No, that's NOT what Louis CK was doing

People are having a fit about Louis CK making fun of "Parkland survivors". Is that what he really did? No. He was doing what I have done; he was making fun of the handful of nasty little anti-liberty bigots who used their attendance at Parkland as a springboard to promote their mental illness and demand we all adopt the same. The rest of the survivors-- those who didn't become social parasites-- were spared his ridicule; he didn't even mention them.

I'll ridicule David Hogg, his barefoot sidekick girl-- I forget her name, and the other "survivors". They are absurd and deserve all the ridicule they get. They are promoting slavery. They picked the fight and then whined when people struck back. Like the entitled children they are.

And wasn't the vile little Hogg actually at home when the shooting occurred, rushing to the school so he could claim "victim" status and become a Big Deal? Whether that rumor is true or not doesn't really make a difference. He wants government to molest me, so he's fair game for any and all ridicule.

So, whatever else Louis CK said may have been rude, but while making fun of those particular "Parkland survivors", I support him.

I listened to the routine. Some of it was hilarious. He seems to have a good sense of humor about his own foibles and the resulting trouble. Some of the routine wasn't funny to me personally. But I couldn't really get offended by it. He was making jokes. I'm not a delicate little old church lady who gets bent out of shape about jokes.

A lot of other people are. They should rent a sense of humor if they don't have one of their own.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Happy New Year!

Now go out and do something you want to do, something you have a right to do, whether it's "legal" or not! Live your liberty.


_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Popular doesn't mean right

I'm sure this will come as no surprise, but I was never one of the popular kids. Popularity wasn't ever something I wanted. I was too different to care what others thought (and I thought most of the "popular kids" were kind of dumb and dull. Still do).

In elementary school, at recess, when we were supposed to be playing some form of sportsball, I would be sitting on the ground looking under rocks to see what interesting lifeforms I could find. Hoping the ball wouldn't come toward me.

My family moved around too much for me to make any friends who would have the time to "get" me.

In junior high I missed the entire first semester after a nasty bike wreck, and was never able to socially recover. Although the chance that made much of a difference is slim.

In high school, I was known as a nerd. Even worse, I was the nerd who would eat acorns and weeds, wore a survival kit on my belt, and drove the weird electric car. I had one main friend and he was known as the genius who was also a "pothead", and it was suspected I was probably also smoking the wacky tobacky with him. I can neither confirm nor deny those rumors.

I never did fit in. And it's been the same for me as an adult.

The only taste of popularity I ever got was during my 3 or so years in Pennsylvania-- during karaoke nights. Then I knew what popularity felt like. I admit, in that context I enjoyed it.

Now I'm back to my normal.

But, the point of this is, I understand liberty is not popular. Why would it be? I value it.

I have a small audience for this blog, but I value you all. I may not be popular, but I'm on the right side. And that means you are, too. We are awesome... Liberty is awesome... whether anyone else appreciates it (us) or not. The rest of them can join us or they can continue to be wrong. It's their choice. Their problem. They are the "interesting lifeforms" I find under rocks. I still observe them; try to understand them. But I am not inside their heads. And truthfully, I don't want to be. The sacrifice would be too great.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Free market means individual choice

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 28, 2018)

I love the free market. The market, liberated from government rules, subject only to the choices of individuals.

One of my choices is to not shop on major holidays. If I knew for certain the store let employees volunteer to work on the holiday it would be different. As it stands, no sales or discounts can entice me to shop on Thanksgiving or Christmas when I know the employees were probably coerced into working instead of spending the holiday with their families.

I'm also not willing to fight crazed crowds for "deals". It's not an experience I enjoy.

That's my choice; yours might be different.

I would oppose laws making it illegal for stores to open on major holidays, just as I oppose laws which make Sunday alcohol sales illegal. Those laws are arbitrary and silly. I am responsible enough to make my own choices of what to buy and when to shop. I don't need a babysitter holding a gun on shop owners to make certain they do what the babysitter believes is right.

I'm not boycotting anyone. It's not a crusade. I'll go to those stores on other days. I won't ask anyone to join me. It's just me, as an individual, making a personal choice. My meager spending won't be missed, but I feel better not encouraging businesses to use their employees in ways I don't like.

I care about people; that's why I'm libertarian. I believe all human interactions should be voluntary. If a business (or any other institution) can't survive through voluntary association, I believe it should die. Customers and employees are equally important.

