Wednesday, November 02, 2016
Tuesday, November 01, 2016
Don't misidentify things
Once, in a high school zoology class, the teacher set out a bunch of preserved samples for us to classify. It was for a quiz or a test. We were to study them, and then be able to identify them on a test the next day.
I noticed that a flounder was mislabeled as a "skate" or "ray"- a completely different type of fish.
I pointed this out to the teacher.
He said that since he only had that one specimen as an (incorrect) example of "Chondrichthyes" I needed to pretend that's what it was for the test.
I told him he was teaching the students something that was wrong- misleading them. Giving them bad information. He insisted that it didn't matter, and I needed to just go along.
I refused. I kept saying "but it isn't what the label says it is!"
He had a bit of an outburst and said I was beating a dead horse.
I dropped the matter, but didn't ignore the lie.
I don't remember the outcome, other than I refused to call it something it wasn't just to satisfy him. Did he mark my answer as "wrong"? Or, did he give me credit for the unwanted right answer?
I'm still the same way. I won't misidentify something just to make a liar more comfortable. And they still don't like it.
I noticed that a flounder was mislabeled as a "skate" or "ray"- a completely different type of fish.
I pointed this out to the teacher.
He said that since he only had that one specimen as an (incorrect) example of "Chondrichthyes" I needed to pretend that's what it was for the test.
I told him he was teaching the students something that was wrong- misleading them. Giving them bad information. He insisted that it didn't matter, and I needed to just go along.
I refused. I kept saying "but it isn't what the label says it is!"
He had a bit of an outburst and said I was beating a dead horse.
I dropped the matter, but didn't ignore the lie.
I don't remember the outcome, other than I refused to call it something it wasn't just to satisfy him. Did he mark my answer as "wrong"? Or, did he give me credit for the unwanted right answer?
I'm still the same way. I won't misidentify something just to make a liar more comfortable. And they still don't like it.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Taking Teddy Bears
There is a situation someone was sharing on Facebook that made me really angry.
A friend's daughter had a stuffed toy rabbit she'd had and loved since she was a baby- maybe since she was born. She is now 13 years old and still loves and sleeps with the toy.
And someone stole it, just to hurt her.
If that's not evil, then nothing is.
Her dad believes he knows who stole the toy, but can't prove it. Without proof he can't go kicking in doors and choking suspects- because he isn't a bad guy.
You might think a 13 year-old ought not be that attached to a toy. I might agree in principle- but I have to admit I can completely empathize with her. She wasn't hurting anyone. Whether she "should" be that attached to a toy isn't the point- she was, and someone violated her property and hurt her. On purpose.
That infuriates me.
I know there are others who are just as attached to other things- or even myths they mistake for things- that are harmful. Like The State.
If what they love so much didn't directly violate other people, I would say you need to leave them alone and let them keep their figurative teddy bear. The problem is, with the State, their teddy bear only continues to be as long as it is fed the blood of innocents.
These are the people who- as long as they can't stay out of the lives of the rest of us- need to have their beloved thing ripped from their hands and destroyed. Not innocent 13 year-old girls whose beloved possession isn't harming anyone.
A friend's daughter had a stuffed toy rabbit she'd had and loved since she was a baby- maybe since she was born. She is now 13 years old and still loves and sleeps with the toy.
And someone stole it, just to hurt her.
If that's not evil, then nothing is.
Her dad believes he knows who stole the toy, but can't prove it. Without proof he can't go kicking in doors and choking suspects- because he isn't a bad guy.
You might think a 13 year-old ought not be that attached to a toy. I might agree in principle- but I have to admit I can completely empathize with her. She wasn't hurting anyone. Whether she "should" be that attached to a toy isn't the point- she was, and someone violated her property and hurt her. On purpose.
That infuriates me.
I know there are others who are just as attached to other things- or even myths they mistake for things- that are harmful. Like The State.
If what they love so much didn't directly violate other people, I would say you need to leave them alone and let them keep their figurative teddy bear. The problem is, with the State, their teddy bear only continues to be as long as it is fed the blood of innocents.
These are the people who- as long as they can't stay out of the lives of the rest of us- need to have their beloved thing ripped from their hands and destroyed. Not innocent 13 year-old girls whose beloved possession isn't harming anyone.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Presidential debates have no value
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 30, 2016- Please note, my CNJ columns have moved to Wednesdays. The paper made some cuts, and dropped some opinion columns, but I survived the cut.)
Presidential debates are trivial entertainment (my chosen headline)
Is there value in time spent watching two liars trying to out-lie each other?
A lot of people seem to believe so. They watch presidential debates, and pretend they matter.
People have been fooled into believing "it's a two-party system" and a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote, and the debates confirm this belief. So, they continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, ignoring the fact that there are multiple evils to choose from.
Therefore, one of those two debating liars will soon be declared the president-elect of the tax-farm called "The United States". This winner will be using employees who will try to force you to behave in certain ways, and using your stolen property (stolen through "taxation") against you.
So you watch the debates.
It isn't necessary.
You want to know what to expect from the next president, right? I can give you a preview of what to expect right now.
The declared winner will build upon the misdeeds of his or her predecessors in the office. Even those things they criticized while campaigning. It's easier to condemn actions before you have the power to get away with committing them. I'm sure the new president's intentions will be pure, though. They always claim so.
All campaign promises will be ignored, but it will be explained that the promises aren't being broken; you aren't smart enough to see the Big Picture. As soon as a new president is let in on all the government secrets kept by the unelected people actually in power, it becomes clear why the indiscreet promises must be forgotten. It probably concerns the superstition called "National Security".
There's still hope. While no president is anywhere near as decent as his supporters want you to believe, neither is any president as bad as his opposition claims. Presidents are simply the gunk which floats to the top of the political soup, to be scooped up and held aloft as someone more noble than the rest of humanity.
