Inconveniences of Liberty

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." ~ Thomas Jefferson

And so would I.

But what are these "inconveniences of liberty"?

I suppose it is inconvenient to respect the rights of others if they are doing something you don't like.

It would be easier to use the bludgeon of The State to get your way than to work out a compromise like self-responsible people.

Liberty can be a little scary sometimes, and I suppose fear is "inconvenient" for some people.

But The State is even more inconvenient. You would have to try hard to overlook that fact to see liberty as the bigger problem. The State would love for you to do that, of course, and will help you blind yourself to the facts. How anyone can seriously prefer the inconveniences of a State over the lesser inconveniences of liberty is something which bewilders me completely.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Everyone a criminal by laws of today

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 31, 2017)

Ayn Rand wrote "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." Welcome to today. You are guilty; you may not have been caught yet.

When the laws are complicated, confusing, and contradictory, people will incriminate themselves by trying to stay "legal". This saves the enforcers and bureaucrats much trouble.

Contrary to the mythology, you are now guilty until proven innocent. Be ready to prove yourself legal at the whim of any government employee.

Are you sure you even know what's legal and what isn't? I guarantee you don't. It's estimated that each and every one of us commits an average of three felonies per day-- unintentionally and without evil intent.

Traditional American rightful liberty is no longer the default position; the default has become "Is that legal? Do you have permits showing you have asked, and paid for, the privilege to do what you are doing?"

Think of all the ways you are expected to enslave yourself. Are your papers in order and up to date? How about your drivers license/national ID and any occupational licenses? Is your daughter's lemonade stand legal, or is it a black market operation? Do you have the proper permit?

Do you carry any prescription medications with you? Are they in their original bottles? Do you have the prescription with you? If not, you may be considered a drug criminal.

How much cash are you carrying? Can you prove you got it legally, and not through engaging in acts of trade outside government permission? If not, expect to have it stolen from you if an enforcer finds it. In this case your money is guilty unless you can prove it innocent, at your own expense, and it will be forfeited to the thieves of "government" so they can buy more equipment and hire more enforcers to use against your life, liberty, and property. And you'll honor them for doing this job.

Enough! I will assume liberty. I don't care whether what you do is legal or not, and I won't help those looking to trap you. As long as you aren't using violence against the peaceable, or violating the private property of others, what you do is none of my business. Go in peace.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Property rights preserved-- accidentally

Once upon a time, a long ways from here...

I lived in a nice little house right on the river. This was in a place with more actual liberty, and I enjoyed that liberty a lot. I wore a gun openly probably 75% of the time-- or more. And I carried concealed 100% of the time. I also wore buckskin clothes along with my Bowie knife most of the time, not that it matters.

One day, a gravel truck and front-loader (is that what they are called?) rumbled down my driveway and into the river, and started loading up on gravel. I didn't own the riverbed, so I didn't get too bent out of shape over it. It was pretty noisy, though, and my wife-at-the-time did medical transcription from home and was having a hard time hearing the dictation through the earbuds over all the noise. Plus, the gravel truck began tearing up my driveway.

So, I went out to talk to the guy. I was nice and told him the problems I had with his operation. I suggested some compromises that I thought would work for both of us. He wasn't amenable. He got very excited and angry and started saying he had all the permits (or whatever) to collect river gravel, and it wasn't my property, he had the right-of-way, etc.-- I actually wondered if he was going to shove me or something. I went back in the house.

The next day I was out in the yard messing around (I pretty much lived in the yard) when the truck came back. But this day, as usual, I had my gun on my hip-- not because I was thinking of him or anything, but just because that was how I dressed most of the time. I nodded at him, then went back to whatever I was doing.

He sat in the cab of his truck looking at me for a couple of minutes, then left. The next day the front-loader was gone from the river bed and I never saw him again. When he left without doing any loading, I wondered what was up. Then I remembered my gun.

I wondered if he thought I was wearing the gun as a threat to him. I'm just glad I had gone out of my way to be polite when I spoke to him the day before. His quick exit made me wonder if his "permits" and whatnot were maybe not as ironclad as he had claimed. Not that I really cared one way or the other. The problem was solved and never cropped up again. Of course, it could have gone differently.

