If propped up by multitudes of laws, your moral sense and your ethical radar will waste away in exactly the same manner. I prescribe some exercise, instead.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Spreading love and humanity

Love and humanity and worthy goals. I believe you should make an effort to spread them far and wide. Even toward people who mean you (and others) harm.

To a point.

In spite of what some might believe, defending innocent people from aggressors- however you do it- is also an act of love and humanity.

Sure, you can show compassion and forgiveness to aggressors. And that can be an act of love and humanity. But, how much more loving and humane is it to defend the innocent from those who have made the choice to violate them?

How loving and humane is it to watch someone be violated, and refuse to act because that wouldn't be a loving and humane response to the aggressor? Not very.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated... even though by asking, or apparently by including this message, I show myself to be a failure and a loser! Thank you, anyway.

(Steemit link)

A little money rant

It shouldn't get to me, but it does. It's completely my fault; I let it.

When I interrupt the blog to ask for money, I already feel bad enough. I hate doing it.

But, then, when I do, some people want to make it worse. It has happened several times over the years. Does that make them feel better about themselves?

I visit many blogs every day.
Most of them have standing requests for donations, much like the tag I put at the end of most of my posts. So?
Sometimes they make special pleas when something comes up, as I sometimes do. I am free to donate or to ignore the request.
If I don't feel like donating, it still doesn't offend me that they ask. Why would it? No one is forcing me, or threatening me. If it's a case of that blog disappearing if not enough donations are received, and if that would matter to me, I'll donate. If not, I won't complain to them because they asked. This seems about as childish as it is possible to be. I have never stopped reading a blog because they asked for money- if I don't want to hear it, I ignore those posts and just read the ones that interest me.

Many times their requests are for thousands of dollars.
For example, here's a donation meter I copied from someone's blog (with the identity blocked out to save them the "embarrassment" of publicly asking for money):

I wish!     

I wonder if Mr. Anonymous goes to that blog and all the others and criticizes the requests. Or, is it just mine?

Notice both the amount asked for on that blog, and the amount received. Never have I asked for that amount, and never would I expect to receive anything that would even show up on that meter as more than a red puddle in the bottom.

No, I get along the best I can, and when I need to, I request a little extra. Often, none comes through. And that's OK. No one owes me ANYTHING.

It is completely up to the reader to decide if I am worth helping or not. And whatever the reader decides is the final word. I have never been offended that someone didn't subscribe (which I don't exactly consider charity) or donate (which I do). As always, if someone doesn't want to help, can't afford to help out, or has better things to do with his money, I DON'T WANT him to donate!

Is that really so unreasonable?

Maybe my little effort to contribute to the debate isn't worth what that of other writers and bloggers is. I can accept that. I'm small potatoes. Not at all important in the grand scheme of things. No one knows who I am, nor cares. I will never be a shaper of society's opinions. I am not a "mover and shaker", but just someone who expresses unpopular opinions in a tiny, insignificant eddy of the internet. I'm fine with that. It's not about how much work I put into it- it's about the value others see in it. I do many jobs where the value others see in my labor doesn't come close to the effort I put in. I suspect that's a universal thing. It's just life. I could choose to do something others would value more.

If it bothers you that I sometimes ask for money, I have to wonder why you would ever visit blogs at all. Or, again, is mine just so unworthy that the mere mention of the need for money is offensive, while others can do it and it's OK? If you notice it's a "bleg" and that annoys you, just move along. Read someone else's blog post. If it bothers you so much that it's not worth seeing what I say ever again, go in peace. It's fine.

So, yeah, I know I shouldn't let people like that get to me. But I'm human, and sometimes they do, especially when I feel like they are kicking me when I'm down.

-

No offensive bleg today

Alphabetical listing of every good State

.

My "beggar blog"

"Why donate to someone who can not take care of their own bills?Way I see it, your constant begging for money is not getting you much money.I just laugh every time I run across your beggar blog."

I admit it, my personal economic model is flawed. I do the work, put it out there for free, and hope people will see fit to pay me for it.