Contrary to claims I have seen, presidents are unfit to imitate. If you believe a president-- any president-- should be a role model for children, you should probably put down the bong. Or pick one up. Because whatever you're doing isn't working.
As long as you are entertained by presidential debates, and don't take them too seriously, have fun watching. I have more important things to do, such as alphabetizing my cereals and sorting my cats' whiskers by length.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
Presidential debates are trivial entertainment (my chosen headline)
Is there value in time spent watching two liars trying to out-lie each other?
A lot of people seem to believe so. They watch presidential debates, and pretend they matter.
People have been fooled into believing "it's a two-party system" and a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote, and the debates confirm this belief. So, they continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, ignoring the fact that there are multiple evils to choose from.
Therefore, one of those two debating liars will soon be declared the president-elect of the tax-farm called "The United States". This winner will be using employees who will try to force you to behave in certain ways, and using your stolen property (stolen through "taxation") against you.
So you watch the debates.
It isn't necessary.
You want to know what to expect from the next president, right? I can give you a preview of what to expect right now.
The declared winner will build upon the misdeeds of his or her predecessors in the office. Even those things they criticized while campaigning. It's easier to condemn actions before you have the power to get away with committing them. I'm sure the new president's intentions will be pure, though. They always claim so.
All campaign promises will be ignored, but it will be explained that the promises aren't being broken; you aren't smart enough to see the Big Picture. As soon as a new president is let in on all the government secrets kept by the unelected people actually in power, it becomes clear why the indiscreet promises must be forgotten. It probably concerns the superstition called "National Security".
There's still hope. While no president is anywhere near as decent as his supporters want you to believe, neither is any president as bad as his opposition claims. Presidents are simply the gunk which floats to the top of the political soup, to be scooped up and held aloft as someone more noble than the rest of humanity.
Contrary to claims I have seen, presidents are unfit to imitate. If you believe a president-- any president-- should be a role model for children, you should probably put down the bong. Or pick one up. Because whatever you're doing isn't working.
As long as you are entertained by presidential debates, and don't take them too seriously, have fun watching. I have more important things to do, such as alphabetizing my cereals and sorting my cats' whiskers by length.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
Here's your "stupid" sign
Around town I see a couple of signs that warn me to not spend money with certain businesses.
No. I won't support dangerous gangs. I don't support those who violate peaceful people, no matter what their justification might be. And I don't support those who do. It's a pathetic quisling act to go out of your way to announce your support of scum.
I will not be spending any money at any business that advertises their support for gang activities. Policing is NOT about a person; it is about a set of aggressive, thieving behaviors. Behaviors no decent person would ever commit or condone.
It's a good thing that those who love rapists, murderers, thieves, and other molesters (with badges) let me know that they support the bad guys, so I can choose not to spend my precious dollars with them. If only all thug-lovers were so open about it.
But, I'm sure they are rewarded by copsuckers far beyond the loss of my piddling purchases. It's what "polite society" does. "Polite society" worships the parasites that feed on it.
"Support the Blue. We do"
"Support law enforcement"
No. I won't support dangerous gangs. I don't support those who violate peaceful people, no matter what their justification might be. And I don't support those who do. It's a pathetic quisling act to go out of your way to announce your support of scum.
I will not be spending any money at any business that advertises their support for gang activities. Policing is NOT about a person; it is about a set of aggressive, thieving behaviors. Behaviors no decent person would ever commit or condone.
It's a good thing that those who love rapists, murderers, thieves, and other molesters (with badges) let me know that they support the bad guys, so I can choose not to spend my precious dollars with them. If only all thug-lovers were so open about it.
But, I'm sure they are rewarded by copsuckers far beyond the loss of my piddling purchases. It's what "polite society" does. "Polite society" worships the parasites that feed on it.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Should be embarrassed, but not smart enough to realize it
"All taxes are theft and should be abolished? That means police, firefighters, the entire justice system, the military, all public infrastructure like roads and bridges, etc. should be funded through private donations? All those generous, philanthropic Americans out there would just graciously donate money to these groups even without a tax deduction (since there would be nothing to deduct from)? That sounds like the apocalypse, and would go over like a lead balloon. But at least the 'taxes steal our money' argument would disappear because there would be no Treasury or U.S. Mint to print the money we use. There will be no Federal Reserve either, so who's going to set interest rates, people on Wall Street? The SEC? Haha! Within a decade we'll be back in the Middle Ages trading chickens for grain. Sounds awesome. And don't tell me we could just privatize the Department of Treasury since that idea is so inherently flawed that the premise itself is illogical."
This is the so-called "thinking" of a statist. Posted without shame and free of irony on social media.
The flaws in his premises are so obvious they don't even seem worth pointing out. Feel free to do so anyway, in the comments. And they are numerous. Every scenario he apparently fears is based on an utter misunderstanding of how reality works, and what the bullies of "government" do.
I'll address just one of his delusions: money.
Money requires no government. If people want it, they will create it- without a "Federal Reserve" or a "Treasury Department" making bad money and ordering them to use it. And people WILL want money for most trades. I guarantee it.
Interest rates don't need to be "set" by anyone- they'll find their balance. Interest rates are like any other price. The market will find a price range, depending on many factors. If the "people on Wall Street" decided on an interest rate that was not in line with the market for money, anyone anywhere could compete with them, and beat them. It takes a government to protect a monopoly.
It should encourage you to know this is what we are up against. This is how the brighter-than-average statist on the street thinks. It is also how most of those who work for government think. And this is why they will go extinct. Sure, right now they have the drop on us. They have more guns and an open season on us. That situation won't last. I don't know when it will end, but it will end.
Bide your time. Prepare. Learn. Think. Educate. Speak up in private conversations and anywhere you believe it might have an impact. There is a change in the wind, and I can smell something new.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Always move toward liberty
(Previously posted to Patreon)
You can debate whether someone's chosen path toward liberty is smart or effective, but as long as the path they follow is truly toward more liberty, I'm in support of them. And it doesn't depend on the reaction of anti-liberty bigots- you can't live your life for them.
