The one way I support "border" walls

If someone wants a wall along their property line, and their property line happens to coincide with a government "border", I'm fine with there being a wall along that segment of the "border". Even if the adjacent property owner doesn't like the wall.

As long as they fund it themselves, or with voluntary contributions, and don't try to extend it beyond their own property lines.

In that case-- and ONLY in that case-- a border wall is not a property violation. But I've seen no one among the Wallists advocate for this kind of border wall.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help, but I'm not building a wall. Yet.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Uninformed, misinformed, brainwashed statists

If you don't watch "the news" you might be uninformed; if you watch it you will be misinformed.

"News" is opinion. There's no such thing as just presenting the facts; there never was. There's always going to be a slant to it. It's almost always a statist slant.

If they don't honestly portray cops as a gang, politicians as thieving thugs, government as religion, "laws" as slavery, they are not telling the truth. They are opinionizing. Lying. Covering up the truth to protect the bad guys.

Any bland "news" story about the "arrest" of a drug dealer, and the drugs, cash, and guns confiscated from him, is a nest of lies-- opinions, if I were to be nice about it. It will assume statism. It will assume the legitimacy of prohibition, "taxation", government police, "gun control" [sic], "laws", the "justice system", and a hundred other things which shouldn't be assumed.

They are selling their opinion to people who mostly agree with them (even when they feel they are on the other side), or who they are trying to fool into agreeing with them. It largely works.

I think that's why you see "Right" vs "Left" in almost all "news"/opinions. All "news" comes from one side or the other... yet the sides are really the same. They are statist, anti-liberty bigots to the core. So the "news" gets people to arguing over which of those identical twins is correct, when they are both wrong.

Statists live in a statist bubble, even if they sample statist opinions from the "other side". It's still only statism.

Libertarians don't have the option of living in a bubble. We get exposed to the other sides. All other sides. Constantly. Whether we intend to or not. It's unavoidable. That's why we are better informed than the uninformed or the misinformed statists. And it's why the statists try so hard to ridicule our position. They have to, otherwise they might realize they are losers going in circles, chasing hallucinations.

_______________

Reminder: I will inform you I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Past racism is the ugly past

I went through a phase where I was terribly racist. Mostly against "black" people.

It began soon after I moved to Arkansas from Texas. Interestingly enough, my elderly grandmother underwent the same transformation within a few months of also moving from Texas to Arkansas to be closer to us. Before she moved she had scolded me for saying ugly racist things, yet soon after she moved she was saying the same things she had previously objected to me saying.

My racist thoughts and feelings began to fade as soon as I left Arkansas.

Maybe it was a coincidence, or maybe there was a reason the area had that effect on two people who had never thought racist thoughts before. I can't say.

What I can say, and know, is this: I was wrong. I don't know a stronger way to say it. It was collectivist and disgusting. Nothing done to me personally can justify it. I should have simply focused my dislike on the individuals who were violating me, not on their "race" and not on individuals I grouped with them who had never done anything to me.

Yet, in the midst of my racism, I had a really good "black" friend. He always called me a "nigger" and I called him a "honkey"-- the most common racist slurs used by ignorant people against each group at that place and time. When we were hanging out I would "talk black" and he would "talk white". We switched roles in every way we could think of. We thought it was hilarious and we laughed hard over it. The other kids ignored us. The teachers were aghast but they didn't try to stop us. Imagine that happening today-- outside of follower-hungry YouTubers and "white" kids who want to emulate rappers, I mean.

I never wore "blackface" or a KKK robe and don't know of anyone who ever did. I knew a bunch of kids who revered the KKK (at least in theory) and bragged about relatives who belonged to it. But I didn't speak up against those things because I didn't care.

I'm ashamed of that now. I'm not that person anymore. I hope I'm a better person than I used to be.

Should I be judged on what I did and thought back then? I hope not. I'm horrified by my past self now and I don't even like sharing this.

This is all to say I think the current witch-hunt over the politician who is being scolded for a yearbook page, appearing on a page with someone in "blackface" and someone else in a KKK robe, is dumb. That was years ago-- he's not the same person today that he was then.

He's undoubtedly worse.