This doesn't work as well as I might hope.

But you are free to read without subscribing. I never ask anyone to donate or subscribe when they'd rather not, or if they can't afford to, or just have better things to do with their money.

So, to answer your question, Mr. Anonymous, don't. There is no "why" if you don't want to. Read without paying, there will be no consequences​ and no hard feelings​. I'm not like a theater owner who'll kick you out for sneaking in to see a movie without paying. You have my permission to be here, or not.

You can also skip the posts were I ask for donations, subscriptions, or gifts, if that makes you happier. No worries.

Glad my troubles​ amuse you. I guess that's another service I'm not forcing you to pay for.


.

S.O.S.

A bill has unexpectedly changed the due date, and so of course I will be hit with overdraft fees (if it's not already too late to avoid that), so... if you have been considering subscribing or contributing to KentForLiberty, this would be an excellent time from my perspective.

Please, and Thank you.

.

Supporting government "services"

It strikes me as strange when I am trying to take someone's side, yet they get upset because I don't agree with them hard enough.

This happened recently where a woman was saying there aren't more libertarian women because she feels looked-down upon because she doesn't home school, and she feels that this is because other libertarians see educating the children as "a woman's responsibility". This seems utterly bizarre to me, but OK.

I said:

"Unschooling doesn't require a particular gendered parent to facilitate the unschooling. (Neither does traditional "homeschooling") Either/or... or both. Why would anyone demand it's the 'woman's place' to help the children gain an education? That's just dumb. I think kinderprison is a tragedy for the kids. Yet, my daughter's mom insists she attend (against her will), and my relatives (who are almost all involved in government schooling) back her up. Now my daughter has zero interest in learning anything- which she did before she was subjected to school. There will be consequences for my daughter's life. And I would very happily be the parent helping her to unschool- only partially because I see kinderprison as child abuse.
I know circumstances often make it seem impossible to save kids from 'public school'- and maybe it's almost impossible. But I really don't see it as aimed against women."

I probably could have worded some parts better and more clearly, but this was an off-the-cuff response where it seemed to me she was getting piled on by people making quasi-religious points about a woman's greatest privilege and highest calling and so forth. I honestly thought I was taking her side.

Her reply seemed to indicate she was angry with my comment because her kindergarten-age son loves school and does well in it.

Hmmm. OK.

Even if your kid loves "public" schools, and thrives under Prussian-style training, that doesn't justify the existence of a theft-funded, coercively imposed "system". And I'm sorry if that truth hurts your feelings. It's not about women versus men- although I'm sure some would like to see it that way.

Some people love having cops around. It's still unethical to hire them with stolen money and have them impose counterfeit "laws" on people. No amount of your appreciation, support, and flourishing can ever change that. Evil sometimes works very well, and some people love it. It's still wrong.

Some people thrive in criminal gangs. Some people find their apparent full potential as a burglar or as a kidnapper. They find self-worth and value in strange places. Some people do well in prison. Some people just love their Stockholm Syndrome.

Even if there is something I love, and feel I couldn't live without, I know it is never right- it simply can't be right- to use the political means to get it. Never. Not even if I love it and thrive with it as currently "provided" by government. I'm not so delicate that reality will offend me and make me feel picked-on.

I understand- there are government schools. My opposition to them isn't going to make them magically go away. My own daughter attends one. Even if she loved it, and was doing better in it than she would be doing without it (which I can't know without a "control"), it would be wrong of me to support government schools. That would be selfish. I also have no issue with people using government "services" they are forced to pay for whether they use them or not. I might prefer people shun them on principle to make them useless and unused, but that's not realistic.

If I am attacking the theft and coercion behind some things, don't take it as an attack on you for using those things- unless you start being nasty in defense of the status quo and making it about some tangent that buzzes your bonnet. In that case, since you identify so strongly with unethical acts, feel free to take it personally. And also in that case, feel free to suppose I wasn't taking your side in the first place.

-

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

(Steemit link)