I would say, that as far as any particular method goes, I'm an agnostic. Even if I am unconvinced, let me see it actually work, and I'll get on board (or at least keep my doubts to myself). Until then I'll try to not be too critical, but I may be very skeptical. Being skeptical isn't the same as being negative. Or, if I realize a path I formerly supported leads the wrong direction, away from liberty and toward more theft and aggression, I may try to point that out, but I can't force anyone to change course.
I saw this happen with Bitcoin. I really didn't understand the hostility some people had against it. Sure, it might not work, but it sure looked like an attempt to go in the right direction. Let the experiment run and produce some data before flinging mud at it.
Wikileaks, too. I never see it as moving in the wrong direction to expose information the anti-liberty bigots don't want known. That it endangers some of their employees just raises the cost of being a tool of the State- and that's a good thing.
Maybe the same is true of v*ting. I doubt it, based on hundreds of years of pretty clear evidence, but some people keep trying to make it work. I am skeptical it ever can, and have laid out my reasons I won't be participating, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Just show me instead of calling me names. Convince this agnostic.
Keeping and bearing arms is the same. I am completely in favor of open carry. I have done it a lot- but not here. The bullies here are of the opinion that they can make up rules forbidding it, and they are happy to murder those who ignore any of their rules. And I don't have enough who would defy along with me. I would be the nail sticking up- even more than I already am. I cheer for open carry activists. Yes, it may scare some cowardly statists to see a gun. It may "drive people to the other side". But cowardly statists aren't going to be on the side of liberty anyway- if you coddle them it just makes them feel their opinions are as valid as anyone else's... and they aren't. Open carry is a move in the direction of more liberty- even if the cowards want to push back. Maybe in the long run it won't work, but no one can know that for sure. And open carrying is part of liberty. Pretending that someone shouldn't exercise their liberty because it will offend anti-liberty bigots isn't moving toward liberty.
The same could be said of my blog. It may not "work" and bring about more liberty to anyone, but at least I don't think anyone could seriously suggest it is moving in the wrong direction- away from Rightful Liberty.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. But, make sure you are always going in the right direction- it's the only thing that really matters.
You can debate whether someone's chosen path toward liberty is smart or effective, but as long as the path they follow is truly toward more liberty, I'm in support of them. And it doesn't depend on the reaction of anti-liberty bigots- you can't live your life for them.
I would say, that as far as any particular method goes, I'm an agnostic. Even if I am unconvinced, let me see it actually work, and I'll get on board (or at least keep my doubts to myself). Until then I'll try to not be too critical, but I may be very skeptical. Being skeptical isn't the same as being negative. Or, if I realize a path I formerly supported leads the wrong direction, away from liberty and toward more theft and aggression, I may try to point that out, but I can't force anyone to change course.
I saw this happen with Bitcoin. I really didn't understand the hostility some people had against it. Sure, it might not work, but it sure looked like an attempt to go in the right direction. Let the experiment run and produce some data before flinging mud at it.
Wikileaks, too. I never see it as moving in the wrong direction to expose information the anti-liberty bigots don't want known. That it endangers some of their employees just raises the cost of being a tool of the State- and that's a good thing.
Maybe the same is true of v*ting. I doubt it, based on hundreds of years of pretty clear evidence, but some people keep trying to make it work. I am skeptical it ever can, and have laid out my reasons I won't be participating, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Just show me instead of calling me names. Convince this agnostic.
Keeping and bearing arms is the same. I am completely in favor of open carry. I have done it a lot- but not here. The bullies here are of the opinion that they can make up rules forbidding it, and they are happy to murder those who ignore any of their rules. And I don't have enough who would defy along with me. I would be the nail sticking up- even more than I already am. I cheer for open carry activists. Yes, it may scare some cowardly statists to see a gun. It may "drive people to the other side". But cowardly statists aren't going to be on the side of liberty anyway- if you coddle them it just makes them feel their opinions are as valid as anyone else's... and they aren't. Open carry is a move in the direction of more liberty- even if the cowards want to push back. Maybe in the long run it won't work, but no one can know that for sure. And open carrying is part of liberty. Pretending that someone shouldn't exercise their liberty because it will offend anti-liberty bigots isn't moving toward liberty.
The same could be said of my blog. It may not "work" and bring about more liberty to anyone, but at least I don't think anyone could seriously suggest it is moving in the wrong direction- away from Rightful Liberty.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. But, make sure you are always going in the right direction- it's the only thing that really matters.
Competition is good!
The boots I wear all the time were good boots. They were given to me for Christmas about 8 years ago, and I wear them every day. I have climbed all over rocky canyons, walked rough mountain trails, and even crossed many a parking lot (which, in my experience is harder on footwear than anything else) in them. They have scratches, but keep holding up for the most part.
When the soles and heels start wearing out, I just run to the boot repair place and get them fixed up and ready for more years and miles. The cost has been about $25 to $40 both times I've had them fixed. Not a bad deal at all, considering what a new pair would cost me.
But, things change.
My boot repair shop went out of business a while back.
Not to worry; I knew there were more places around.
Well, now it is time for another repair. I looked and found that there were still two boot repair places listed locally. I took that information and headed out with my boots.
Then I hit a snag. The first place seems to no longer exist, and the phone number is non-working. Oops. Well, there's still one place.
So, that's where I went.
Unfortunately, they no longer have any competition in the area. What cost me $40 at most just a couple of years ago will cost me $90 this time! (I have no idea how I'm going to pay for it, either!)
I'm hoping that a lack of competition doesn't also affect the quality of their work. I guess I'll find that out next week.
Competition has benefited me in the past, and now a lack of competition looks as though it's going to cost me. I suppose the boot repair place is happy they no longer have any competition.