There would be employees who would choose to go to work rather than spend the day alone, or with family they want an excuse to avoid. It might not result in a full staff, but if you put off the sales for one day it would be fine.

When I owned a business I chose to open one Christmas day. I wasn't able to be with family, so I was completely alone. I had nothing else to do, so instead of sitting and watching television or something equally pointless, I decided to work at the store and flip the sign to "open". I got some things done, even while feeling sorry for myself. I had one customer all day; I still remember what he bought. He didn't comment about my store being open on Christmas. At least I was busy and productive, and it was my choice.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Wilson, the stingy

"Wilson" was the stingiest person I ever knew... with his ammunition.

In his mostly unfurnished house, he had built a "wall of ammunition". He had stacked the little boxes of 7.62x39 and the bigger boxes of .40 S+W so as to build a "wall" against the back wall of his living room. It didn't actually cover the whole wall, but it was about 3 or 4 feet high and about 6 feet long. It continually grew. I don't know why he didn't find a better way to store it.

But when we would go out shooting, he would only shoot one firearm that day. He would either shoot his carry pistol or he would bring along his SKS to shoot. He would never shoot both on the same outing. And he would only bring 3 to 5 cartridges to shoot. That was it.

The first time we went out to shoot his SKS I offered to buy a box of ammo from him for us to shoot. (He always bought every round the local shops would get as soon as they came in.) But, no, he wouldn't do that. He was convinced he might need it later.

When I ran into him years later and miles away he told me he had gotten married, but it went bad and his angry wife reported him to the cops for abuse. They came to his house, cuffed him on the floor at gunpoint, and stole his guns and all his ammo. He said he never got it back. I have no clue if he really abused her or not. It's possible-- he could be a bit excitable. Doesn't sound like she was without issues, though.

__

If you enjoy personal stories like my "Wilson" series, you might also like Grant McGee's blog. He used to write in the paper here and has pretty interesting tales to tell.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

People who need to get out more

I've not been online much this past week, and I apologize for the sporadic posting. Lots of family holiday stuff, plus I got a special gift this year because my son and his girlfriend surprised me by moving within visiting distance just a few days before Christmas. Which is awesome!

But, what I have seen online makes me unsure whether to laugh or shake my head in disbelief. Maybe I shouldn't have turned on the computer after all.

Did I seriously see that people still admire Obama more than any other man in the world and that Michelle Obama is supposedly the "most admired woman in America"? What kind of nonsense is that? If that's true, people are dumber than I suspected.

I'm against presidents, ex-presidents, and other such ectoparasites as a matter of principle. To admire politicians is terribly misguided... or worse. People who admire these professional molesters need to get out and meet more people. They really need some sort of hobby.

_______________

Reminder: I could still really, really use some help.

-

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

No government employee is "essential"

With regards to the fake news about a "government shutdown", where they give the "non-essential government employees" an unscheduled paid vacation (because it will be paid sooner or later)...

All government employees are non-essential. Every single last one of them, from the president on up to the contract janitor who scrubs Ruth Bader Ginsburg's office toilet.

If they were essential the market would be doing their job and the government "job" would have never existed in the first place.

Or, the market would be doing the job if the government didn't artificially step in with "laws" or other ways to prevent the market from filling the need. Which it often does.

Government is a net negative in everything.

Send them all home forever. No back pay. No retirement. No paid medical care. Nothing. Burn all the records-- I'll do it if they just get out of the way. Just go away forever and ever.

That would be a real government shutdown. One I support without the slightest reservation.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Happy Winter Solstice Holidays!

Merry Christmas!
Happy Festivus, Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Newtonmas, Yule, Government "Shutdown", etc.!

I sincerely hope your Winter Solstice was a good one, and that all the remaining Winter Solstice holidays-- whichever of them, if any, you celebrate-- are great for you and yours!

I love you guys!

.

I'll keep my loopholes, thank you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 21, 2018)

In those moments when my skepticism falters, the recent midterm elections threaten to give me a little hope. It doesn't last long. A Congress divided between Republicans and Democrats brings the promise of sweet gridlock, but they always seem to find a way to work together more than is healthy.

I am naturally skeptical of those using theft and aggression against the individuals who comprise society-- even when they call the theft and aggression "government" or "the law".

