Libertarian criticisms miss mark

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 20, 2018)

Recently, I read a rant describing libertarianism in unlibertarian ways. This is normal. I've never seen a criticism of libertarianism which hit the mark. The point is usually that libertarians are selfish and don't care about other people; a claim which only works on those who are in the dark.

It is said we don't care about the poor because the taxes and regulations we're against are for their protection. Yet taxes and regulations hit those hardest who are least able to afford them; much harder than those with a stable of lawyers standing ready.

Detractors say libertarians don't believe in altruism and would destroy the "social safety net". They are mistaken. Altruism never involves robbing some for the benefit of others. The truth is, instead of relying on a safety net bought with the anti-social practice of taxation, libertarians prefer to help people voluntarily. This is true altruism and is safer for everyone than today's system.

Libertarians are scolded for heartlessly refusing to admit the protection government provides society against bad guys. Except when those bad guys are politically connected, hold an office, or run one of the thousands of bureaucratic positions used to rob and control members of society in the name of governing. You can't protect society by sacrificing the individuals who comprise it. I refuse to admit this "protection" for the same reason I refuse to admit the health benefits of cancer.

Libertarians, we are told, should realize not all politicians are out for themselves; some have the best intentions. We shouldn't blame them for using institutionalized theft and coercion to impose their good ideas on others. It's the system's fault... but don't question the system's legitimacy either.

Finally, libertarians "only care about their own freedom", despite the fact I spend more time trying to inspire others to exercise their rightful liberty than I do worrying about my own.

The list goes on, never getting close to the truth. Every criticism is the equivalent of saying how much I dislike people who collect stamps because they sit on a boat baiting hooks all day. It's total nonsense.

Which brings me to the most dishonest anti-libertarian statement of all: "Libertarians believe that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." Replace the word "libertarians" with any other political stance out there-- Democrat, Republican, socialist, whatever-- and I couldn't have summarized the pro-government position any better myself.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Serving up hot coercion

If you work for the State you are not "serving".
If your "job" comes with a paycheck extorted from people who didn't value your effort enough to pay for it voluntarily, you are not serving.

You don't "serve" in the military, in congress, or "on the bench". You prey on people's life, liberty, and property, but you don't "serve" anyone beyond the political bullies who hold your leash and steal money on your behalf.

If you really wish to serve, provide a service which people will be willing to pay you for. One which they won't have to force their neighbors to chip in for. Be a good guy like Ross Ulbricht, not a bad guy like Donald Trump or Barack Obama.

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide whether I get paid.

Pigs... in... Space!

Can we engineer liberty in space by designing "just the right kind" of government?
Can we achieve liberty with just the right amount of slavery?
How does anyone imagine that would work?
Why build failure right into your plan from the start?

And yet, that's what some people believe is needed. Government and its "laws". In space. What other types of pollution are needed out there?

Some people are crazy, and not in a good or amusing way.

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide whether I get paid.

Political poisoning

I don't talk "politics" at home much. If at all.

I certainly don't talk about politicians. So it's interesting how my daughter has picked up on the Trump hate from... somewhere. Maybe the Roblox gaming videos she watches on Youtube, I suppose. I can't think of anywhere else.

There might be several reasons for this just showing up now. Her age might be part of it. She wasn't old enough to be aware of what was going on with the rule of Barack the Great. I do know her "teacher" at kinderprison a couple of years ago worked very hard to indoctrinate Hillaryism into the prisoners at her disposal. I did have a little talk with my daughter about evil politicians-- specifically evil politicians I knew a bit better than most-- over that episode.

I have a yardstick that I use-- if someone is having fits about Trump doing something they would have ignored (or even praised) Obama for doing, I see them as a hypocrite in the throes of Trump Derangement Syndrome. And I see this a LOT!

There are no good presidents; no good politicians.

I have no problem with her hating politicians. I see it as the beginning of wisdom. But, in the post-Trump years, if she doesn't express the same feelings for the next Bully in Chief, I'm going to have a sit-down and see why.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide whether I get paid.

Encircled, enclosed, and trapped

Someone recently brought up the scenario of being encircled and trapped by other property owners so that you can either not access your surrounded property or you can't escape from it. At least, not without giving in to the other property owner's demands, whatever they may be.