Competition keeps prices down, and keeps quality (and customer satisfaction) up. Just look at what happens without it- it's like government when there's no competition. Yes, I realize I still have a choice, so it's not completely government-like. I can drive somewhere else and find someone who might repair my boots more cheaply, or I can just buy new footwear, or buy something for my feet from Goodwill (Salvation Army had better prices, but they closed the local store a couple of years ago), or I can make some moccs. There are always choices, even if I don't like any of them.
I plead to the market gods- please inspire someone to open a new boot repair shop in the area! I can't afford the situation as it now exists.
When the soles and heels start wearing out, I just run to the boot repair place and get them fixed up and ready for more years and miles. The cost has been about $25 to $40 both times I've had them fixed. Not a bad deal at all, considering what a new pair would cost me.
But, things change.
My boot repair shop went out of business a while back.
Not to worry; I knew there were more places around.
Well, now it is time for another repair. I looked and found that there were still two boot repair places listed locally. I took that information and headed out with my boots.
Then I hit a snag. The first place seems to no longer exist, and the phone number is non-working. Oops. Well, there's still one place.
So, that's where I went.
Unfortunately, they no longer have any competition in the area. What cost me $40 at most just a couple of years ago will cost me $90 this time! (I have no idea how I'm going to pay for it, either!)
I'm hoping that a lack of competition doesn't also affect the quality of their work. I guess I'll find that out next week.
Competition has benefited me in the past, and now a lack of competition looks as though it's going to cost me. I suppose the boot repair place is happy they no longer have any competition.
Competition keeps prices down, and keeps quality (and customer satisfaction) up. Just look at what happens without it- it's like government when there's no competition. Yes, I realize I still have a choice, so it's not completely government-like. I can drive somewhere else and find someone who might repair my boots more cheaply, or I can just buy new footwear, or buy something for my feet from Goodwill (Salvation Army had better prices, but they closed the local store a couple of years ago), or I can make some moccs. There are always choices, even if I don't like any of them.
I plead to the market gods- please inspire someone to open a new boot repair shop in the area! I can't afford the situation as it now exists.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
"You have no right to" vs "You shouldn't"
(A looser than usual transcript)
Saying "you shouldn't" is an expression of opinion.
Saying "you have no right to" can be an expression of fact.
Don't get the two mixed up.
For me, there's a short, straight line from "have no right to" to "you shouldn't". One naturally follows from the other in most cases. But, it's not necessary for that to be the case.
No human has the right to archate. To archate means to initiate force, or credibly threaten to do so, or to violate private property rights. Basically, to act like a government or other kind of bad guy. It's the opposite of what makes up anarchy.
The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) could be rephrased as the Zero Archation Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to archate against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate archation." This clears up any confusion as to whether property violations which involve no physical force are addressed by the ZAP. Whether or not they were in the past, they are now.
So, you have no right to archate, but does that mean you shouldn't? My opinion is that it usually does- but not always.
Yes, pushing a kid from in front of a bus is an initiation of force. You don't have a right to do it, but I think this is one of those cases where you should. If it were me, I'd take the chance and deal with any complaints from the kid later. I'd willingly submit to arbitration if the kid I saved believes I owe restitution for initiating force against him in this instance. Maybe I'd then present him with a bill for services rendered, just to even things out.
There may be other cases as well, and if you believe it's important to archate- to do something you have no right to do- in some instance, you ought to feel it's worth dealing with the consequences that come from your act.
So, yes, saying you have no right to do something can be a statement of fact, if you indeed have no right to do it, but translating that into you shouldn't do something is a less supportable position. It's merely an opinion. And not all opinions are equally valid.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Being nice to monsters
On one hand, I try to be nice and considerate to everyone. Whether in person, or online.
On the other hand, there are some kinds of stupidity and evil I just can't abide, and I can be pretty nasty when exposed to it. Especially when those espousing the stupidity and/or evil are nasty about it first. Statists wouldn't be statists if they didn't embrace stupidity and evil.
The moments I am most proud of are those when I don't respond in kind to the nasty, stupid, evil notions being promoted by statists. When I treat them with more respect, understanding, and kindness than they deserve. I don't always manage it-- I'm only human, and flawed-- but it is something I strive for.
My hope is that treating nasty, stupid, evil statist ideas as "worthy of consideration" will inspire the same consideration of civilized behavior from those promoting those statist ideas. When given serious, honest consideration, it is obvious that mutual consent is always superior-- ethically, morally, rationally, and pragmatically-- to coercion, theft, and aggression. People just need to be exposed to the idea.
Some percentage will still reject it-- it doesn't fit with their ideas of how "society" works, and they don't see how some things can be provided without forcing others to go along. They are wrong. Period. There is simply no excuse. But it's probably pointless to waste breath on them once they've expressed an unwillingness to be civilized. Some monsters enjoy being monstrous.
And, yet, I still want to be nice and considerate. Which means walking away and leaving them to their barbarism-- with the understanding that I may be forced to defend myself from them in the future.
-
On the other hand, there are some kinds of stupidity and evil I just can't abide, and I can be pretty nasty when exposed to it. Especially when those espousing the stupidity and/or evil are nasty about it first. Statists wouldn't be statists if they didn't embrace stupidity and evil.
The moments I am most proud of are those when I don't respond in kind to the nasty, stupid, evil notions being promoted by statists. When I treat them with more respect, understanding, and kindness than they deserve. I don't always manage it-- I'm only human, and flawed-- but it is something I strive for.
My hope is that treating nasty, stupid, evil statist ideas as "worthy of consideration" will inspire the same consideration of civilized behavior from those promoting those statist ideas. When given serious, honest consideration, it is obvious that mutual consent is always superior-- ethically, morally, rationally, and pragmatically-- to coercion, theft, and aggression. People just need to be exposed to the idea.
Some percentage will still reject it-- it doesn't fit with their ideas of how "society" works, and they don't see how some things can be provided without forcing others to go along. They are wrong. Period. There is simply no excuse. But it's probably pointless to waste breath on them once they've expressed an unwillingness to be civilized. Some monsters enjoy being monstrous.
