Marx was wrong

Not that I'm surprised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

(Steemit link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't forget who creates refugees: government

-

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

(Steemit link)

Letting "laws" control you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The results of pooping in your own nest

-

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

(Steemit link)

Property rights abused, misunderstood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

(Steemit link)

Adventures with the DMV's harpy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

-

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

(Steemit link)

I like people

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

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

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

But maybe not this person...

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Flat Earth"? No

No, the Earth is NOT flat.

Even if government recognizes the reality, it doesn't change that reality. After all, government schools generally recognize that 2+2=4. Are you going to reject that, too? If so, you are letting government dictate your beliefs, by adopting the opposite position just to be contrary, in spite of the evidence of reality.

NASA didn't come up with the idea of a (roughly) spherical planet; that idea predates NASA (or any government in existence) by thousands of years-- and was discovered and measured by regular people who were able to think outside the box and do experiments for themselves to test their ideas.

You don't look edgy, clever, or "awake" by falling for the "flat Earth" scam.

Just do some experiments-- both physical and thought experiments-- and see that "flat Earth" doesn't hold up. It is internally inconsistent. Just look at their complicated explanations of day and night, and the seasons differing between the opposite sides of the equator, and linear distance comparisons north and south versus east and west far from the axis of a "flat Earth". Everything they believe (if they actually do believe any of this) falls apart if you can work out for yourself anything about how reality fits together and how the Universe works.

I can't believe otherwise smart people are still falling for this after it gained attention again a few years ago. I guess this gullibility explains why statism is still the world's most popular religion.

It is also an illustration of how badly the State fails when it is allowed to control "education" through schooling.  If you don't explain how to figure out reality, measuring it and working things out for yourself, but instead just state "This is how it is, accept it", then people unable to think for themselves will fall for trash like this "flat Earth" stuff.

-

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

(Steemit link)

It's not about hating government

I don't hate government just to hate government, regardless of what anyone may believe.

I hate rape, murder, kidnapping, theft, trespassing-- all archation-- no matter who is doing it, or why. But my hatred for those things when not done by government employees as part of their "job" doesn't stand out enough to be noticeable. Almost everyone is decent enough to hate those sorts of evil things when done on a freelance basis.

But I'm consistent enough that I don't look the other way when it's government employees, following "the law", who are committing those acts. In that case, my hatred of those things attracts attention because of the glaring double-standard most people live by. It sticks out like a sore thumb by comparison.

It shouldn't. An act of archation isn't any different depending on who does it.

Thus, people get the silly, erroneous idea that I "just hate government". That's not it at all.

I hate to tell you but even after the last government has died a well-deserved (and hopefully agonizing) death, there will still be people out there murdering, raping, kidnapping, stealing, trespassing and otherwise archating. I'll still hate them for their acts-- or would if I were still alive at that time. I don't hate bad guys any less if they don't work for government.

Hey, Archators of every stripe...

-

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

(Steemit link)

War, and those who make it

What is it with people glorifying war and those whom governments use to make war?

War isn't manly, heroic, or honorable. It is childish. Allowing a government to send you to someone else's territory to make war is stupid.

That doesn't mean you are childish to defend yourself from any childish invaders who come to you to pick a fight. If a kid walks up to kick you in the shins, I'm not going to fault you for shoving him away, and if an invader comes to your town, violating people and their property, I support you doing anything you need to to stop him. He's the one "going to war", you are just defending yourself.

I stop short of saying that those who go to war are cowards. I think many evil acts are brave. It takes courage to break into a house and rape a family. It takes the same kind of courage to travel to the other side of the world to murder people trying to defend their homes from you, knowing that they will be trying to kill you. Courage, but evil. Courage without ethics is dangerous.

No one has ever gone to fight on the other side of the world for "American freedom". Not once. No, not even against the Nazis. Such a sacrifice doesn't help "America", but only "The US" (which is the government currently infesting America).

Don't join the government's military. It doesn't make anything better or safer for your loved ones. It only helps the politicians and bureaucrats and those who sell war tools to them. You are siding against liberty if you are in the government's military. Empowering evil, instead of helping anyone or anything worthy.