Me, from around that time

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

The weak seeking the Strong

Weak people crave strong "leaders" or Rulers.

I've seen this time after time. People who silently fear they are weak gravitate to those they see as strong. The Big Brother type they believe will protect them from all the things they are scared of-- and it's apparently a long list. They'll probably never admit this cowardice is behind their politics, but it is.

They don't seem to care about the potential for evil from this strong "leader", just as long as their Ruler is strong enough to make them feel protected. They will always imagine the evil, or "strength" as they see it (if they see it), will be directed at the things they fear. I guess they crave having something scary on their side due to their shortcomings.

I wouldn't even care so much if they didn't insist on saddling everyone else with their weakness by insisting you must share their "leader". But they do. That makes them weak, cowardly, and scummy.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Statist-Speak

What do I mean by "statist-speak"? I mean words or terms which have zero meaning, except through the lens of the State.
For example:

"Resisting arrest"

"Immigration"

"Tax avoidance"

"licensed"

"Legal"/"Illegal"

None of those mean anything, unless you look at the world as the State directs you to.

It's probably impossible to avoid all atatist-speak all the time. But, when you see those words or phrases, remember what they are.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Peace, at what cost?

Someone recently wanted me to state that "peace" was my goal. It isn't.

Sure, peace can be nice, but liberty is better.

After all, no one is more peaceful than a corpse.

Bad guys who want to violate you without risk to themselves want you to be peaceful. They want you to go along to get along, and let them do what they do. They don't want you to fight back or defend yourself from them. Peace always depends on what someone else is doing. No matter how compliant you are, there's no peace if you are being violated. So, peace isn't really up to you.

You can, however, choose liberty. Exercising it won't guarantee peace, in fact, in this Era of Authority, it will pretty much guarantee the opposite. That's not your fault. You can't let the bad guys set the tone for your life.

So, yeah, peace is OK as long as you don't sacrifice yourself on its altar. It isn't worth it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

"He's just being a boy"

So many times I see those words used to excuse aggressive behavior or property violations by young boys.

Yes, boys are often more active than... well, just about anything. Violent, even. There's nothing wrong with that. It's normal and natural, and doesn't have to be bad. In fact, it can be a great thing.

However, they will never learn to channel that energy into good behavior if no one will hold them accountable and show them that aggression and property violations have consequences, and are not OK. Saying "Well, he's just being a boy" or "Boys will be boys" trains him to believe it's OK to violate other people. You might even end up raising a cop!

Boys (and girls) can be violent and active without being aggressive. Violence is ethically neutral, but no one has the right to initiate force or violate the property of others-- even if you believe they are too young to understand. Of course, leading by example is a huge part of teaching this lesson; possibly the hardest part.

If you won't start teaching them healthy principles while they are young enough to really make this a part of themselves, when will you get around to it?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Cheating by changing the rules mid-game

Also known as "ex post facto laws". These are laws which make illegal an act that was legal when committed, increase the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or change the rules of evidence to make conviction easier. Supposedly the Constitution forbids this sort of governmental cheating, but in practice it is standard procedure in Police State USA.

And, when popular opinion is against the targets of these rule changes, no one seems to care.

Two common targets of these kind of "laws" are sex offenders and those who were convicted of domestic violence. I have heard other categories may be subject to these "laws" in certain places. 

Yes, they might be horrible people. On the other hand, they may have agreed to plead guilty, believing it better to just get this ugly business behind them-- after all, the accepted punishment seemed tolerable-- only to find the rules changed later, after the debt was thought to be paid.

It's dangerous to even stand with these victims of government cheating and against these kinds of "laws", because you'll be seen as standing with a hated class of people. However, if government can violate the Constitution to heap more punishments on those you hate, it can do the same to you.