As bad as partisanship's reputation may be, bipartisanship is far worse. When working together, the old, fossilized political parties make it clear it isn't "The Right" vs. "The Left"; it's government colluding against the rest of us.

Back in 1866 Judge Gideon J. Tucker observed: “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” It has only gotten worse since then.

The best hope for the survival of your liberty is eternal gridlock preventing Congress from doing anything. While they are fighting each other they may not be paying as much attention to you.

Those who want government to "do something" are calling for your liberty to be crushed bit by bit until none is left. They consider any remaining islands of liberty in a rising ocean of government to be "loopholes" which they want closed. In spite of everything they might claim, this is never for your benefit.

I don't want Congress, or any branch of government, to get things done. There is nothing legitimate for Congress to do.

Laws were discovered; legislation is invented. All real laws were discovered centuries ago; no new laws are needed or even possible. All the real crimes have always been crimes in any civilized society. All attacks on life, liberty, or property are wrong, whether laws criminalize them or not. They are still wrong when laws say they are OK if done by government employees "just doing their jobs".

Anything Congress imposes on the population will be legislation; fake "law". These counterfeit "laws" look like laws to most people. They use legal language and are treated as though they are laws, but they lack the ethical foundation which distinguishes real law. In fact, they violate real law by endangering your life, liberty, or property.

The last thing I want or need is for the houses of Congress to work together, with the president, to impose more legislation. I'll keep my loopholes-- my liberty-- thank you very much.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Prohibition-- not just wrong, but evil

I hate the current anti-opioid campaign.

Not for myself, fortunately, but on behalf of those it is harming.

Yeah, I understand that people can harm themselves by abusing opioids, and I also understand that innocent people can be harmed by those who abuse opioids. That doesn't justify this insane push to make society opioid-free. Nothing can.

I realize that some time in the future I could be in the position to need the pain relief of opioids, and the government might just prefer I suffer and die rather than "run the risk" of addiction. I hope not, but if it happens it's MY choice, not some idiot bureaucrat's.

A few years ago when I was hospitalized with a kidney stone I was given morphine a few times. The experience was bad enough and would have been so much worse without effective pain relief. At least it was temporary. Just imagine those whose pain isn't temporary.

It's things like this that make me see the evil that is government even more than the rest of the archation that is committed in its name. There's no excuse good enough to do this to people. The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs must end. Prohibition is always wrong; it is always evil.


_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Wilson and the accused informant

"Wilson" was a little paranoid. We spent a fair amount of time together, frequently wandering trails (and off-trail) on foot in the nearby wilderness area. I knew he didn't trust easily. I was to discover that what trust he did have was shakey and easily upset.

There was this guy he sometimes spoke to in town. I had seen the guy around, wearing old camo clothing and a backpack-- I suspect he may have been homeless-- but I never met him. Which is odd because he claimed to know me and he caused Wilson to lose his trust in me. Which could have ended badly.

I stopped by Wilson's house one afternoon and he approached my car with an odd demeanor. I noticed his hand was on his pistol. I didn't get out of my car, but asked what was up. He told me this guy, who I didn't know and had never spoken to, had warned him I was a police informant. Supposedly I was spying on Wilson's activities and reporting to the cops. He was telling me all this using colorful language.

I got very uncomfortable very quickly. I honestly expected to be shot at any moment-- and my young daughter was in the car with me.

(A few years later I got the same sort of feeling when a different friend told me he "knew" I was a Martian who was controlling his mind, but that's another story. I'd rather be a Martian than work with the cops.)

Wilson loved to buy ammo but hated using it. I've never seen anyone so stingy with ammunition. Maybe that worked in my favor that day.

I told him I wasn't a police informant, and would never do that. Not to anyone. I told him emphatically that I had never worked with, or helped, the police in any way. Never had and never would. He knew how I felt about cops, or at least I thought he did. He questioned me for a few minutes, and I guess he was satisfied enough with my answers. I left on somewhat calmer terms. But it was a few weeks before we were back to normal.

For a long time I wondered what the guy had actually said to Wilson about me. What he had against me, and how he was even aware of me. Had Wilson mentioned me and the guy just decided to accuse me? Did he have me confused with someone else? That seems unlikely because I was sort of "unique" in town, but it was a town of misfits and maybe he mixed me up with someone else. Or, was that guy an informant who didn't like me speaking to Wilson and keeping him less volatile? At this point, I'll never know.