Specifically, his comment was:

...Curious what your current thinking is about the problem of locking people out of their property, or the property to which they are invited, when one or more people acquire all the surrounding property and then deny you ingress or egress. Example: someone acquires the property rights to all the roads surrounding a subdivision of houses or businesses, and then either flatly refuses to allow anyone to cross their property, or charges extortion tolls (say, $100,00 to cross the road -- or demands that you hand over the property you own for $1 in order to leave the trap they've created).
Clearly you have to right to stay alive. Is that aggression if someone locks you into your own property by buying the surrounding property, and thus you have the right to self-defense to use whatever force is necessary to leave it?

Somewhere I have written about this before, but I can't find it now, and my opinions may have changed since the last time I discussed it, anyway. So... time to delve into this again.

As I have come to see, "aggression" isn't the whole picture, which is why I now prefer the concept of archation. Imprisoning someone on their own property is archation. Keeping someone from accessing their own property is archation. Even if they would have to cross your property to use theirs.

If someone bought property with the intention of blocking someone's access to their own property, I definitely see this as blatant premeditated archation.

I firmly believe property rights are essential (but not sufficient). But that doesn't mean you have the right to use your property to injure others who are neither initiating force, nor violating property. Equal and identical rights for all. And simply crossing your property may or may not count as "violating" it, under the circumstances.

As I have opined several times over the years, you don't have the right to enslave someone as a condition of them being on your property, and you don't have the right to use your property as a prison. You have no right to say "Well, you're in my house, so I am within my rights to force you to have sex with me".

Even in cases where you are within your rights, sometimes it's not the right thing to do to exercise your rights in certain ways at particular moments. This would be one example if you were within your rights to imprison them on their property, or keep them off their property.

If I were to arbitrate such a case, both sides being non-archators otherwise, I would decide in favor of the trapped property owner, even if I felt he owed a reasonable* access fee. Any such fee would depend on the impact of his passage and probably on his ability to pay.

If someone is crossing your property to use theirs, they have no right to damage your property as they pass through, be it by taking things, leaving trash, destroying things, or whatever. They have no right to make a nuisance* of themselves, by screaming or otherwise impacting the property they are crossing. Their passage should be as light-footed as possible, and any damage or nuisance would create a debt subject to restitution.

I would expect the encircling property owner to designate the path of least impact, and not make it unreasonably* difficult. If more than one property owner were part of the encirclement, I would probably suggest a path along their property lines so neither would bear the full burden, unless one volunteered a path.

I would probably encourage a permanent easement agreement, maybe through the purchase of a small strip, or just the right of passage along a certain path which is non-revokable.

Of course, there is air travel, tunneling, and Star Trek transporter technology (just kidding) which can be used to reach an agreement for access to encircled property. And possibly things no one has thought of yet.

Sometimes, too, there's just not a good solution that works in the real world to everyone's 100% satisfaction, but I really think this is a solvable problem. Do you have any better ideas?


*Subject to arbitration, if need be.

Here is someone else's take on it.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide whether I get paid.

Cops don't stop

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide whether I get paid.

Balance

Between too much chaos and too much order, there's anarchy. Balance.

Between aggression and pacifism, there's self-defense. Balance.

Between a locked-down prison state with militarized "borders" and mass invasion of hordes of handout seekers, there are property rights. Balance.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Humans and rights

Pointing out that all humans have the exact same-- equal and identical-- rights isn't the same as saying all humans are exactly the same.

I notice "bordertarians" and other borderists making this nonsensical mistake over and over again in a desperate attempt to justify their anti-liberty position.

Rights don't depend on where a person was born, where they stand, or which State claims ownership over them. Rights only depend on their species and on them being alive.

Some cultures are better than others because some cultures (by which I mean the individuals who make up that culture from the "bottom up") "tolerate" liberty and respect rights better than others. This doesn't alter anyone's rights.

Some individuals are better than others because some individuals archate less often, and don't support archators as much as others do (they are more ethical than those who archate and support archation more often).

Some people are smarter than others, and everyone is smarter about some topic than just about anyone else.