Just imagine if you paid a "fine" for speeding a decade ago, then suddenly a new "law" says if you have ever pleaded guilty to a traffic offense (and they define paying the "fine" as an admission of guilt) you forever "lose your right" to own or operate a motor vehicle. And you will also be prohibited from owning firearms or any "dangerous weapon" for the rest of your life. And whatever else they decide to saddle you with. Perhaps a registry you are required to inform of your every move so they can keep tabs on you.

What's to stop the government from coming up with exciting new punishments whenever it suits them? To the cheering, or the yawns, of a population who doesn't see it as affecting them at all, but only "Those People"; those "criminals".

Don't think it could happen? Then you don't understand the nature of government.

If you're OK with government doing this to some people, who do you expect to come to your defense if (or when) government decides to do it to you?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Personal responsibility not that difficult

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 24, 2017)

Responsibility seems to be in short supply these days. It's an endangered species; unpopular and under-valued.

It doesn't have to be this way.

Being responsible isn't hard. Don't hurt anyone on purpose, and be accountable if you hurt someone by accident. Clean up after yourself. When you finish with something, put it back where you got it. Do what you say you'll do.

Do you live responsibly, or do you leave a trail of disgusted victims in your wake?

If a person drives dangerously or aggressively, even if they don't cause an accident, they will scare other drivers and make them angry. These scared, angry drivers will decide it's a wonderful idea to have police swarming the roadways, interfering with travel and shaking down travelers. Some of us would rather not have to deal with the mess created by irresponsible drivers.

What about those who find it hilarious to smash glass bottles around picnic tables-- like the teenager I saw do this last week? They are short-sighted and childish. Their amusement matters to them more than a child cut by broken glass. They are costing you by making otherwise reasonable people believe they need to use tax money to clean up these messes. The lack of forethought or concern is inhuman. I picked up his broken glass, by the way.

Irresponsible people give others excuses to try to govern them with "laws". This hands government an opportunity to destroy everyone's liberty because of the behavior of a foolish minority. Hold irresponsible people accountable for their behavior, but don't treat everyone as if they are irresponsible. People live up, or down, to your expectations.

Being responsible for your own behavior doesn't only apply to situations where others might decide you need to be governed.

If someone eats in a fast food place, makes a huge mess by leaving trash on the table and food on the floor, they make dining there more expensive, because more work is needed to recover from their presence. Maybe they don't mind paying more for the privilege of being irresponsible and not cleaning up after their children, and in this case perhaps they'd be happy to pay an extra fee to cover their behavior. The rest of us shouldn't subsidize them.

You don't even necessarily need to try to make the world a better place for your having been here; just don't work to make it worse. It's really not that difficult.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Non-verbal communication: government

I can communicate so many things without words. Many nice, friendly things, without even using any standardized sign language. I know, because I've done it with people who couldn't hear and people who spoke no language in common with me. And we always managed to get the point across.

But think about how to wordlessly communicate the concept of "government"; The State.

I suppose grabbing someone by the shoulders and shaking them, or slapping their face, would work. I seriously can't see how you would make it understood that you are speaking of government without showing it is thieving and aggressive. Because that is the defining trait which changes an act into a State-like act, different from all other types of behavior.

But, then I wonder why it would be necessary to communicate such awful things to someone.

It's not voluntary; it's aggressive

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

First prize!

I will toot my own horn a bit. 🎺

I have excelled beyond all competition in one area: I have conducted the least successful fund-raiser in history! I actually lost ground during it. Hey, there is one thing I do exceptionally well.

I might as well find humor in the situation. Right? 😉

A smart person would take this as a sign to try something different...

Anyway, I send thanks to all my continuing supporters, those who did help out during the fund raiser, and all those who have helped in the past, as well.

Government is insanity in action

All government is based on the insane notion that it's OK to use violence against those who disagree with you.

And that idea will always lead to State-like behavior: archation.

Just let the victim choose his own bully, and it's OK

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Security services - Dispatches from Libertopia

A new post over at Dispatches from Libertopia.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Liberty- it's all or nothing

If you are against liberty in one area, you are against liberty.

If you are for anti-gun "laws", you are against liberty.

If you support cops, you are against liberty.

If you are for the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, you are against liberty.

If you are wishy-washy about the right of association, you are against liberty.

If you don't respect property rights, you are against liberty.

If you are for a government "solution" to anything, you are against liberty.

You can pick and choose the bits of liberty you personally exercise, but not which bits you unconditionally respect and support. Not and still value liberty.

You may still be a nice person; you may even be mainly "good", but by undercutting liberty anywhere, you undermine it all.

1 or 0? There is no 0.9

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Random thoughts

You can't save those who don't want to be saved. They'll always find a way to self destruct, and they'll drag you down with them if you let them.

-

The only way you can say cops are good is to redefine "good" especially for them. To carve exceptions for evil acts when done by cops so that you can claim those evil acts aren't evil as long as a cop is committing them. In other words, you must lie.

-

I've been seeing a lot of cognitive dissonance lately. Especially when I tell the truth about cops. And it often turns into hostility and hatred aimed at me. I wonder if this of how people in 1930s Germany were treated when they tried to warn others about what was happening around them. People are so desperate to believe the goodness and legitimacy of government that they drive away those who try to warn them.

-  

Peace isn't as worthy as liberty. Peace is the desire of every violator who wants you to go along to get along.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

I WILL "appropriate" your culture!

I am nothing but cultural appropriation. From my head to my toes; from birth until today. I don't expect that to change and I will never feel guilty about it.

You should be proud that I value your culture enough to "appropriate" parts of it. I'm not going to copy junk.

All human ideas, inventions, and such are available for us ALL to incorporate-- or "appropriate". We are all human. We can even incorporate "culture" or whatever from other species if we want. It is your right as a sapient being. Don't let any idiot make you feel bad because they tell you otherwise. They are lying.

Appropriate away!

You have an entire planet, and hundreds of thousands of years (at least) of ideas and clothing and art to choose from. Pick the good. Reject the bad. Make yourself the best you can be.

Dare you appropriate the Crow-Magnum Man's culture?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Copsuckers can be funny

The other day I accidentally ended up in an online conversation centered around the fact that ALL cops are bad guys and gang members.

The other person in the conversation disagreed strongly. Even though she's always posting about her own illegal (but ethical) activities, and apparently ignoring who puts her in danger. She posted all the tired old justifications and apologetics-- it was like she had her own copy of The Copsucker's Handbook (I should write that!), and had memorized it. I responded to a couple of her points, but she was flooding the thread faster than I could write. I even tried to call a truce and drop the subject a couple of times, but she wouldn't let it go. Copsuckers are so sensitive!

Finally she asked me to explain how I can hold that opinion about cops, and how I can say they are a gang. I said "OK". (It's easy to do, and not difficult to lay out clearly enough that anyone who isn't blinded by their religion can see.) But before I could post even the first bit I was writing, she told me to go to a different group to post my response-- which seems counterproductive since that's not where all the lead-up had occurred. So I asked "why?"

Instead of answering that question, she started proclaiming how angry she was with me. Finally she squeezed out this gem:

Writers are gang members! And I hate them all and wish they would shoot each other and die! The world would be a better place! 

(She also told me I think I'm "so smart", but I'm stupid, and said she would never talk to me again, but that's not relevant.) 

Well, shall we compare the claims?

Show me the writer gang. Go on, show me.
(I can show you the cop gang-- I can drive you past their clubhouse-- I can show you their gang signs, symbols, and tattoos-- I can translate some of their street talk-- and I can show you how their gang membership drives their loyalties and behavior.)

Writers are all over the place as far as their beliefs, ethics, and principles go. Not unified in anything but that they write. Some are even so low that they defend and promote government and enforcers! Perhaps you could make the claim that writers belong to many different opposing gangs, but even that is a shaky claim. But, lets just pretend the claim has merit. Writers are still better than cops.

Writers, by the act of writing, don't violate anyone. I can't force you to read anything I write-- nor would I ever consider trying to do so. I can't force you to shell out money so that I can afford to keep writing-- again, why would I do such a disgusting thing? I don't believe that by writing, I have any "authority" over you. I don't believe that I am entitled, by virtue of writing, to molest you or use force against those who aren't violating anyone. If I do violate you, I don't believe I am immune to consequences just because I write. I expect that if I murder someone because I'm scared of them, my status as a writer won't protect me from a murder conviction. Again, writers are better than any cop.