To honor those who have been in the government's military is sick. To pretend that anything they did was good is delusional. I won't play that game.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Mansion vs Tiny House

Why do people get so worked up over how other people live? To the point of anger, name-calling, and saying "everyone must live this way!"

I see people scolding others for owning "too much stuff". Preaching "get rid of all clutter". Unfortunately, much of the time what a minimalist sees as "clutter" is what you'll need in a "grid down" situation, or even a lesser event.

I understand the desire for getting rid of anything not essential and downsizing. I also see the pitfalls.

It's the same with people who pride themselves on their "tiny house".

I think those over-priced tiny houses are cool. I like the way they use space (or, at least how the well-designed ones do). This is the same reason I love to explore RVs.

I also see how fragile they are to outside conditions-- and I don't mean only weather. Again, if you don't have space to store "preps" or some backup supplies ("two is one and one is none") you are vulnerable to the whims of the economy and Murphy's Law. You are more likely to become a burden on others if you don't have anything set aside for rough times. You have no cushion when you are down to bare-bones.

I understand the reason some people see a big house and lots of possessions as wasteful. And, for some people they probably are. Having a huge mansion so you have space for your dusty Beanie Baby collection, but never keeping more than a couple day's worth of food (and no stored water) in your house probably doesn't make a lot of sense. But who am I to judge?

It's not my business if you want to live in a tiny house or in a mansion. It's not my business if you are a hoarder or if you hate all clutter and pride yourself for downsizing. Neither way is wrong. Why not focus on things that matter-- such as whether the person living in that house is a thief or rapist?

As long as you don't violate others, do what works for you. Don't let anyone pressure you into feeling guilt where there is none.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Water solutions are out there

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 5, 2017)

Water is a necessary ingredient for life, second only to air in importance. Even our food supply depends on the ready availability of water.

Our primary local water supply, the Ogallala Aquifer, is dwindling, Whether or not you believe this is an imminent threat, there is no doubt it's not being replenished fast enough to keep up with demand. This can't continue without causing real trouble at some point in the future. For some people in the area, the future is now.

Several factors over many years have led to this situation, and there won't be a single, immediate solution.

Governments over the aquifer ignored the warnings; they encouraged and subsidized irresponsible usage. They encouraged water-intensive businesses to locate in the area. Their hunger for ever-increasing amounts of tax money blinded them to long-term reality.

Now, many look to these same governments to provide solutions, including an expensive, temporary patch. Relying on a reservoir as a solution, when the reservoir depends upon fickle precipitation, is not exactly thinking ahead. It's the equivalent of believing you'll be OK after the water is shut off to your house because you can use the water in your water heater tank. To spend tax money on this patch aggravates the problem.

Of course, knowing what not to do still doesn't mean I know how to solve it.

Perhaps our area simply isn't suited for the population which now lives here. It's possible. Sometimes truth isn't pleasant. I don't recommend giving up quite yet, though.

Maybe there are ways to replenish the aquifer, or better ways to recycle the water we use. I'll bet there are technological fixes which could be found or invented if the regulators would get out of the way. For example, new water-collecting materials which draw water from the atmosphere have been tested. Obviously these work better in places with higher humidity, but the technology is still young. Given a profit motive, someone would figure out a way to provide water where it's needed.

If you are under the impression that water provided by government is free, while business is greedy and costly, perhaps you'd like to put the state's motor vehicle bureaucracy in charge of distributing and selling gasoline. Free-market business (not a government-granted monopoly rife with cronyism) would be cheaper and better. Nothing is free, and businesses must convince you to trade with them, while government simply says "pay or else!" Serious issues deserve serious consideration; that's no place for government.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Outnumbered and surrounded

Concerning "immigration", no, I don't want to be outnumbered and surrounded by people who feel entitled to violate my life, liberty, and property. But... I already am whether there are immigrants or not, just because almost everyone is statist, and that is the defining characteristic of statists. That there is an "immigration control" debate is proof that I am outnumbered and surrounded.