Humans hold a variety of beliefs; often contradictory beliefs inside the same brain. It only matters what people do, not why they do it, or what beliefs led them to act. Some beliefs are better than others, and some are outright reprehensible-- those which convince a person it is right to archate being among the nastiest beliefs. Yes, some people believe it is OK to govern others; these people are holding a barbaric primitive belief. Everyone else has the right to defend themselves from the people with this belief if they try to act on it. No one has the right to govern because this is a right which can't exist. If it did it would contradict itself.

Humans come in a variety of sizes, shades, and shapes. This is irrelevant to their rights.

Humans are equal in the rights they have, and in nothing else.

This truth doesn't justify devotion to a theft-funded, anti-property rights, Big Government welfare/warfare program at "the Border". Nor does the intentional and dishonest conflation of political "borders" and private property rights. It's amazing to me how they can turn this around inside their own minds and call a rejection of their favorite type of communism "leftist". How can you twist your mind that much? I have no idea.

If someone who is otherwise libertarian believes something to the contrary, they are mistaken and internally inconsistent on this topic-- perhaps only on this one topic. They might be a fine person otherwise, but on this, they are wrong. And I would be dishonest if I failed to point this out.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Discrimination should be left legally alone

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 13, 2018)

Who would be desperate enough to eat a cake baked by someone who doesn't want to bake it? Would you want a wedding cake someone was forced to bake-- at gunpoint?

Even if the gun is hidden at first, every law comes down to "do as we say or we'll kill you".

At best, the newlyweds will get a cake they dare not eat.

So why follow this path? Perhaps they claim to only want things to be fair. Guess what-- fairness isn't a feature of the real world. You may as well accept the fact now. What you consider fair, someone else will call unfair. The reverse is also true; what someone else sees as fair you'll believe is unfair. The appearance of fairness depends completely on perspective. Dilbert's Scott Adams goes further, saying fairness is a concept invented so less-than-intelligent people could feel like they are participating in conversations.

Despite my skepticism about fairness, I'm in favor of everyone doing their best to make others feel as though fairness is real. There's really only one way to do this.

Just stay out of the way and let everyone exercise their right to choose who to do business with. Both as a provider and as a customer. Don't infringe anyone's right of association.

It's not only about religion. If you don't like someone's politics, the color of their skin, the way they speak, how they worship, or anything else, you have the right to decline to take their money, or to refuse to spend your money with them. It doesn't depend on the Supreme Court agreeing; this is simply a natural human right.

Someone will always step up to fill a gap if certain businesses choose to turn away customers. Think of all the willing and eager cake shops who never got the chance to show what an excellent cake they would have been happy to provide for the wedding which precipitated the recent cake ruling.

Discrimination goes both ways, and needs to be left legally alone. If bigots are out there, let them openly expose their bigotry. How else can you know who to reward with your business, or who to punish by going elsewhere?

There is one exception, of course: government doesn't get to choose who it serves until people are allowed to stop paying for services they don't want. As long as government exists as a monopoly, it is the only organization which can't exclude anyone for any reason other than non-payment.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

What's hiding beneath?

Statism has a thin, shiny scale of pretty-looking ethics hiding the evil beneath. It's sort of like nail polish on an infected, fungal fingernail.

Some statism shows its concern for the less fortunate while hiding its approval of theft. Other statism shows the world its concern for "family values" while hiding its family-destroying policies from casual view. And, the ethics don't hide just one evil, but a huge library of evils. All excused by the thin superficial layer of goodness.

The nice-looking ethics are good, but they stop short. They don't go far enough and don't redeem the evil that exists right beside them. It doesn't make you a good person to give the shirt off your back to one person while raping and murdering another.

All the aggression and theft is just below the surface, while the pretty, distracting scale of ethics hides it from view. But it only hides the corruption and evil from those who don't want to look.

The ethics embraced by any form of statism are only surface deep, used for less than ethical purposes, but the evil goes all the way to the core.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Delusions of "authority"

You know what strikes me as funny, pathetic, and arrogant... all at the same time?

Governments believing they can (or should!) impose "laws" which apply to people in outer space, on asteroids, and on other planets.

That's some serious delusions of grandeur, right there.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Childish, adult, or mature?