And, yet, I still want to be nice and considerate. Which means walking away and leaving them to their barbarism-- with the understanding that I may be forced to defend myself from them in the future.
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Why I won't v*te
There have been a lot of strawmen erected around the reasons that people like myself won't v*te. I'm sure you've seen plenty of them yourself.
But, here are the real reasons I won't v*te:
I would never try to stop anyone else from v*ting.
Some believe they "need to" in order to defend themselves from bad guys who are employed by government. But whether it's statists or muggers, bad guys will always be there, always seeking to impose their will on the rest of us. V*ting is as effective in the real world as chanting and shaking rattles to cure cancer. But, if it makes you feel better, go for it. Just don't get upset when others won't participate.
Just don't fall for the delusion that you have "done enough" by v*ting. If anyone stops at v*ting OR non-v*ting, and believes they have accomplished something, they are fooling themselves.
Which is part of why I think v*ting is irrelevant- you haven't actually done anything useful either way. You have GOT to do more to have accomplished something of value. And, just like in math, where something that appears on both sides of the equation can be ignored, the rest is what needs to be focused on.
I see someone who insists that I should v*te as saying "Well, mugging isn't ideal, but it's the system we have, so we'd better use it to our advantage".
Maybe v*ting can delay the collapse of civilization (I doubt that, but whatever). If TSHTF now, I am here to help. If it happens years down the road, I may not be able to help. People will probably be even less able to survive, having been softened further by government dependency. Putting something off almost always makes it worse in the long run. Might as well get the show on and see what becomes of it.
I'm sorry if that isn't what you want to believe. Reality is harsh.
But, here are the real reasons I won't v*te:
- I don't "believe in it" anymore. I used to. I felt like I was doing something; doing the right thing. I would v*te for the candidate I thought shared at least many of my values. Usually, that candidate lost. When that candidate won, I always found out that he didn't share my values at all. He had lied to get my v*te. So, by helping that candidate win, I helped make the situation worse. I had helped give a bad guy power. I had undercut my own interests.
- My liberty is not up for a v*te. If every person v*ted for the rights of the one holdout to be violated, it's still not right to violate them. V*ting is mob rule. Might doesn't make right; neither does majority.
- I feel like if I v*te, I am making an illegitimate system look legitimate, or at least make it look like I support the idea that the opinion of the majority should be forced, at gunpoint, on the minority. (Ignoring that the "winning side" is only a majority of v*ters, not of the population.) Even if "my side" wins, and gets to force liberty on people who don't want it, how is that a good thing? You can't force people to be free.
- I get the "v*ting in self defense" argument. However, v*ting isn't aimed. It strikes the aggressor and the non-aggressor equally- if at all. Just because some people in a crowd threaten you, it doesn't justify spraying the crowd with bullets. Know your target and know what is behind your target.
- No one but me can represent me. It simply isn't possible. The idea is even more absurd when the "representative" is supposed to represent thousands or millions of people. This is magical thinking at its craziest. So, why go through the motions for something that isn't going to happen? That is impossible at its very foundation? It's like making a ritual of reading horoscopes religiously.
- I don't enjoy it. It's stressful and frustrating. Chances are, if I v*te for someone, that person would lose. If they win, all I can celebrate is that the other person lost. Then I can look forward to the winner treating my liberty just like the other guy was proposing to treat it. Just more slowly, or violating it in a slightly different way.
- It's unnecessary. Look, there will always be bad guys out there. To archate is a primitive human desire- politicians turned it into an art form. You can spend your life worrying about them, or you can live your life in spite of them. Does it enhance your life in any way to spend time thinking about politicians? Do you really look to them and their opinions for guidance? Do you let their opinions prevent you from doing what you know is right? Or force you to do what you know is wrong? I understand recognizing that what you are doing is "illegal" and not announcing it to the world, but if it's the right thing to do- or even if it is ethically neutral- just do it. But do it quietly if you don't want to get molested by employees of the State. Don't intentionally step in the dog crap, but step around it. And government employees are dog crap.
I would never try to stop anyone else from v*ting.
Some believe they "need to" in order to defend themselves from bad guys who are employed by government. But whether it's statists or muggers, bad guys will always be there, always seeking to impose their will on the rest of us. V*ting is as effective in the real world as chanting and shaking rattles to cure cancer. But, if it makes you feel better, go for it. Just don't get upset when others won't participate.
Just don't fall for the delusion that you have "done enough" by v*ting. If anyone stops at v*ting OR non-v*ting, and believes they have accomplished something, they are fooling themselves.
Which is part of why I think v*ting is irrelevant- you haven't actually done anything useful either way. You have GOT to do more to have accomplished something of value. And, just like in math, where something that appears on both sides of the equation can be ignored, the rest is what needs to be focused on.
I see someone who insists that I should v*te as saying "Well, mugging isn't ideal, but it's the system we have, so we'd better use it to our advantage".
Maybe v*ting can delay the collapse of civilization (I doubt that, but whatever). If TSHTF now, I am here to help. If it happens years down the road, I may not be able to help. People will probably be even less able to survive, having been softened further by government dependency. Putting something off almost always makes it worse in the long run. Might as well get the show on and see what becomes of it.
I'm sorry if that isn't what you want to believe. Reality is harsh.
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Government ‘help’ solves nothing
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 23, 2016- I honestly believe this is one of the worst CNJ columns I have ever written, and for that, I apologize.)
If you want something done, do it without forcing your will on anyone else, and without forcing others to pay for what you want. Good ideas don't require force.
After the recent SpaceX rocket explosion, I saw someone arguing that this was why space exploration should be left to governments, thus financed with taxation. After all, the apparent cause of the blast was something NASA solved fifty years ago.
While this may be true, you'll also notice tax-financed space exploration stagnated decades ago. Long before commercial rockets became a reality.
If you want space exploration to get anywhere, you need people trying new things and taking new risks; innovating, not just copying solutions found long ago.