Criticize him for the wrong he's doing NOW. He's a politician, just like all other politicians-- including the politicians of the Congressional Black Caucus. That's evil. That's archation. His past is nothing but a distraction from his current krimes.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Social events no place for politics

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 2, 2019)

In spite of how libertarianism is often portrayed, it's not a middle ground between conservatism and progressivism. It's not even on the scale with those positions. But during social gatherings libertarians can be a neutral zone between conservative and liberal disagreement.

The silliness of the political right and left is clear to libertarians, yet we have common ground with each, on those few issues where they still support individual liberty. Progressives and conservatives are more similar to each other than they'll admit. Why should they fight over the minor details on which they disagree?

Cousin Xander might believe government should do something which Cousin Yolanda opposes, while Yolanda wants government to do something Xander feels would be the end of civilization. The libertarian in the room knows that neither cousin's wish excuses government violence. Pointing this out can distract the factions from being at each other's throats by giving them a common enemy.

Expressing skepticism about the importance of the issue they value enough to fight over can make them unite against you.

Grandpa Al and Grandpa Bill may revere different presidents and hate the presidents revered by the other. Their libertarian grand-kid can see the flaws of both politicians and the ridiculousness inherent in the office of president. To explain there's no substantive difference between their respective heroes is a sure way to help them forget their disagreement with each other for a moment.

Once you understand that all politics is the search to justify government violence against those who are looking for an excuse to use government violence against you, it's easy to see why politics doesn't belong in society. It also helps you understand why those who are arguing aren't nearly as different as they imagine.

If you find yourself under the boot of government violence you won't care whether it's a right boot or a left boot. Libertarians decry the boot while progressives and conservatives argue over which foot ought to be wearing it. Consistent libertarianism is non-political, which is why the Libertarian Party-- being political-- has such a hard time gaining traction among libertarians.

Personally, I don't think social occasions are any place for politics. Yet politics will crop up in the most devious ways and in the least appropriate places. Having a libertarian in the mix helps unite all the pro-government people against the one who can't embrace their government extremism. It's our sacrifice for the cause of world peace. Happy New Year!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Benefit of the doubt

When I say socialists/statists are stupid, it is my attempt to give them the benefit of the doubt. The unpleasant alternative, which I'm trying to avoid, is that they are evil. I believe evil is worse than being stupid.

Once they've decided it's OK to allow government to commit a "little bit" of theft or aggression (archation) on their behalf-- and if they're not stupid-- they've willingly chosen evil.

Why they did so-- fear, "culture", pragmatism, complications of statism, whatever-- doesn't figure in.

If I believe they are smart and yet they continue to advocate socialism/statism, stupidity is no longer an excuse. That option has been taken off the table. So what is left?

I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but they make it hard and don't appreciate it anyway.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Less emotional; more reasoned"

The first time I encountered social psychologist Jonathan Haidt I had a kind of visceral dislike for him. I don't even know why. However, I have since listened to more of his interviews and lectures and found some pearls there-- the instinctive dislike I felt at first has largely faded.

Yes, he is way too enamored of the State (as are so many). He can't even face the question of whether it is a legitimate human endeavor to govern others. It's assumed, and he only concerns himself with how it is carried out. That's a huge strike against him in my book.

Anyway, I was listening to this lecture/interview (from Skeptic.com) with him and got a laugh from this quote:

"Some people are less emotional, more reasoned. We call these people 'libertarians'. There's actually data on this-- that libertarians are lower on emotion, higher on reasoning ability. They have worse relationships, they care about people less, but they are better able to just reason through a lot of data."

If I felt any more emotion than I do, I think I would die. To believe I am less emotional than other people scares me. How do other people manage if they feel more emotions than I do? I can't even imagine the horror!

Beyond that, I care about people a great deal. That's why I don't want them robbed, enslaved, molested, murdered, or governed. Isn't it odd to believe that you "care more" if you're OK with doing these things to people?

He slipped up on a few other things, not realizing that socialists and communists aren't anarchists while consistent libertarians are, but I don't really expect outsiders to get the details correct. All in all, it was an interesting lecture and interview. I found things to agree with and things to roll my eyes over.

Added: I remembered why I disliked Haidt from the beginning. The first thing I ever saw (heard?) from him was an interview (by Jordan Peterson) where he was promoting something which smelled like "cultural purity"/excuses for borderism. Other things I have seen from him seem to back away from that a bit, so I may have misinterpreted what he was saying at first.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Taking the bait; abandoning the high ground

There is no such thing as an "unethical necessity" or "necessary evil". It's an oxymoron.