I recently heard someone who was making a distinction between the "childish approach" of the political "left" and the "adult approach" of the political "right". I believe he missed something important. He was so focused on "right" and "left" he forgot to consider right and wrong.

The childish approach: "That's not fair! It's hard. I don't want to do that! I just want to do stuff that I like."

His amoral "adult" approach: "This will hurt right now, but we need to do it anyway for a better long-term result."

The ethical mature approach (which he ignored because it is neither "right" nor "left"):
Don't do the wrong thing, no matter your justification or excuses. The right way might not feel as good. It might not bring the results you want as fast as some other ways. But if you can't get what you want or believe you need without archating, then you're just going to have to live with it. Unless you want to be a monster. You never have the right to archate.

As you can see, many times there are more than two choices (and there may even be more than three). Don't let people fool you into missing the best choice by trying to force you to choose between two contrived choices they prefer you consider.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Individuals and differences

Everyone is an individual. (Duh)

There are differences between individuals. These differences are real.

Some of those differences are affected by things which have been used historically to limit or deny natural human rights to some people. This is wrong.

Then there are differences which aren't as real. Even some totally imaginary things have been used as excuses to limit or deny natural human rights of some people. Things like nationality or "citizenship", for example.

Rights don't differ among individuals. Not based on any criteria. Not for any reason. No matter how you feel about it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

More options

And, I guess the buttons are way down somewhere at the bottom
 if you're on a mobile device

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Cops-- Abusing your bosses

The fact of the matter is, if you are a cop, the lowliest crackwhore is your moral superior... and your boss.
And if cops don't like that they can always quit and get an honest job.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

"Be realistic" = be a jerk

If someone truly believes it is "Utopian" to expect human interactions to be voluntary, how would you like being one of their family members, or a neighbor?

Do you think they'd be a good cow-orker or employee? (Be careful while orking cows!) Could you trust them at all if you weren't holding them at gunpoint?

Are they really that barbaric, or are they talking through their hat; not understanding the concepts they feel the need to preach at you about? Perhaps they are just saying what they feel needs to be said to justify archation. I suspect it's that last one, since they are apparently still alive and able to speak, so they must be choosing voluntary interactions the vast majority of the time.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Dear Badgescum...

How disgusting! What other molesters does the letter writer appreciate for their crimes?

If you fear "traffic stops", stop molesting and robbing drivers.

If you don't want to be filmed "doing your job", get a job that doesn't come with the obligation of letting your bosses see exactly what you are doing every single second you are on my clock, collecting a paycheck funded by money stolen from me and others who neither want nor need you.

The mainstream media can't crucify a character which doesn't exist.

Everyone gets tired at work. Everyone feels misunderstood. I promise you no one misunderstands you more than those deluded people who support you in spite of what you do.

So, you hurt when your fellow molesters die. If cops die, it isn't just because they are guilty of wearing a uniform and a badge-- it is because of the crimes committed by the gang they are announcing their membership in. A gang they would be kicked out of if they refused to commit the same crimes. You are guilty of the same things the dead armed government employees were guilty of. You can't show up for your "job" without violating life, liberty, and property. 

Yes, you are flesh and bone like me. And so is the rapist, the mugger, the serial murderer, and other people who make the decision to violate others. So?

The only thing you serve and protect are the politicians who give you the power and excuses to molest and steal, and the Blue Line Gang.

I don't want you or need you. Go away. Forever. Find an HONEST job and stop being a hired gun for the State. It's a mistake you could correct in less than a second, if you have a gram of principles and ethics.

It should HURT to be this much of a copsucker.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

America's Sharia Law

(Updated for reposting-- originally posted 1/19/2011)

One of the reasons I hear coming from "conservatives" for invading and occupying Islamic countries is so "they" won't take over America and force Sharia "law" on "us". You know, kind of an extension of the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" excuse.

True, I have no wish to live under such a brutal and primitive, and painfully stupid, system. But doesn't that mean we should deal with the mote in our own eye and get rid of our own version of Sharia "law" too? Otherwise we are just being hypocritical. Again.

Sharia law is no more obscene than most of the counterfeit laws in America. Kidnapping and murdering people over plants? Or chemicals? Or because they refuse to facilitate their own muggings? "Laws" based on what people claim their god wants?