I would say the pro-cop/anti-writer rant says more about the person who wrote it (wait... does that make her a "writer"?!) than about other writers. What do you think?

Anyway, it is a reminder just how delusional most of the people around me continue to be. They are "why we can't have nice things"... they love their chains and bullies too much to admit they have been duped. They are cowards. And they are growing more hostile every day.

This is totally me!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Exploring different views worthwhile

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 17, 2017)

It is important to know where you stand on issues, and why. It's equally important to understand the position others take. Especially when those positions are the opposite of yours.

To understand the other side, you need to talk to them, and to read things written from their perspective. It might be unpleasant, but it's necessary.

I don't mean you should join them to participate in things you know are wrong. Never violate your principles, but learn why they believe what they believe and why they do what they do. It will make you a stronger, wiser person in the long run; better able to defend your position.

I recently read "Wage Labour and Capital" by Karl Marx. His errors were numerous and glaring, and I see how all governments more closely resemble Marxism than anything remotely libertarian-- especially the way they interfere in the economy. Governments share many of Marx's superstitions. They believe the economy is a pie and the size of your slice depends on the size of the other guy's slice. They imagine people will put in a lot of effort to do no more than break even. They feel individuals are assigned to a particular "class" with no hope for change. They pretend someone can determine value for another. They act as if the right price for everything can be discovered and imposed.

It's easy to show Marx was wrong; it may be harder to understand why the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is wrong. Why government interference with, and rationing of, medical services is wrong. It may be harder yet to see why sobriety checkpoints are worse for America than drunk drivers. That liberty is always better than "safety".

Your only chance to evaluate these things is to read the justifications and excuses of the other side, and make an honest attempt to understand, even though you don't agree.

You may even change your mind about something, which isn't as painful as you might imagine. I've always found it better to change my mind than to hold a position which can't be defended honestly.

As a libertarian I have unlimited opportunities to read things from an opposite perspective. Almost all news is written under the assumption that governing others is a legitimate activity, that laws can be beneficial, and that a career in government is a life of service. Almost everyone you talk to believes the same.

It's harder for those who hold these common beliefs to explore a different perspective. It's worth the effort.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Warning the innocent

Do you flash your lights to warn other drivers of a cop ahead, waiting to molest them?

If not, why not?

Would you alert your neighbor to a burglar climbing in her window?

Would you let a couple walking in the park know you saw a guy with a stocking over his head hiding in the bushes waiting to ambush them?

If you don't warn other drivers is it because you know the other drivers might be "speeding", so they "deserve" to get stopped?

What if your neighbor has a wall-sized television that you envy? Is it OK for that to be stolen by the burglar?

What if the couple in the park are rich and have "too much money"? Is it OK for them to be robbed?

What if the thieves in each case don't stop at theft, but attack in other ways as well? What if the burglar is also a rapist? What if the guy hiding in the bushes is also a murderer? What if the cop has "officer safety" issues and is prone to be trigger-happy when frightened by an unexpected move or by the presence of a gun that isn't under his control?

Bad guys are bad guys, and I am happy to warn others of their presence.

Highway patrol

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Statists have it upside down

Statists always make the claim that liberty-- anarchy-- can only work in tiny communities, not in the larger world.

They are confused.

The more people, the more important it is to respect everyone's rights. A large society of rights violators is not civilization. Society only works-- only results in civilization-- if most people act libertarian most of the time.

Those who use the political means are the cheaters. The cancer. Sure, civilization can survive a certain number of them, but not too many. When the percentage of archators gets too high, that's the death of the civilization. Thus, the more people who work for the State, the closer society gets to the tipping point. To death.

So, don't worry about the vacuous opinions of people who are pleased with their ignorance. You know the reality. Just keep living it.

-

Thank you for your support of KentforLiberty.com. 

(Steemit link)