It might be unrealistic to insist that property rights be respected and "welfare" be eliminated to make "immigration" a non-issue, but it's no less unrealistic to believe government will keep out people who advance its agenda of ever-increasing socialism. It needs them and will do whatever it takes to get them where they can be used. If "the borders" are "secured", and "immigration" is controlled, you can be certain it will be done in such a way that the State's agenda won't be threatened in the slightest. If that means using "loopholes", ignoring the "laws", or some other tactic, it WILL be done. They want it too badly to stop.

So, yes, "immigration control" will only be done in ways that grow the State, in size and in power. Believing otherwise is completely unrealistic. This is something "more" or "better" government will not solve to your liking. Ever.

If you're going to be "unrealistic" anyway, you may as well be principled while doing so.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Why must I tolerate the intolerable?

Why do those who scold me, telling me to be "tolerant", only seem concerned that I tolerate those who want to violate me?

I have no trouble "tolerating" those who prefer dogs to cats, worship gods, choose chocolate over vanilla, are some variety of LGBTQ, laugh at me because I dislike manual transmissions, believe the Earth is flat, or whatever. I may even love them, rather than to simply "tolerate" them, which seems a rather low bar.

You might tolerate the woodrat that lives under your porch, but you smile if he dies. It seems odd that thinking of people the same way is something they'd encourage.

So, yeah, I can tolerate an awful lot.

But, I won't tolerate those who want to rob, trespass, murder, kidnap, or govern. Archation is a deal-breaker. And it seems those are the people I'm most often told I must tolerate. No deal.

People who want to rob, murder, and govern you are not people you can "tolerate" and survive. They can't be a part of your future, if your future is to be one of hope and thriving. Don't tolerate them or their ideas.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Busywork

In school I detested "busywork". In fact, I didn't usually do it, no matter what consequences I was threatened with. I knew it was a waste of time, designed to keep the kinderprison inmates quiet so they didn't annoy the "teacher".

Now that I'm an adult, I see government as busywork. Unnecessary annoyances designed to keep you too busy to do what would be a better use of your time and money... if you bother doing all the busywork they assign, that is.

You end up paying "taxes" so that the thugs can afford to build and staff a courthouse to punish people for not paying "taxes" (among other things). No thanks. It's not worth it to me.

I feel there is no benefit to me of the State forcing people to get "drivers licenses", but people are forced to pay "taxes" to build and staff the DMV so that people can be punished for not having "drivers licenses".

Over and over I see government buildings and programs which exist to keep dumb people believing that those things are necessary, but which wouldn't look necessary without the problems they cause by existing in the first place.

I'm perfectly willing to risk doing without everything "provided by" government-- assuming no one will step in to offer replacements through the market-- just to be free of the annoyances which government creates.

Busywork. It's what government is. Under an illusion of necessity- for the gullible.

I don't buy it.

Exists only to prove how "necessary" it is

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Enforce the existing laws"

Bad arguments don't help your side.

For example:

"Why is enforcement of existing immigration laws, laws which have been a standard for decades, such a divisive issue? Most countries in the world have stringent immigration laws, why is it that America is not allowed to enforce similar laws? Why does the left in particular consider the removal of illegal immigrants representative of 'racism' or 'fascism?' I realize they are mostly insane, but I would just like to hear one valid and practical argument from them as to why the U.S. specifically should be saddled with wide open borders and why American conservatives in particular are racist merely for demanding that the current laws be followed?" ~ Brandon Smith

Let's substitute one Big Government lust, "control" of guns, for "control" of "borders":

"Why is enforcement of existing gun laws, laws which have been a standard for decades, such a divisive issue? Most countries in the world have stringent gun laws, why is it that America is not allowed to enforce similar laws? Why does the right in particular consider the removal of illegal guns representative of 'tyranny' or 'socialism?' I realize they are mostly insane, but I would just like to hear one valid and practical argument from them as to why the U.S. specifically should be saddled with easy access to guns and why American progressives in particular are tyrants merely for demanding that the current laws be followed?"

Because "laws" that are wrong, are wrong. Even if you believe they are "necessary". Even if bad guys would take advantage of the situation if the "law" didn't exist or wasn't enforced.

Even if you believe the Constitution has any "authority", whatever isn't specifically permitted for government to do is expressly forbidden. Nowhere in the Constitution is "immigration control" permitted, so it is an illegal act by the federal government to "control immigration".

Now, government is also similarly forbidden to import "refugees" or otherwise bring people into America, so that's not the issue at hand.

Yes, the Second Amendment specifically places guns beyond the (legal) reach of "laws", but it was unnecessary to do this, since that power wasn't mentioned anyway (and it would have been a rights violation even if the Constitution allowed it)- and the Second Amendment has been utterly powerless against the will of the bullies in Congress and the BATFEces to just go ahead and do what they want.

Whether "immigration" (not a real thing anyway) is a good idea or not, the argument made by Mr. Smith above simply doesn't hold water. It's a purely statist argument, and as such, is nonsense.

It's still a prison wall even if you can't see it

-

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

(Steemit link)

That political pendulum

Isn't it odd how political people seem to always believe the choice is always (and only) between fascism and socialism. When one is in power, they flock to the other. If it's not one, then to them it has to be the other.

They don't see the other options, such as not violating others.

Maybe because that particular choice doesn't empower thugs.

But that option is always there. It's the only ethical option, no matter how the political critters may justify their preferred choice.

Why choose just one?

-

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

(Steemit link)

Concerning sex

A wise man-- L. Neil Smith, to be specific-- once wrote: "Many of life's tragedies -- and comedies -- arise from a misconception women suffer under that sex is optional."

It depends on what you mean by "optional". I wouldn't say anyone owes anyone else sex, but if you are under the impression that you are in a relationship, but you are suffocating your partner with a lack of sex, the "relationship" probably mostly exists in your mind. Sex might be optional for you, but if it isn't for him (and it's almost certainly not) there are going to be consequences if you don't face it and change something. Yes, it is your responsibility to change if you don't want him to find relief elsewhere. Sorry to inform you of this fact. You have the right of first refusal; don't be surprised or complain over what happens when you exercise it.

And whining or screaming about "cheating" isn't going to fix anything.

If you cut him off and he finds someone else, he isn't "cheating". You already are. If you have a guy who agreed to enter into a monogamous relationship with you, and you have cut off the sex, you are cheating on him just as surely as if you were doing the pool boy on the side. Yes, really. He agreed to monogamy-- sex with one person, not NONogamy-- sex with zero people. Zero is not one, and that's no longer monogamy, even if you wish it meant that as well. 

"Cheating" isn't only about one person having sex with someone other than the one person they agreed to be monogamous with. It is also about one person deciding unilaterally to end the sexual part of the relationship while pretending the relationship goes on-- including continuing to fall back on all the jealousy and whatnot that goes with the average sexual relationship. He may be OK with that, or he may not want to face your wrath by admitting to your face you are strangling him, but he is under no obligation to put up with this situation unless the current arrangement was by mutual consent. If it wasn't, he can't "cheat" no matter what he does at this point. You have already broken the deal.

You might complain that he didn't warn you first. Yet, he probably did; you just didn't listen or didn't take him seriously. You might have scoffed or tried to make yourself out to be the victim. How often must he express his pain to you, only to be ignored, insulted, or threatened? Once a week? A few times per year? Every five years or so? How often would be enough to get you to listen, and not use his vulnerability as a justification to hurt him even more?

Not only are you a cheater, you are also an abuser. Withholding sex, and demanding he not find it elsewhere, is emotional and physical abuse. It causes emotional agony and physical pain. If you hold him to your toxic arrangement by threatening him with a devastating divorce, where you "take half his stuff" and force him to support the kids whether you ever allow him to see them again or not, I consider you evil. Others may cut you more slack.

If any of this upsets you, you may need to take a close look at yourself and see if you are guilty. In fact, if you are offended you may be the person who needs to hear this most of all.

-

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

(Steemit link)

All 'shoulds' flow from short list

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 29, 2017)

Almost everyone seems to have opinions about what you and I should or should not do. Most are willing to impose their opinions through laws, which they are willing to have enforced with violence.

Their opinions run the gamut: You should be patriotic. You should be compassionate to the underprivileged. You should be responsible. You should leave risky jobs to the professionals. You should pay any tax a government claims you owe. You shouldn't own dangerous things. You should obey every law automatically and without question, no matter how harmful or absurd-- and you should support, respect, and instantly obey law enforcement officers no matter what they demand.

The list is infinite!

I can simplify things. You should respect everyone's life, liberty, and property. That's your obligation to your fellow humans, and it's enough. How you choose to follow through is up to you.

How is this any different from the other "shoulds"? Look at the alternative.

If you don't believe you should respect the life of other people, wouldn't it mean you believe it's OK to kill them for no reason? Self defense? If someone is in your way, kill them. What kind of world would result?

If you don't believe you should respect the liberty of others, why not enslave them? Force them to work for you without getting the full benefit of their labor. Keep them in a cage when they aren't working, so they don't wander off without your permission. Pretend you have a magical quality called "authority" which empowers you to control what they do with their own body.

If you don't believe you should respect the property of other people, what's stopping you from taking what you want when you want it? Convince yourself you own a percentage of the money they earn from their labors-- a behavior which mirrors slavery; you are forcing them to spend part of their life supporting you. Don't allow them to use their property as they see fit. Impose restrictions which have no bearing on protecting the property of their neighbors.

Where would you be when your victims realize anything you permit yourself do to them could be turned around and done to you? Anything permissible for you is also permissible for your worst enemy. It's that simple.

All legitimate "shoulds" flow naturally from this short list, while false "shoulds" are exposed in short order. The sooner you learn it and take it to heart, the better things will be.

-

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

(Steemit link)

The gift (?) of Oddness

Looking back on my life I find that the times that hold the most value are the times when I did things that were strange, unexpected, unconventional, risky, or just weird. Those are the things I remember and smile about the most.

That doesn't mean I usually intentionally do "odd" things- they just come naturally for me. Although, I admit I once wore a black velvet sombrero with silver sequins to work just to see the reaction. (Note: it is hard to drive while wearing a sombrero.) It was fun. And it probably did nothing to change my cow-orkers' minds about my oddness. Generally, though, my natural reactions to the world lead me down the path to "strange".

But often, things that seem odd really aren't. They just seem strange by comparison to the status quo.

Apparently, valuing liberty is a very odd thing in the world today. It's much more conventional to be "patriotic" or to oppose the "other side" just because they aren't your side. You won't win many friends for politely declining their invitation to join their mob. "You're NOT of the body!!"

Libertarianism and anarchy, "odd" as they are, are a good fit for me, besides being the only rational and ethical way to live among others.

I guess it's also strange to not abandon principles when they become inconvenient, or when others think you should. Yes, my daughter was killed by a drugged driver. Yes, I still oppose prohibition and those who support and enforce it. Personal tragedy doesn't change the truth. And, the truth is and will remain that although drug abuse is dumb and dangerous, prohibition has even more innocent victims.

There were a few times in my life when I wanted to be "normal". I would try to blend in. Something always jinxed the attempt. Someone would ask something, and my honest answer would cause them to stare at me as if I had eyes on stalks coming out the top of my head. I guess "normal" doesn't work for me.

Truthfully, looking at what is considered "normal" these days, I see very little worth emulating.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Thinking of the long-term

The future. Most people want to leave a better future for their descendants, and do certain things they believe will help. Unfortunately, most of them do foolish things without thinking of the long-term consequences.

These people seek impulsive "solutions" which depend on aggression and property violation.

Even if you manage to solve some current problem using archation-- especially archation by government-- you have burdened the future with more government. With a stronger government. With more problems caused by government. Problems which will need to be solved eventually.

Government is short-term thinking. It's "pragmatism" that leads to ongoing trouble, and ever more "pragmatic" ways to deal with them. It's a hole you can never get out of until you bite the bullet and take the right way out; the way that seems strange and unfamiliar.

Yes, you have to survive the short term in order to get to the long-term. But stop seeing government as the way to fix things now. It isn't. Not really. You're only kicking the can a little farther down the road, adding more trouble for later; trouble someone will have to fix after you're gone. Using government is selfish and irresponsible, no matter how you justify it.

He's from the government; here to "help" you.

-

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

(Steemit link)