Even when government does innovate it's as likely to make things worse as to make them better.
Government got involved and started regulating and de facto rationing health care over a century ago. This increased the cost of health care, which caused some to demand government "do something". Government did, and now we have ObamaCare regulating and rationing health care even further. When people start feeling the failure, some will scream for government to do even more, and the situation will accelerate toward a total collapse.
This belief, that government should get involved anytime someone sees a problem, creates even bigger problems; ones more meddling can't solve.
Government, if it is to exist at all, must stay within its limits. If it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution as something government is allowed to do, then it is a crime for government to do it, regardless of how many believe it's a good idea. A more permissive view would still limit government to protecting the life, liberty, and property of those who consent to its control. Government meddling does none of those.
Government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with space exploration, health care, education, travel, or even something as simple as pets.
When people decided government needed to "do something" about pets we ended up with animal control ordinances and animal shelters. For government extremists it wasn't good enough to let private individuals approach the problem-- if there was a problem. Force was used, and this coercive system is failing again.
Governments don't understand economics. When you raise the price of anything, especially if you charge for mandatory features people may not want, you reduce the demand for it. Yet they seem surprised at the decrease in the number of adoptions.
There are always consequences for letting government meddle. Government breaks everything it touches.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
If you want something done, do it without forcing your will on anyone else, and without forcing others to pay for what you want. Good ideas don't require force.
After the recent SpaceX rocket explosion, I saw someone arguing that this was why space exploration should be left to governments, thus financed with taxation. After all, the apparent cause of the blast was something NASA solved fifty years ago.
While this may be true, you'll also notice tax-financed space exploration stagnated decades ago. Long before commercial rockets became a reality.
If you want space exploration to get anywhere, you need people trying new things and taking new risks; innovating, not just copying solutions found long ago.
Even when government does innovate it's as likely to make things worse as to make them better.
Government got involved and started regulating and de facto rationing health care over a century ago. This increased the cost of health care, which caused some to demand government "do something". Government did, and now we have ObamaCare regulating and rationing health care even further. When people start feeling the failure, some will scream for government to do even more, and the situation will accelerate toward a total collapse.
This belief, that government should get involved anytime someone sees a problem, creates even bigger problems; ones more meddling can't solve.
Government, if it is to exist at all, must stay within its limits. If it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution as something government is allowed to do, then it is a crime for government to do it, regardless of how many believe it's a good idea. A more permissive view would still limit government to protecting the life, liberty, and property of those who consent to its control. Government meddling does none of those.
Government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with space exploration, health care, education, travel, or even something as simple as pets.
When people decided government needed to "do something" about pets we ended up with animal control ordinances and animal shelters. For government extremists it wasn't good enough to let private individuals approach the problem-- if there was a problem. Force was used, and this coercive system is failing again.
Governments don't understand economics. When you raise the price of anything, especially if you charge for mandatory features people may not want, you reduce the demand for it. Yet they seem surprised at the decrease in the number of adoptions.
There are always consequences for letting government meddle. Government breaks everything it touches.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
Cops and politicians- parasites?
Are cops and politicians really parasites? After all, they do "give back" in exchange for what they take. That makes some people disagree with the assertion that they are parasites.
But what they give back is harmful and unwanted (at least I don't want it). They give back rules and aggression in exchange for the liberty and property they take. Is that a good trade? Hardly.
I can't steal $100 from you, then give you a Twinkie (or a bruise on your head) and call it even. Consent has to be part of the equation. It's the most important part. Without consent, any act is a violation.
The cops and politicians could even give back more than they take, but when there is no consent in the taking, they are a parasite.
It's not OK for me to take your pizza and give you my car, if you don't agree to the trade. Maybe you have no use for a car, and are starving to death. I can't claim you should be happy with the trade, so you should just shut up. Or, I can't without looking like a thug. And this is what cops and politicians do. It is what they are.
Without consent, their taking- even if they imagine they give something up in return- is theft. They are parasites on society, because they are parasites on some individuals. Maybe not on you, but they are parasites feeding on me without my consent, and one person is enough to prove the claim.
Cops and politicians ARE parasites.
But what they give back is harmful and unwanted (at least I don't want it). They give back rules and aggression in exchange for the liberty and property they take. Is that a good trade? Hardly.
I can't steal $100 from you, then give you a Twinkie (or a bruise on your head) and call it even. Consent has to be part of the equation. It's the most important part. Without consent, any act is a violation.
The cops and politicians could even give back more than they take, but when there is no consent in the taking, they are a parasite.
It's not OK for me to take your pizza and give you my car, if you don't agree to the trade. Maybe you have no use for a car, and are starving to death. I can't claim you should be happy with the trade, so you should just shut up. Or, I can't without looking like a thug. And this is what cops and politicians do. It is what they are.
Without consent, their taking- even if they imagine they give something up in return- is theft. They are parasites on society, because they are parasites on some individuals. Maybe not on you, but they are parasites feeding on me without my consent, and one person is enough to prove the claim.
Cops and politicians ARE parasites.
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
It's your right, but is it a good idea?
Just because it isn't a good idea to exercise a right, does that mean you don't have the right to do it? No.
This usually comes up with regards to "bearing arms". You have the right to carry a full-auto AK-47 openly down the streets of NYC, and into a courthouse. And you would be murdered by government employees for doing so. I would argue this makes it not a good idea. But it is still within your rights.
This follows along with the right to commit suicide. Usually, I think suicide is not a good idea. But you have that right and no one can take it from you. And, I am sure other examples could be found everywhere, if one looked.
It's not always smart to do everything you have an absolute human right to do. Not in every situation.
Why do people get confused over this?
Know what you have a right to do.
Stay within those rights.
Weigh the costs.
Be aware of circumstances.
Be smart.
Accept responsibility for your actions.