Eventually the incident passed and was never mentioned again. Once I regained his trust I never seemed to lose it again.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Voluntaryists are good folk

I just got the chance to meet another of my readers (along with his lovely partner). I'm always impressed with the quality of people I meet through this blog when we meet in person.

Impressed, but not surprised.

I know that those who live Voluntaryism are likely to be people who are just good folk. How could it be otherwise? And this has always been my experience so far.

By my count, this is only the fourth time I've had this opportunity. Quality over quantity, I suppose. I am somewhat out-of-the-way; far from the interstates. Not exactly in the bustling center of ... anything. Crops, dairies, and feedlots aren't that thrilling and don't draw crowds. That can be good and bad.

I'm glad I got to meet another couple of good people.

I look forward to the next time I get this chance.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Common ground with Putin?

Something interesting happened the other day. I discovered I may agree with Vladimir Putin. At least at a personal opinion level on one topic; not on what (if anything) should be done about it.

Does this make me a Russian collaborator?

Putin wants to "control" rap in Russia. This seems to indicate he doesn't like rap and believes it has a negative effect on young people. I agree with him on both, even as I disagree that government should get involved (in anything).

I can separate my personal opinions from what I believe should be done. And I understand what someone has a right to do and what they don't. No one has a right to ban a type of self-expression just because they don't like it.

I hate rap. It's just my opinion based on my personal tastes. I don't like pit bulls, either. I don't want government banning or "controlling" either one. Not on my behalf or for any other reason. That's just my feelings on those things. Every pit bull I've met has been gentle, but I still don't like the breed, and I understand that rap expresses some useful "anti-establishment" themes, but I still don't like it.

I have noticed a negative effect on my daughter's psyche since she was first exposed to rap. Yes, it may be correlation rather than causation; she's reaching that hormone-saturated age, after all. I know banning it from the house would be authoritarian. And pointless. All her friends and frienemies listen to (and live) rap almost exclusively, and she's much more peer-oriented than I ever was. Still, I would have to be blind to not see the effect it seems to be having on her (and the other kids). For that reason, I have asked her to avoid it (and anything else dark and negative) until she seems better able to handle the exposure without evident harm.

This could get "interesting".

The topic will probably keep coming up in the house for the foreseeable future. No, I don't have the parenting thing all figured out.

But as much as I hate rap, I wouldn't support any "law" aimed at suppressing it.


_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

"How do you talk to someone who doesn't believe in climate change?"

"How do you talk to someone who doesn't believe in climate change?"
That was actually the first sentence to an introduction to a TED talk (screencap above), and it illustrates a big part of the problem with Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) fanatics. Their condescending need to preach at the rest of us is annoying, as is their conviction that we could be won over to their side.

First of all, climate changes. Very few people seriously doubt that. The Earth has been both a snowball and a sauna in the past. I completely "believe in" the evidence that this has happened and will continue to happen. That's not what they are talking about when they say "doesn't believe in climate change".

They are talking about the fact that intelligent, informed people don't necessarily worship with their cult of AGCC belief and their preferred social agenda, and they can't bear it. That's it.

The best way to "talk" to someone who "doesn't believe in climate change" is ... don't. Stay quiet. But if you can't mind your own business, and you ignorantly (and unwisely) broach the subject, maybe you could at least listen to the reasons why they aren't in your cult. If you can't do even that much, then drop the religious devotion to your cult before opening your mouth. No one wants to hear it.

Second, it would help if you would recognize that what you are promoting isn't science. AGCC believerism is partly science; mostly collectivist politics. When you mix politics with science (by funding it through theft, for example) what results is less science than politics. This brand of politicized "climate science" cherry picks data, relies on completely unreliable models (computerized guesswork which is never, NEVER reliable), ignores economics, and violates ethics-- all of which would need to be taken into account for AGCC believerism to be credible enough to be taken seriously. They ignore all the inconvenient factors, which is why they aren't credible, no matter how much they posture and preach. No matter how much they try to talk down to those who aren't falling for their violently imposed "solutions".

I believe the Earth's climate changes over time. I accept that it is possible human activities have changed the rate of change by adding atmospheric carbon dioxide. I don't doubt there is some amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide which would be trouble. I acknowledge that it is possible, although unlikely, that this climate change is entirely negative, with no benefits at all. I am more open-minded and scientifically oriented on this topic than any AGCC believer. And yet I'm not one of them and can't support them in any way. That offends their feelings.