If something is necessary, it can't be unethical, and if something is unethical it can't be a necessity. Maybe you can't see another way, but it's there. It is never necessary to rape a baby, in other words.

Those who believe in such fantasies have fallen prey to pragmatism.

Yes, I can understand why they do it. Principles are hard. They may not even be safe to stick with-- no one ever said doing the right thing was easy, safe, or would result in instant (or eventual) Utopia. But it's still the right thing.

For some reason, Trump and "immigration" have fooled more people into abandoning principles-- and what's right-- than anything I've ever personally witnessed. Maybe other things were stronger archation bait in the past, but that must have been before my time.

This would be scary, except that I understand the concept of winnowing grain; to allow the chaff and harmful debris to fly away with the breeze so it doesn't end up choking you in your food. So I see this as a way to see who's on the side of liberty, and who was hanging around while it was convenient and easy. Seeing some of those who have chosen to fly to statism at the earliest provocation has been a huge surprise... and a bitter disappointment... to me.

Someone has to stake out the ethical, principled ground. There are plenty of pragmatists and quislings around; that position is well represented. No more of them are needed.

If you approach every problem from the position that statism is unavoidable (or necessary), you're going to find statist "solutions" to accommodate your statist objections every time. You'll be blind to real, lasting voluntary solutions when you assume statism. Thus you'll justify States and all the horrid things which come along with them-- while using the inevitable results of statism to show why "we need statism". You'll get angry at anyone who points out that your assumptions are flawed.

And that is the unvarnished reality.

_______________

Reminder: Another unvarnished reality is that I could use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

How theft and slavery became "legal", normal, and acceptable

With all you ever wanted to know-- and more-- about the practice of "income taxation", I present this piece from Ammo.com:
The 16th Amendment: How the U.S. Federal Income Tax Became D.C.'s Favorite Political Weapon

_______________

Reminder: I don't steal, so I could really use some voluntary help.

-

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

Scott Adams doesn't understand "plant food"

Scott Adams says the observation that "carbon dioxide is plant food" is a terrible argument-- an "embarrassing opinion"-- for AGCC skepticism.

He's wrong.

Here's why:

When plants "eat" CO2 they take it out of the air and turn it into plant matter. Even if carbon dioxide raises the climate's temperature as the AGCC activists claim, once a plant removes it from the air, it isn't available in the atmosphere to raise the temperature anymore. That's how "eating" something works. It is removed from availability in one form (in this case, atmospheric gas) and turned into a different form (leaves, wood, flowers, stalks, roots, seeds, fruit, etc.).

And, yes, each individual plant might be able to only use a limited amount of carbon dioxide, but plants reproduce. If you improve their growing conditions with more "food" (and sufficient light), they can reproduce more. If you've ever had an aquarium or a pond experience an algae bloom you've seen conditions result in more plantlife. And one of the most effective ways to end the algae bloom is to add other plants which will use up the "plant food" available in the water until it is reduced to a level where it can't encourage excess plant growth.

But to say that the addition of CO2 will raise the temperature and kill the plants so that they can no longer "eat" the CO2 is overlooking the main effect of plants taking CO2 from the air and using it to make more plant matter. More plants = less CO2 in the atmosphere available to warm the climate.

Now, when those plants rot or burn, that CO2 will be released into the air again. But, more CO2 could result in more plant mass overall, trapping the CO2 in a form which can't contribute to "climate change" at least for a time. Coal is plant matter, made of atmospheric CO2 removed from the air long ago (~359 to 299 million years ago, in fact) and stored in a fairly stable form. Once that carbon dioxide was in the form of plant matter-- living plants or coal-- it couldn't help heat the world until it burned.

Sometimes a person tries so hard to look unbiased and "scientific" that they fall into a reality trap. This seems to be one of those times for Scott Adams.

-

If you want to read more of what I've had to say about Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) over the years, here ya go: link.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some change to my economic climate.

-

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

Homosexuality isn't the issue

Back when I was a follower of a religion which condemned homosexuality, I went along and believed it was wrong, just like I was told to believe. Still, I could never really figure out how it was supposed to be a threat to me. I didn't give it that much thought.

During my teenage years I had begun to realize my youngest sister was probably a lesbian, although I never said anything to her about it. It wasn't an issue and was none of my business until she chose to make it my business.