This usually comes up with regards to "bearing arms". You have the right to carry a full-auto AK-47 openly down the streets of NYC, and into a courthouse. And you would be murdered by government employees for doing so. I would argue this makes it not a good idea. But it is still within your rights.
This follows along with the right to commit suicide. Usually, I think suicide is not a good idea. But you have that right and no one can take it from you. And, I am sure other examples could be found everywhere, if one looked.
It's not always smart to do everything you have an absolute human right to do. Not in every situation.
Why do people get confused over this?
Know what you have a right to do.
Stay within those rights.
Weigh the costs.
Be aware of circumstances.
Be smart.
Accept responsibility for your actions.
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Those who "believe in obeying the law"
A while back the newspaper editor posted a link to the story about how more people were caged for "marijuana offenses" than for all violent crimes combined.
Of course, some copsuckers had to pipe up to tell us why we should just obey the opinions of evil people ("laws").
It is a very good illustration of the sick mindset of statists. It's actually an argument in favor of Anonymous' "Kill 'em all" comments, even though I hate to admit it, and I won't do that even if I could.
Anyway, here is a sampling of the comments from one of the law lovers regarding Cannabis prohibition:
Like running away from the slave plantation? If you let "law" dictate your ethics or morals, you have none.
Driving down Main St. at 90 MPH might be wrong if there are other people present, and if you present a credible threat to them or their property. But there is nothing inherently wrong with it just because someone made up an arbitrary "speed limit"
Stealing from a store is a violation of property rights. That makes it wrong. It would still be wrong even if legislation said it was OK- as with "taxation", for example.
So, you think slaves should just have waited until the "laws" were changed, and they were wrong when they tried to escape? If you believe in obeying the "law", without qualification, you are a fool and a moral cripple. Good people can't "just believe in obeying the law", but delusional State worshipers can. And do.
Actually, you do get to choose which "laws" to obey, just like the BadgeScum choose which "laws" to enforce against whom. If a "law" mandates you to do the wrong thing, or prohibits you doing the right thing, and you have ethics and principles, you will not obey that "law"- at least as long as you can break the "law" without being shot or kidnapped right now. I choose which "laws" to obey all the time.
And most people (well, smart people anyway) did negotiate with their parents regarding the rules. And they may even get some of the arbitrary or harmful rules eliminated through negotiation. I would rather my daughter be able to think for herself, and make a good argument against bad rules, than just be obedient. And I let her know that. Does it make parenting harder? Yep. Too bad for me- it will turn her into a much better person than demanding obedience ever could. Obedience is for slaves.
When the rules are harmful, only sociopaths enforce them, and only cowards willingly obey them. If you go downhill, either because you "broke the rules" or for any other reason, it's your own fault. Ask for help, and if you haven't been a jerk, help may be offered.
Society is NOT the same as government. Government's rules are often very different from society's rules. Society's rules have evolved over time, government's rules have been dreamed up by insane bullies and imposed by force. Often, government's rules oppose society's rules, to the detriment of society.
Yes, if your tail light is broken, get it fixed. You'll probably be safer, and I would appreciate your courtesy. I'll even let you know if I see it broken without using that as an excuse to steal from you, waylay you, or violate your privacy. Only a really nasty bully would see a broken tail light and use it as a pretext for those violations. And, yes, cops are just that sort of nasty bullies.
And there you have it. This is why "we can't have nice things". Because evil idiots like this guy believe they are the "voice of reason" when they advocate unreasonable things. When they excuse the inexcusable.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Of course, some copsuckers had to pipe up to tell us why we should just obey the opinions of evil people ("laws").
It is a very good illustration of the sick mindset of statists. It's actually an argument in favor of Anonymous' "Kill 'em all" comments, even though I hate to admit it, and I won't do that even if I could.
Anyway, here is a sampling of the comments from one of the law lovers regarding Cannabis prohibition:
"Last I knew it's still against the law."
Like running away from the slave plantation? If you let "law" dictate your ethics or morals, you have none.
"Not going to argue the point. You don't drive down main st. At 90 mph or steal from Wal Mart. Legalization is only a few years away but they can't wait. It's just a misdemeanor and unless they're carrying weight no jail time. I just believe in obeying the law."
Driving down Main St. at 90 MPH might be wrong if there are other people present, and if you present a credible threat to them or their property. But there is nothing inherently wrong with it just because someone made up an arbitrary "speed limit"
Stealing from a store is a violation of property rights. That makes it wrong. It would still be wrong even if legislation said it was OK- as with "taxation", for example.
So, you think slaves should just have waited until the "laws" were changed, and they were wrong when they tried to escape? If you believe in obeying the "law", without qualification, you are a fool and a moral cripple. Good people can't "just believe in obeying the law", but delusional State worshipers can. And do.
"My point is we don't get to chose which laws we will obey or disobey. I'm sure you didn't negotiate with your kids or your parents on their rules."
Actually, you do get to choose which "laws" to obey, just like the BadgeScum choose which "laws" to enforce against whom. If a "law" mandates you to do the wrong thing, or prohibits you doing the right thing, and you have ethics and principles, you will not obey that "law"- at least as long as you can break the "law" without being shot or kidnapped right now. I choose which "laws" to obey all the time.
And most people (well, smart people anyway) did negotiate with their parents regarding the rules. And they may even get some of the arbitrary or harmful rules eliminated through negotiation. I would rather my daughter be able to think for herself, and make a good argument against bad rules, than just be obedient. And I let her know that. Does it make parenting harder? Yep. Too bad for me- it will turn her into a much better person than demanding obedience ever could. Obedience is for slaves.
"It all has to do with sociopathic behavior. I don't need to play by the rules so when I go downhill it's somebody else fault. Play by society's rules. If your tailight is out. Get it fixed!"
When the rules are harmful, only sociopaths enforce them, and only cowards willingly obey them. If you go downhill, either because you "broke the rules" or for any other reason, it's your own fault. Ask for help, and if you haven't been a jerk, help may be offered.