I doubt their "solutions" are solutions. I know they aren't ethical-- more government control never is. If they get their way more problems will be created, yet they won't be held accountable. You can't let the perpetrator of the greatest amount of environmental damage-- The State-- tell everyone else what they are allowed to do. Not on this planet or any other. Denying this reality is science denial.

I am completely in favor of businesses and individuals finding ways to reduce pollution of every sort. It's dumb to foul your own nest. I am not in favor of imposing "solutions" at the barrel of a government gun, no matter what someone imagines will happen otherwise.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Late responders

If someone starts shooting innocent people in your presence, would you respond, or just look on slack-jawed?

If a fire breaks out would you do something, or just sit there in a daze?

As long as you respond, you are the first responder when something happens in your presence.

But what about those who show up in response to a 911 call? They are "delayed responders" or "late responders", not "first responders". Some of them may even be helpful good guys, as long as they aren't police. But they aren't first, even if they respond to the call.

Calling them "first responders" is a lie designed to brainwash you and prevent you from thinking. Or acting. "Leave it to the professionals". Ha.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Concealed carry key to safety for all

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 14, 2018)

I want you to be safe. I hope you don't do things to endanger yourself and others, and I want you prepared-- everywhere you go-- in case someone else means you harm.

In the past couple of weeks there have been at least two cases of some loser deciding to murder people who were harming no one. I will not boost the fame of these murderers by using their names; calling them losers is clear and accurate.

In one case, the loser chose his victims based on a delusion that their religious group was responsible for killing his people. It's a common type of delusion, but most people don't decide to murder because of their hallucinations.

In the more recent attack, the loser said, in social media posts he made around the time of his murders, that he was bored and didn't understand why mass shootings kept happening.

Mass murders happen when losers like him make the choice to murder people. It's not hard to figure out. And if your cure for boredom is to murder twelve people, you are evil.

Misguided people will blame the losers' guns, but you know what was missing, don't you? Guns in the hands of the right people; not identifiable security guards, who are easy targets. Widespread concealed carry is critical to your safety.

If something happens in your presence, you are the first responder. No one else is. The moment a crisis begins, no one else is in a better position to defend your life and the lives of those around you. Any law which makes it harder for you to do so is making the problem worse.

These murderous losers make me angry, but I get just as angry when political activists start clamoring for more anti-gun laws which can only guarantee the success of these losers.

There's no safety in hiding behind laws. Losers with murderous intent will not be stopped by laws-- even if you could magically make every gun vanish. Look at other parts of the world where similar losers choose knives, bombs, or cars for mass murder. You might as well make it illegal for the Sun to zap the Earth with X-rays; people intent on murder will pay just as much attention. Each situation is different, as is each loser's motivation, but other than trapping everyone in their own padded cell, there is no way to solve this with laws. The best cure is a commitment to defense.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

All cops are thieves; some are worse than others

You might be interested to read this piece on the crime of "civil asset forfeiture" which was sent to me by Ammo.com.

They are a little soft on policing in general, somehow not seeming to notice that policing is itself wrong, but the piece is very informative. And infuriating.

"Civil asset forfeiture" doesn't result in stuff being "effectively stolen" by cops; it results in stuff being stolen by cops. Period.

Theft is theft, no matter who is committing it, and no matter if they have "laws" giving them permission. There is simply no wiggle-room there. When cops steal they are the bad guys. Of course, cops are always the bad guys because they commit acts of law enforcement as a condition of continuing to get their cut of the stolen money (paychecks financed through "taxation"). This is part of the reason there is no such thing, and there never can be, as a "good cop". A cop who commits the crime of "civil asset forfeiture" is simply adding to his personal list of offenses to be tallied on the Liberty Offender Registry.

Cops are losers, and losers become cops.

But, still, you will want to read that piece to know what your enemies are up to.


_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Wilson vs the Forest Circus

I first met "Wilson" soon after he moved to the area. He told me he moved because he had lost his business. Personally, I think his business was stolen from him by the mafia Wilson always referred to as the "Forest Circus". These were the clowns who controlled (and rationed) the license which "allowed" Wilson to conduct his business.

His former business would be my dream business. In fact, I tried to think of a way we could go into partnership and start again, but unfortunately, it was never to be. Neither of us had the money to get it started.

He showed me one of his leftover brochures. I loved his idea.