In my early 20s I got "hit on" by an older guy at a park while I was taking my lunch break away from work. I wasn't rude-- I just mentioned my wife and hinted I wasn't interested. There was no problem; the guy just went on his way.

Years later, a gay friend hit on me at karaoke one night. Again I just said I wasn't interested in guys and let it drop. We remained friends.

I've been propositioned online several times over the years, especially during the chat room days. There was no need for me to be rude about it. I can't blame someone for taking a chance.

As the years passed I became more and more libertarian (even before I knew what to call it). This powered up my inability to be offended over such things. I came to see that all humans have equal and identical rights, and that's that. No one has "extra" rights; no one has "limited" rights. Your sexuality doesn't even figure in. I see this more clearly every passing day.

Which brings us to now. There is one apparently homosexual person who is offending me, and some are trying to twist my offense into being about homosexuality. I don't think it is.

My 11-year-old daughter has a "frienemy" who has been trying to bully her-- with the encouragement of the girl's parents-- into a lesbian relationship. It has been going on for a year and a half now. This girl acts like a friend until she draws my daughter in, and then she does the nastiest, meanest things I have ever seen a kid do-- totally crushing my daughter with her backstabbing. This drives my daughter away from her. As soon as she realizes my daughter is out of her control, she acts sweet and reels her in again-- and convinces her that she's my daughter's only "real friend" and that her parents can't be trusted. This repeats endlessly. This has led to some difficult and uncomfortable parenting decisions on my part.

The other girl's parents have even tried to talk my daughter into leaving home and moving in with their family so the girls can be together. They are all trying to make this into an issue of anti-gay bigotry, when it is nothing of the sort. You abuse and backstab my daughter, and manipulate her to try to drive a wedge between us, and I don't care who or what you are. I'll hope for your destruction. My older daughter was trapped in an abusive heterosexual relationship for 7 of the last 8 years of her life. This is a line you don't want to cross with me. My tolerance for such things has been used up.

"Mad" doesn't begin to cover it.

My daughter can choose to be in a developmentally appropriate relationship with whoever she chooses, but I will do what I can to protect her from an abuser. And this girl is quite definitely an abuser and a bully, even if my daughter refuses to see it.

And, by the way, my (lesbian) sister agrees with me.

Interesting times.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some economic help, too.

-

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

Wilson's government "job"

As much as "Wilson" disliked and distrusted government, he did have a government "job" most of the time I knew him.

He had been stopped by a cop at some point, and ticketed for something. Probably "driving without a license", but I'm not certain of that (I do know he never had a driver's license as long as I knew him). Part of his "fine" was community "service" at the recycling center-- I think he was there for a couple of months. (I met him during his stint at the recycling center.)

Apparently, the supervisor was impressed enough with his work that he offered Wilson a permanent job at the landfill.

Even better was what Wilson was to do as his job: he just walked around the perimeter fence all day picking up escaped trash. Honestly, he really enjoyed it. It didn't pay as well as the job government cronyism had stolen from him earlier, but it was peaceful, undemanding, and he was left alone from the time a co-worker dropped him off in the morning until he picked him up at night.

He carried a backpack, his .40 pistol, and a "wrist rocket" type slingshot. For his lunch break he would often use the slingshot to shoot a grouse, then cook it over a small fire. Occasionally he shot an extra grouse and took it home for a later meal (he offered me a bird once or twice).

I never questioned him about the contradiction of working for an entity he despised-- it was none of my business. I just knew the job suited him better than most other available jobs.


_______________

Reminder: I don't mean to grouse, but I could really use some help.

-

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

Looking back, hoping for liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 26, 2018)

Here we go, wrapping up another year. While there's still the possibility of something significant happening in the final days of December, there's an even better chance nothing significant will happen, but something trivial will be overblown to seem important.

Until that happens, how do things look?

For yet another year, after too long following the same downward path, the U.S. is still trying to become everything it previously opposed about the late Soviet Union.

Political prisoner Ross Ulbricht rots in prison, and two of liberty's heroes-- Julian Assange and Edward Snowden-- sit just out of reach of the U.S. government so as to avoid also becoming permanent political prisoners of the regime. This is how far the U.S. has gone toward replacing the USSR as the enemy of human rights and liberty.

It's fixable if enough people demand it.

Closer to home, the people who vote still seem to believe it matters which party has the power. Most of them don't seem to notice there's a Democrat in threadbare Republican clothing occupying the White House.

On a happier note, we received a year-end treat. An increasingly common one, but one which inspires hopeful daydreams. What is this gift? We've been given a government shutdown.

I realize it's not much. The only parts of the government to shut down are those parts the market would better serve if actually allowed to compete; those parts which will inconvenience the people most by closing. The shutdown is temporary and the non-essential employees still end up getting paid when the theatrics are over.

All the parts of government which violate your life, liberty, and property continue governing as usual. All such shutdowns are imaginary; nothing but political drama. If you want to keep your government, don't worry; the politicians can't risk you adjusting to being without it. You might realize how useless it is, which wouldn't be good for the job security of those who need you to believe they are necessary.

In the end, the political clowns will save us from this "horror" by reaching a deal to keep the government fueled with your money-- until the next time they can use another threatened shutdown against each other.

In reality, if liberty started taking hold, they'll have found a way to re-open government by the time you read this. Still, it's a happy thought while it lasts.

Whether you prefer liberty or government, freedom or slavery, I hope this holiday season is treating you and yours well.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

That razor ad

I finally got around to watching the razor advertisement that has so many people worked up.

I didn't think it was too bad, only a little insulting in the assumptions it made. But not very. I've known men like those portrayed negatively. But I also don't think all the behavior portrayed in a negative way is entirely negative. Not if I believe the species should continue. Perhaps that's the quibble.

If I had any of that company's products, I wouldn't toss them out over the ad. But I also wouldn't rush out to buy them in support of the company.

Not that I'm in the market for a razor.

I've never even used a modern safety razor (is that what they are called?) I have the same electric Norelco I've used a couple of times per week since my 17th birthday. I also shave with my knives sometimes when I'm bored. Once or twice I've even used an old straight razor which belonged to my great-great-grandfather (which is the razor pictured above). As a way to connect with family history, I guess.

The ad in question is just a case of a big company trying to look all SocialJusticy and score points with people who aren't even its customers. Probably not the smartest move, but not suicidal, either.

_______________

Reminder: I'm on the razor's edge and could really use some help.

-

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

Addicts can't think outside their box

A heroin addict might not like the side effects and other consequences of being addicted to heroin, but giving up the drug is unthinkable, so they try to find ways around the consequences which don't involve giving up heroin.

Statists don't like some of the side effects and consequences of statism, but giving up the State is unthinkable so they try to find ways around the consequences which don't involve giving up their drug.

Thus you have borderists screaming that you can't get rid of government borders or you'll have people flocking to America to get free stuff from "welfare" or committing crime. They can't even see that they're in a box, much less think outside it.

This utter lack of awareness illustrates my point about statism being an addiction.

No part of statism is a given. Any of it can be eliminated; all of it can be eliminated. That one part of it excuses another part doesn't mean you have to keep either part. Ditch them both. It's the sensible thing to do.


_______________

Reminder: I could really use a "hit" of help.

-

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

An accidental bullseye

Statist: "Of course YOU don't care about the government shutdown that's hurting so many people, because it's not hurting you, personally!"

Me: BINGO!!*

-

*And if you think that's an accidental quirk of fate, you'd be missing the point. I don't want the fake "shutdown" to hurt you, either, but you placed yourself in the position to be hurt. Against my advice.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

That one's a thinker!

The Facebook post stated "Claiming that income tax is moral, is a claim that slavery is moral.".

That's a completely reasonable statement. But someone then posted a comment saying, "Wealth tax is required." Whatever a "wealth tax" is.

I responded with a link to my "Theft by any other name" video.

She replied, "No taxes, no army. No army, no defence. No defence, no state. No state, no laws. No laws, no peace."

I said, 

"I don't need a theft-funded army for my defense. Why would you imagine you do?
The state is your enemy, or you don't understand what the State is. http://famguardian.org/.../OurEnemyTheState...

http://mises.org/daily/2352

There are only two kinds of "law": the unnecessary and the harmful. Which type do you imagine promotes peace?

"Laws" against actual wrongs (murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, assault, trespass, etc.) are unnecessary. These "laws" aren't necessary for you to have the right to defend yourself from these acts.

"Laws" against anything else (vices, trade, tools of defense, resisting government theft and aggression, etc.) -- AND "laws" allowing government employees to commit the actual wrongs in the first list as long as they are called something else (taxation, war, officer safety, arrest, airport security, etc.), are harmful.