Society is NOT the same as government. Government's rules are often very different from society's rules. Society's rules have evolved over time, government's rules have been dreamed up by insane bullies and imposed by force. Often, government's rules oppose society's rules, to the detriment of society.
Yes, if your tail light is broken, get it fixed. You'll probably be safer, and I would appreciate your courtesy. I'll even let you know if I see it broken without using that as an excuse to steal from you, waylay you, or violate your privacy. Only a really nasty bully would see a broken tail light and use it as a pretext for those violations. And, yes, cops are just that sort of nasty bullies.
And there you have it. This is why "we can't have nice things". Because evil idiots like this guy believe they are the "voice of reason" when they advocate unreasonable things. When they excuse the inexcusable.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Bad words!
Here's something I end up telling my 9 year-old daughter frequently: There are no such things as "bad words"; there are only words that upset some people when they are spoken.
Or written.
And, yet, words which represent true evil aren't usually included in that list by most people.
Words like "government", "police", "laws", "State", "arrest", "vote", and things of that nature are actually much worse than the words most people get upset over and call "profanity" or "obscenity". They represent the mainstream acceptance of truly evil acts. Acts of archation.
I apologize for the foul language used above. You'll live.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Or written.
And, yet, words which represent true evil aren't usually included in that list by most people.
Words like "government", "police", "laws", "State", "arrest", "vote", and things of that nature are actually much worse than the words most people get upset over and call "profanity" or "obscenity". They represent the mainstream acceptance of truly evil acts. Acts of archation.
I apologize for the foul language used above. You'll live.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
"Never discuss politics or religion"
Here's a secret: I don't like discussing politics or religion with people face to face, in real life.
It makes me very uncomfortable. Almost to the point of panic. Especially when it comes at me out of nowhere. I am almost never the one to bring up such subjects in real life. I just don't do it.
Yet, so many people want to discuss these things with me. They know I have an opinion- and generally even know what it is. But they don't want to learn- they just want to hear me talk about it so they can disagree.
Sometimes I just refuse to talk about it. Sometimes I'm caught off-guard and start talking before I realize what has happened. Then the "fight or flight" kicks in as soon as I realize where the conversation has gone. Probably not a good thing at all.
If there were going to be a good, honest discussion, it would be one thing. But it's not. It's always an attempt to trip me up (doesn't happen); to fling questions at me in rapid succession so I don't have a chance to answer one before 2 more have been tossed out (almost always), or find the areas where I have no simple answers (happens a lot).
In those type of "discussions", there can be no communication.
Yes, these are topics of critical importance. The quality of life- sometimes life itself- depends on getting the answers right. Carefully and thoughtfully. But, people are going to believe what they believe. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind under those circumstances.
I suppose it's the danger of being known as outspoken and opinionated.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
It makes me very uncomfortable. Almost to the point of panic. Especially when it comes at me out of nowhere. I am almost never the one to bring up such subjects in real life. I just don't do it.
Yet, so many people want to discuss these things with me. They know I have an opinion- and generally even know what it is. But they don't want to learn- they just want to hear me talk about it so they can disagree.
Sometimes I just refuse to talk about it. Sometimes I'm caught off-guard and start talking before I realize what has happened. Then the "fight or flight" kicks in as soon as I realize where the conversation has gone. Probably not a good thing at all.
If there were going to be a good, honest discussion, it would be one thing. But it's not. It's always an attempt to trip me up (doesn't happen); to fling questions at me in rapid succession so I don't have a chance to answer one before 2 more have been tossed out (almost always), or find the areas where I have no simple answers (happens a lot).
In those type of "discussions", there can be no communication.
Yes, these are topics of critical importance. The quality of life- sometimes life itself- depends on getting the answers right. Carefully and thoughtfully. But, people are going to believe what they believe. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind under those circumstances.
I suppose it's the danger of being known as outspoken and opinionated.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Monday, October 17, 2016
Government is slavery
It was near the beginning of my online life that I realized I am an abolitionist. Slavery is the ultimate anti-liberty. While no person can actually own another, the pretense that they can has been the justification for all sorts of evil throughout human history.
Most people don't seem to realize that slavery is still a big problem- and not just the kind that comes to mind when they think of the word "slavery"- but forms of slavery they they may not recognize and may even support.
Government- The State- is slavery in every sense of the word.
If you are forbidden to do what you have a right to do, you are being enslaved. If someone claims to have a right to tell you where you can live, what you are allowed to put into your bloodstream, how to use your property, can take your property from you against your will, and says they can forbid your right to own and to carry tools, they are trying to enslave you. If they kidnap and cage you for doing what you have a right to do, the slavery has gone from the abstract to the concrete.
How much you allow them to succeed is up to you.
In one sense, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
On the other hand, you must pick your battles. You are no good to anyone if you are dead.
And I can't make that choice for you. No one can. Because you are not a slave, no matter how many want to enslave you, as long as you take responsibility for your own choices.
As long as you do that, I am proud of you.
Be pro-liberty. Be an abolitionist. Be the anti-slave.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Most people don't seem to realize that slavery is still a big problem- and not just the kind that comes to mind when they think of the word "slavery"- but forms of slavery they they may not recognize and may even support.
Government- The State- is slavery in every sense of the word.
If you are forbidden to do what you have a right to do, you are being enslaved. If someone claims to have a right to tell you where you can live, what you are allowed to put into your bloodstream, how to use your property, can take your property from you against your will, and says they can forbid your right to own and to carry tools, they are trying to enslave you. If they kidnap and cage you for doing what you have a right to do, the slavery has gone from the abstract to the concrete.
How much you allow them to succeed is up to you.
In one sense, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
On the other hand, you must pick your battles. You are no good to anyone if you are dead.
And I can't make that choice for you. No one can. Because you are not a slave, no matter how many want to enslave you, as long as you take responsibility for your own choices.
As long as you do that, I am proud of you.
Be pro-liberty. Be an abolitionist. Be the anti-slave.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)