What he did was take people into the Colorado wilderness on "public" [sic] land. Sounds simple, doesn't it. He charged what seemed to me to be a huge amount, but he had plenty of takers. He said he had as many as he could manage.

He then let them decide what they wanted out of the experience.

If they simply wanted to get away for a few days, that's what he helped them do. If they wanted to learn survival skills, he helped them with that. Whatever they were looking for, while having an experienced outdoorsman along, he tried to provide. He asked that they not take radios or anything like that on the trip, but otherwise didn't require anything too primitive unless that's what they wanted. He was always more modern than me anyway.

He made certain to walk "lightly" and leave as little trace as possible. This was partly self-interest, otherwise his future clients wouldn't have been happy with the scarred land and the trash, since he generally used the same area for each trip. He was conscientious about leaving little or no trace, and proved this to me time after time.

One thing he did was to go out the day before they left and bury a frozen Cornish game hen (one per person) and make sure that's where they ended up on the last day out when he would dig them up and cook them for a special meal. (He never mentioned any getting taken by bears.)

He had clients from all over the country. The one who apparently made the biggest impression on him was a city guy who was facing a bleak, short future with AIDS. He was the only client Wilson ever specifically talked about. The guy was very grateful for the experience of being immersed in nature's beauty and grandeur, and Wilson seemed moved by the chance to see the wilderness through that guy's eyes. When you see something every day it's almost impossible to avoid getting a little jaded. I think the dying man's joy jolted Wilson out of his apathy.

Unfortunately, I think that was one of the last customers he had before the bureaucrats of the US Forest "Service" decided to not allow him to renew his outfitter's license, but to give it to a political crony instead. Suddenly, Wilson's successful business was turned into a "crime". This infuriated him, and he never got over it. I can't really blame him.

He was soon broke and (mostly) homeless and moved to the western side of the pass where I lived. I would never have met him otherwise, but it really was a nasty thing they did to him. Something he never really recovered from-- emotionally or financially. I don't know how much he hated government before this happened (I heard stories) but they definitely made an enemy that day. Not that they care. But, if he ever goes Heemeyer* on them, I'll understand and sympathize.

-

*Interestingly enough, Marvin Heemeyer looked an awful lot like Wilson.


_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Choosing slavery-- A bewildering choice

Is every choice a person can make legitimate? I honestly don't know.

What if you choose to be a slave?

Choosing slavery seems to be the choice to kill off your liberty, just like suicide is the choice to kill your own body. Yet I am less uncomfortable with the choice to commit suicide (even though I don't like that choice) than I am with the choice to be a slave. I doubt you'd be able to regret killing yourself after it's done, but you'd certainly be able (and even likely) to regret-- for a long time-- choosing to be a slave.

Once you've chosen to be a slave, how do you change your choice if you come to regret it? If you can change your mind are you really enslaved?

I think about this when I see how many people choose to celebrate being a "citizen", which I consider to be the choice to be a slave to a collective; a government or a nation. Will that collective ever really let you change your mind once you've accepted the terms of your enslavement?

I understand the promised benefits of this arrangement. I can see why some have the desire to belong. I also realize that if certain conditions are met, the government in question will consider you a "citizen" regardless of your wishes. If you believe this government's claim is bogus to begin with, I don't really see much point in paying tons of money and fighting for years to make this government withdraw its claim to you. I'm more thinking about those who make this a big part of their personal identity and are proud of it.

If you choose to be a slave to a collective in such a way, is that a self-destructive choice? It sure looks like it to me.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Cranky and wallowing in it

Am I imagining things, or are statists getting crankier? Especially when called out for their statist nonsense. They lately seem more desperate to justify their archation, and more bizarre in their criticisms of liberty.

In a lot of ways, things aren't going at all well for me right now. But I'm not angry at the world and trying to take it out on everyone. It is what it is, and it's not "the World's" fault.

Yet, it seems like that's the case with so many statists recently. Just angry, spiteful, and hateful. Willing to take their frustration out on anyone who crosses their path. Especially someone who calls them out on their hypocrisy, inconsistency, or lack of rationality.

Maybe it's just that I'm less diplomatic than at other times in the past, but I'm seeing it in lots of places, and not only in response to me. So that makes me believe it's not just me.

Has anyone else noticed this? Is this what encountering those on the losing side of history looks like?

_______________

Reminder: I could really, really use some help.

-

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