Your argument fails."

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have included the last sentence. 

Her dismissive last shot? "neat. Don't complicate a complex argument and sleep tight! 😁"

So is she saying her comment was "complex"? I guess she's too deep a thinker for me.

_______________

Reminder: I think I could really use some help.

-

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

Fear first, ask questions later

It seems the matter is settled. If a cop "fears" for its life, it can commit murder and get away with it. No actual threat is necessary.

If it's OK for a cop to shoot a chihuahua or a fleeing teen because it chants "I feared for my life", then it is OK for anyone else to shoot people and pets using the same excuse. Anything less is a dangerous double standard.

And, if that were consistently the case all cops would be dead. Good riddance!

Every "official" encounter with a cop is an encounter with an armed government molester who would face small consequences for murdering you-- if it faces any at all. If you don't kiss its boots fast enough, you'll scare it. That's as good as permission to murder you.

When this happens, you are experiencing a police state. But it can get worse. Unless the people targeted by cops act to stop it, it will get worse.

Whether or not you are in fear of your life when a cop is around, your life is in danger. They've created the situation. I wonder how they'll react when it comes to fruition.

_______________

Reminder: I fear I could really use some help.

-

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

Solar shouldn't be forced on city

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 19, 2018)

I'm in favor of solar energy. I'm not in favor of city commissions spending money on it, or on anything else.

The news that the Clovis City commissioners want to spend your money for land on which solar energy could be "developed" sounds like more government-as-usual to me. Once the money is spent, who is to guarantee the land would be used as promised, or that there would ever be a payoff? Spend other people's money now, benefit later... maybe, if everything works out exactly as we imagine, which it never does.

This kind of financial speculation is best left to the market rather than letting politics get involved. The market doesn't spend any money it didn't earn and any risk is voluntary. With politics, all the money is taken by threat (if you don't see the threat, refuse to pay the taxes) and the politicians assume no personal risk. The risk is passed along to you whether you want it or not.

Solar power panels-- which are what is being talked about when solar energy is mentioned-- aren't as environmentally friendly as portrayed. They use a lot of land unless they are placed atop existing buildings and manufacturing them creates toxic byproducts. Nothing is free. For these reasons, and more, governments should stay out of it.

As I say, I like solar power. I have a solar charger I sometimes use for charging my phone. Years ago when I was trying to make my first car-- an electric car-- more practical, I looked into installing solar panels on its roof to help charge the batteries while I drove, or while parked where I couldn't plug in. Unfortunately for my grand scheme, I quickly discovered any benefits were greatly outweighed by the costs, but it had seemed like a good idea at first.

Kind of like government spending your money on anything.

Had I forced other people to pay for my car's solar panels, regardless of any actual payoff, using the excuse that society benefits just because my car could potentially go a few yards farther down the road, I would have been behaving politically. This is something I won't do.

If I'd had the money I would have bought the solar panels myself. Any potential benefit would have been mine alone, but so would the risk. No one else would have been hurt if the idea was a complete failure. It's the civilized way to do everything.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

It's OK to be me and it's OK to be you

It's OK to be "white".
It's OK to be male.
It's OK to be heterosexual.

To believe otherwise is dumb. To punish someone for saying so is evil.

But wait, there's more!

It's OK to be "black" or any other "race".
It's OK to be female or a hermaphrodite.
It's OK to be homosexual or whatever.

None of the above categories or distinctions are important. It doesn't matter if you are "white", "black", female, male, heterosexual, homosexual, or anything else. Not one bit.

What is important is that it's NOT OK to be an archator of any sort. Not ever.

It's hard to believe this is even controversial. That saying such things can get a person in trouble. I'll own the truth and accept the trouble.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Prisons are a growing threat

I've mentioned before how much I hate prisons.

Prison is a racket, and it's not better to do something "privately" when it's wrong to do it at all.

Even when something isn't necessarily wrong, if I don't want it, I don't want to pay for it. That's the same reason I would never voluntarily fund a private police force. You want it, YOU pay for it and leave me out of it.

Besides, how "private" is something when it can't exist without government creating a niche for it and being its only "customer"? I don't think that's "private" at all. Just fascism, cronyism, or some other form of corruption.

Anyway, Ammo.com has a very informative and infuriating look at the prison industry. It looks at even more of the incriminating factors that make prison a net negative.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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