If we refuse to put up with being ruled by Sharia "law", why don't we refuse the US equivalent and refuse to tolerate drug laws, gun laws, sex laws, tax laws, seatbelt laws, property codes, obscenity laws... and the list goes on almost infinitely to embrace any and all "laws", based on a religion, which attempt to control or regulate anything other than actual aggression or theft.

Sorry, but if your god approves of the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, or government sanctioned (or prohibited) marriage, or 99%+ of the rest of the things that "The Law" concerns itself with, your god is a monster. And if you continue to follow your god (whatever name you call him) in spite of his monstrosity, then you are no better. And if you think it is a good idea to impose "laws" like this, and enforce them against your neighbors who may not share your religion, you should be happy with Sharia "law". As for me, I'll take liberty and respect yours as well.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Rule by majority unfair to minority

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 6, 2018- I don't write the headlines*)

Politics might be an amusing hobby, but it is a horrible basis for a society. One should never confuse government with society. Society grows naturally from the voluntary interactions of people, while government is anti-social; imposed by those who imagine themselves at the "top" onto everyone they see as beneath them.

Unanimous consent is the way to get things done without coercion or theft. Let those who agree work together without forcing anyone else to go along. If your idea relies on forcing people to participate, it's probably a bad idea. Anything which depends on force or coercion to survive should be allowed to die. Never use mob rule-- democracy-- to force people to do things they oppose.

Allegiance to a group shouldn't be assumed, mandatory, or dependent on where you live. Let people choose their own groups, and let the groups' territories overlap the way those of clubs or churches do. Let people switch between groups, or opt out, as their needs and circumstances change.

If your culture can't survive contact with a different culture, it may not be worth saving. Are you so dependent on the behavior and opinions of others that you can't live the way you believe you should if you don't have company? Yes, there is comfort in numbers, but you'll often find yourself in the minority over the course of your life. Embrace it. Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority you should re-evaluate your position. The majority is rarely right.

You have no right to enslave people for their own good, or what you imagine to be their own good. Let people find their own path, as long as they aren't stealing or attacking the non-violent.

You are responsible for yourself. You can take some responsibility for others, as long as you aren't imposing yourself on them. It's OK to allow others to make mistakes; to be wrong. It's usually how people learn. Don't let them drag you down with them, but realize when you need to back off.

You don't need others to live as you do, and everyone has the natural right to defend themselves from anyone who tries to force their way on them.

Remember that your ideas of what people should be doing may not be their ideas. If it would be wrong for them to force you to live as they want, then it would be wrong for you to force them to live as you believe they should.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

From the Ministry of Propaganda

It's no wonder people are confused about guns.

I was sent this in an email "news" alert. Here's an easy exercise... Spot the propaganda:

"Frustrated by state and federal lawmakers’ reluctance to address gun violence, local officials are starting a movement to control firearms within their borders. It’s an uphill task given that all but seven states have laws prohibiting them from doing so, but their work is slowly catching on.
In recent months, local governments have limited certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles, created “gun-free zones” and adopted zoning laws to keep out gun stores. “The failure of the Congress to pass policies that keep our communities and children safe means towns feel compelled to act,” Stephen Benjamin, mayor of Columbia, South Carolina, said

"Frustrated"? "lawmakers"? "reluctance"? "address"? "gun violence"? "officials"? "starting a movement"? "uphill task"? "their work"? "catching on"? "limited"? "created", "adopted"? "keep out"? "failure"? "policies that keep our communities and children safe"? "feel compelled"?

That's a lot of propaganda in only two paragraphs. I probably even missed some.

Why the dishonest phrasing? Is it because of the anti-liberty bias of the "news" organization? Yes. Yes, it is.

No matter your excuse, if you propose, pass, or enforce anti-gun "laws", YOU are a BAD GUY. YOU are as bad as the evil losers who shoot up crowds of ("legally") disarmed victims. You can try to veil your evil acts in all the glowing lies you want. It's still nothing but lies.

And when your lies warp people's opinions about something as critical as natural human rights you may actually be worse than the evil losers who shoot up crowds. Yes, "mainstream media", including the fly-by-night outfit which crafted this propaganda piece, I am looking at you and judging you. You don't measure up.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium