Statism's made-up concepts, words, and delusions

Most "crimes" aren't wrong. They certainly aren't unethical, and are probably not immoral, unless the State's opinion colors your morality-- in which case your "morality" is less than worthless to me.

Most "crimes" are actually just testimony to the fact that your society permits too much government.

Things such as "smuggling", "money laundering", "drug dealing", "speeding", "truancy", "tax evasion", doing things without a "license" or "permit", "resisting arrest", and a host of other "crimes" can't possibly be wrong.

In fact, as you may notice, the believers in government had to make up words to make the acts sound different from what they really are, just so they could declare them "crimes" and initiate force against (or steal from) those they catch doing them.

In the same way, they had to make up words like "arrest", "fine", "execution", "eminent domain", among countless others, to hide the actual wrongs they commit behind these misleading words.

(Those who complain that I make up words and definitions seem to give the Church of State a pass for doing the same thing, but they do so in order to hide the truth from scrutiny rather than to open it to the light of day for all to see.)

You can't remain ethical and be "law abiding". It's simply not possible. Not even if it were possible to simply be "law abiding", which it isn't. Too many "laws" are contradictory, and you don't know what all the "laws" are-- no one does. Or can.

Once you see the acts on both sides for what they are, and stop seeing them through the dark lens of statism, you'll start losing your religion-- at least you will if you were previously a believer in government.

You'll no longer be automatically suspicious of those targeted by "laws". You'll stop believing that if a person has been arrested they must have done something wrong. You'll stop automatically believing that prison inmates deserve whatever they get.

You'll also stop being able to honor or support those who prop up the State with their acts of archation on its behalf. You'll stop seeing cops and politicians as "good guys" or role models. You certainly won't want to see loved ones taking this path.

This won't win you friends. But the few new friends you find, and the few old friends you manage to keep, will be higher quality than those you lose.

For me, it has been worth it. You'll have to decide for yourself whether it is worth it for you.

I don't accept the State's definitions, concepts, made-up words, or delusions. I don't believe in its "goodness" or "necessity". I'm an ethical outlaw. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm nowhere near this noble

-

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

(Steemit link)

Taxation is theft by government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 19, 2017)

Tuesday was the day sometimes called "Tax Day"; not exactly a holiday, and about as far from a "holy day" as it's possible to imagine.

Some people get tired of libertarians pointing out that taxation is theft. Particularly those whose paychecks depend on this particular form of theft. Whatever you call it, when someone demands you hand over some of your property, threatening to hurt you in some way if you don't comply, it's not the act of a good person.

How excited were you to pay taxes this year?

Or, if you got some of your own money back, were you grateful for this "gift"? Even in this instance, you weren't paid the interest they owe you for keeping your money tied up. Who else gets to take your money under threat, keep it for months-- or for over a year-- then give it back (after you spend hours on paperwork, or hundreds of dollars, to prove it's yours) without paying interest?

If you believe your neighbors should be forced to fund things you want, against their will if necessary, you are on the wrong side. You are no different than someone who cheers for a mugger because he claims he'll buy them a gift or two with some of the ill-gotten plunder.

Don't fall into the trap of believing that since people have no real choice but to use some of the services and infrastructure paid for with taxes, they have no right to complain. People have every right to use something they paid for, and-- if the payment was coerced-- to complain about it. To think otherwise is selfish.

If you want to fund government services and programs, I would never dream of standing in your way. Send them all the money you want. Why would you wait for a law to tell you how much to send? Just mail a check and feel good about yourself. If more is needed, convince me and others to join in, using your best arguments. With a good enough idea, plenty will be willing to join you and fund it. If the money collected voluntarily isn't sufficient, the program needs to go away.

The only legitimate government would necessarily include whatever government you can finance with donations, without there being any penalties for choosing to not donate.

Government: the only idea so wonderful you have to threaten people with prison-- or worse-- to get them to finance it. No thanks. I'll pass.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Anti-gun bullies are natural

Anti-gun politicians, bureaucrats, and law-imposer thugs are the natural course of things. They are all anti-gun in reality.

Even the ones who claim to be "pro-gun" and get "A+" endorsements from the "gun rights" groups (which invariably love statism more than liberty) are anti-gun.

If they believe there should be even one "law" concerning gun ownership or possession, they are anti-gun.

If they believe the right to own and to carry a gun depends on "citizenship" or some other statist concept, they are anti-gun.

If they believe someone can lose their right to own and to carry a gun, they are anti-gun.

If they believe the Second Amendment gives anyone a right to "keep and bear arms", they are anti-gun.

If they believe the kind of gun makes any difference, they are anti-gun.

If they insist on guns being banned from the Mundanes in their presence, they are anti-gun.

At it's heart, "anti-gun" really means anti-liberty. They are anti-liberty bigots.

I don't like bigots- not in general.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Encounter with an irresponsible twit

This evening I saw someone do something very irresponsible. Nasty, even. It may have been an initiation of force-- it was definitely a credible threat to initiate force.

I felt the urge to ... something. I don't know what, exactly. I didn't have an urge to call the cops on him, but when I saw a cop drive by seconds later I had the shameful thought that the cop should have witnessed what I saw.

What happened is this:
A group of teens, mostly girls, was sitting at a picnic table at the edge of the park. Two teen boys were walking down the street nearest the table. As they passed, one hurled an empty Coke bottle at the table. It smashed on the concrete slab and the bricks of the partial wall holding up the roof. One of the girls at the table looked at him (his goal, I'm sure) and said "Seriously?" He said "Yeah, seriously" and kept walking and talking to his friend. The people at the table went back to what they were doing (so apparently didn't see it as a threat). I followed the boys to the corner of the park, got their attention and pretended to take a photo of their faces.

I despise people who act like that boy. I always have. Intensely. I don't beg for "laws" to be used against them. I don't want him "fined" or "arrested". I probably wouldn't use violence against him, unless he had been a continued threat to someone's safety. I can despise him without harming him in any way. But I probably wouldn't lift a finger to help him if I saw him being attacked. I'd probably suffer "temporary paralysis". I'm not saying that's right, I'm just being honest.

You know, it really doesn't take much effort to not be a jackhole. So, why do so many seem to choose that path? How do people mistake this behavior for "manliness" or "masculinity" when it seems more like a self-centered, spoiled toddler who has no thought for anyone but himself?

Oh, and I picked up the broken glass as soon as the others left the table.

Not the actual bottle- it was much more shattered than this

-

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

(Steemit link)

Who's "bashing"?

Isn't it interesting how telling the truth about cops has become "cop bashing"?

What delicate little flowers that gang has become. They can murder you and almost inevitably get away with it, but if you say that (or anything else that reflects negatively on them and hurts their feelings), you are the one bashing their gang.

If that's the case, I'll continue to "bash" cops. They deserve it.

Because, as I say, "cop" isn't a person, it is a set of evil behaviors. If you don't "bash" evil behaviors, you are supporting them.

Someone else said it better:

"The truth is, 'evil' is not something a person is; it’s something a person does. An evil person is not one who is suffused with some malefic and primordial spiritual force; it’s one who performs evil acts. It’s not possible to be evil without doing evil, and it’s equally impossible to knowingly, willingly and consistently do evil and yet be considered good." ~ Maggie McNeill, The Honest Courtesan

Evil is as evil does

-

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

(Steemit link)

Marx was wrong

Not that I'm surprised.

As mentioned in my most recent newspaper column, I recently read Marx's "Wage Labour and Capital" at the suggestion of someone on Steemit. Someone who disagreed with me and thought Karl Marx had the answer I was missing.

He didn't. I had always heard he was wrong, but had never seen for myself just how wrong he was. It was ... enlightening.

When you start out from a mistaken position, then build on it, things will go awry.

Marx really didn't understand anything about economics. Economics seems to be all about human motivations. He didn't seem to understand anyone's motivation except his own. And apparently he was insane.

He was completely obsessed with social position.; with "classes" of people, and was apparently very jealous of those he considered to be of a higher class.

He didn't seem to believe intelligence was of any value. Only labor.

He believed that "price" was something you could determine the correct setting of through calculations, and then you could know who was being cheated and who was doing the cheating. Especially when calculating the "fair" price of labor.

He didn't understand that no one goes to a lot of effort- physical or mental- to only break even. The worker has to feel he gets back more than he puts in, or he won't bother to show up for work, and the business owner has to feel he gets back more than he spends and risks to go into business, or he won't build a business. That business owners will stick with a business where they can't make any money, and that employees will stay with a job that won't support them (in the absence of market-warping welfare). Even if a person comes to the conclusion that working a crappy job for less pay than he'd like is better than the alternative, he is choosing that with which he comes out ahead.

Marx seems to believe the market is a set size, never to grow.

Marx mentions innovation but then forgets about it and seems to only consider production. Manufacturing processes can be improved, but apparently not products. It's like he thinks there is only a downside for everything. No upside.

Marx was wildly simplistic while being overly complicated- an odd combination. He ignored reality while making up his own economic version of epicycles. He was looking for (and imagined he could see) the laws that determined prices and the proper proportions of wage to profit. He believed the price of everything-- except labor-- is locked together and moves in step. Apparently in his mind, the price of X can't go up unless the price of everything else also goes up-- again, except wages which always go down. He believed profits could only increase when wages decreased proportionally.

And there was so much more I could go into, showing way after way he wasn't only wrong, but devastatingly so. But why bother?

His was a childish philosophy of jealousy and anger, build on delusions and wishful thinking. It's no wonder modern statists tend to be such bitter, controlling people.

Still, I have no problem at all with state-free communist (or "Marxist") enclaves. just as long as they are voluntary, don't prey on those outside the community, and allow people to opt out. They'll fail fast enough that I won't have to worry about them, unless they find a way to cheat. In which case self defense would be in order.

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Refugees", "immigration", and "borders"

Government importation of people for any reason is NOT "immigration". I oppose this as strongly as I oppose government control (rationing) of "immigration" and "securing the borders".

Neither is remotely "libertarian". Neither is ethical. Neither will accomplish anything good.

Both lead to a bigger, more intrusive and powerful State. It can't be any other way. Supporting either is supporting this bigger, more intrusive and powerful State. For "pragmatic" reasons, I suppose.

It's not that I support "open borders"; it's that I recognize no borders other than private property lines-- all other "borders" violate private property. Government's "borders" are a violation of YOUR private property and right of association, as is government's plan to import "refugees" or anyone else.

Government screws up anything it gets involved in, and I don't support anything it does. Don't help it by begging for it to do anything on your behalf. It won't go anything like you imagine.

Don't forget who creates refugees: government

-

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

(Steemit link)

Letting "laws" control you

I don't believe you should destroy the environment just to spite the socialists who use the environment as their excuse to destroy liberty. I know conservatives who do this.

I also know libertarians who make a point to break "laws" just to be breaking "laws".

I can sort of understand their reason, or at least how they feel. I am often tempted to break "laws" I wouldn't otherwise think of breaking, just because some idiot decided to make them "laws".

But, I stop short of harming myself or others just because I hate the "law". I am certainly not going to violate anyone just because some "law" happens to say doing so would be "illegal".

Back to the environmental example I began with. Pooping in your own nest is pretty dumb; doing it just because someone tells you not to is even dumber.

"Laws" make everything worse. Even if you agree with them. Even if they are based on a good idea. "There oughta be a law!" No. Not unless you want unintended consequences you may not like.

Don't be dumb. Reject "laws", but don't let them cause you to do dumb things just to show they have no "authority" over you. If you do, you are letting the "laws" control your behavior anyway. It's better to ignore them and do the right thing regardless of the vacuous opinions of bullies.

The results of pooping in your own nest

-

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

(Steemit link)

Property rights abused, misunderstood

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 12, 2017)

Property rights is a pillar of civilization. A pillar which is crumbling from neglect, abuse, and misunderstanding.

As long as your use of your property doesn't damage other people or their property in a tangible way, it's no one else's business. This applies to trash, vermin, odors and dust, holes, and nuclear waste.

What if your mess won't stay put on your property? What about someone who drains the aquifer?

Arbitration and restitution could ease these sorts of problems, but government courts have been fairly useless for protecting private property rights. Tax money, government interests, and political cronyism get in the way-- and voters will vote for anything they believe protects their income, be it policy or politician.

Does freedom mean the right to use your property however you want? Where does your freedom end? Freedom often violates other people, because "freedom" is simply doing whatever you want to do. Liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to do what you have a right to do, and you never have a right to violate other people's life, liberty, or property.

Since you have no right to use your property in a way which will harm your neighbors' property, if you do-- if you drain or contaminate their wells or can't contain your mess to your property, and you can't reach an agreement with them-- you will owe restitution.

Some people fear if businesses are held accountable for pollution, the economy would crash; no one would do anything because of the risk of owing restitution to surrounding property owners. This might cause trouble for a while since property rights have never been taken very seriously, but business would adjust.

Property owners might be approached ahead of time, with agreements-- perhaps including a financial stake-- being ironed out before anything happens. A market could arise for tools to keep pollution contained to the property where it originates-- or to collect and ship it elsewhere to be cleaned or recycled. "Pollution" is just another name for resources wasted because we don't yet know how to profitably use them.

I'm not saying this is the only way these things could be solved-- given motivation, people are pretty innovative and will come up with even better solutions. Opposition to proper respect for property rights reminds me of those who couldn't imagine how cotton would be picked if slavery were ended. Do the right thing, then figure out where to go from there.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Adventures with the DMV's harpy

I don't believe in the legitimacy of "driver's licenses", but I have been helping someone, at their request, try to obtain one. For "pragmatic" reasons. Therefore my patience with the nonsense is a bit thin already.

Living where I do, the closest DMV office is in another town, about 20 or 30 miles away. The hours are inconvenient and subject to the whims of the office's lone surly bureau-rat.

An appointment was set to take the driving part of the test. The "new" driver (who has actually been driving for decades, but wants to get "legal") arranged to borrow a car for the test, because my old pickup is "too large" and unwieldy. The owner of that car met us at the DMV, after driving an hour out of his way to get there.

Things were set. We left the new driver and the car at the DMV and went to McDonald's to wait. Then I remembered I have no cell phone service in this town. Oops.

When we thought enough time had passed, we went back to the DMV. We were then confronted with bureaucratic evil and stupidity. The license-seeker had been trying to call me for almost the entire time, without success-- no cell signal.

Turned out the bureau-rat wouldn't administer the test because of a burned out light bulb. An inconsequential light bulb. Which the license-seeker isn't even responsible for.

The brake light in the top of the rear window has 4 bulbs. The one second to the end on the right was out. This third-- extra-- brake light was still perfectly functional without this bulb. The light bar was still perfectly visible from a distance-- and in fact you had to be close to notice the small gap in the rectangle of light. But "No test for you!!"

So, everyone had to be inconvenienced again, just because of the arbitrary whims of a tax junkie. Hooray.

The bulb was replaced, the test was rescheduled, and passed with no further trouble.

And, as it turns out, that particular light isn't even a required part of the car checklist, as you can see below from the scan of the actual checklist:

The BureauHarpy simply wasn't in the mood to give a test that day, and lied to get out of it. I expect nothing better from people of that sort-- it's government.

-

I was reminded again of the time I decided I ought to get "legal" and get a driver's license for the state I had been living in. I went in, but I didn't have all the demanded papers and documentation (or even a "legal address" for that matter), and they wouldn't give me a license. So I walked out, loudly proclaiming to the shocked faces on the waiting victims of bureaucracy: "Then I'll just keep driving illegally. Doesn't matter to me. Bye." And I did. And it saved me tons of money over the years, even including the "fines" when I eventually got caught (years later, in an altogether different state).

Ah, the joys of statism. How can people even twist their minds enough to believe this stuff is legitimate?

-

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

(Steemit link)

I like people

Honestly, I usually like people. Yeah, I get angry at some of them sometimes, but that's generally because they are busy harming other people and refuse to stop (cough- cops- cough).

If I didn't like people I wouldn't care when someone was violating them. I'd figure they deserve it-- in other words I would take the statist position.

Even those people whom I don't like because they are hurting others would be redeemable if they'd stop molesting people. I can forgive when someone changes.

But maybe not this person...

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Flat Earth"? No

No, the Earth is NOT flat.

Even if government recognizes the reality, it doesn't change that reality. After all, government schools generally recognize that 2+2=4. Are you going to reject that, too? If so, you are letting government dictate your beliefs, by adopting the opposite position just to be contrary, in spite of the evidence of reality.

NASA didn't come up with the idea of a (roughly) spherical planet; that idea predates NASA (or any government in existence) by thousands of years-- and was discovered and measured by regular people who were able to think outside the box and do experiments for themselves to test their ideas.

You don't look edgy, clever, or "awake" by falling for the "flat Earth" scam.

Just do some experiments-- both physical and thought experiments-- and see that "flat Earth" doesn't hold up. It is internally inconsistent. Just look at their complicated explanations of day and night, and the seasons differing between the opposite sides of the equator, and linear distance comparisons north and south versus east and west far from the axis of a "flat Earth". Everything they believe (if they actually do believe any of this) falls apart if you can work out for yourself anything about how reality fits together and how the Universe works.

I can't believe otherwise smart people are still falling for this after it gained attention again a few years ago. I guess this gullibility explains why statism is still the world's most popular religion.

It is also an illustration of how badly the State fails when it is allowed to control "education" through schooling.  If you don't explain how to figure out reality, measuring it and working things out for yourself, but instead just state "This is how it is, accept it", then people unable to think for themselves will fall for trash like this "flat Earth" stuff.

-

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

(Steemit link)

It's not about hating government

I don't hate government just to hate government, regardless of what anyone may believe.

I hate rape, murder, kidnapping, theft, trespassing-- all archation-- no matter who is doing it, or why. But my hatred for those things when not done by government employees as part of their "job" doesn't stand out enough to be noticeable. Almost everyone is decent enough to hate those sorts of evil things when done on a freelance basis.

But I'm consistent enough that I don't look the other way when it's government employees, following "the law", who are committing those acts. In that case, my hatred of those things attracts attention because of the glaring double-standard most people live by. It sticks out like a sore thumb by comparison.

It shouldn't. An act of archation isn't any different depending on who does it.

Thus, people get the silly, erroneous idea that I "just hate government". That's not it at all.

I hate to tell you but even after the last government has died a well-deserved (and hopefully agonizing) death, there will still be people out there murdering, raping, kidnapping, stealing, trespassing and otherwise archating. I'll still hate them for their acts-- or would if I were still alive at that time. I don't hate bad guys any less if they don't work for government.

Hey, Archators of every stripe...

-

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

(Steemit link)

War, and those who make it

What is it with people glorifying war and those whom governments use to make war?

War isn't manly, heroic, or honorable. It is childish. Allowing a government to send you to someone else's territory to make war is stupid.

That doesn't mean you are childish to defend yourself from any childish invaders who come to you to pick a fight. If a kid walks up to kick you in the shins, I'm not going to fault you for shoving him away, and if an invader comes to your town, violating people and their property, I support you doing anything you need to to stop him. He's the one "going to war", you are just defending yourself.

I stop short of saying that those who go to war are cowards. I think many evil acts are brave. It takes courage to break into a house and rape a family. It takes the same kind of courage to travel to the other side of the world to murder people trying to defend their homes from you, knowing that they will be trying to kill you. Courage, but evil. Courage without ethics is dangerous.

No one has ever gone to fight on the other side of the world for "American freedom". Not once. No, not even against the Nazis. Such a sacrifice doesn't help "America", but only "The US" (which is the government currently infesting America).

Don't join the government's military. It doesn't make anything better or safer for your loved ones. It only helps the politicians and bureaucrats and those who sell war tools to them. You are siding against liberty if you are in the government's military. Empowering evil, instead of helping anyone or anything worthy.

To honor those who have been in the government's military is sick. To pretend that anything they did was good is delusional. I won't play that game.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Mansion vs Tiny House

Why do people get so worked up over how other people live? To the point of anger, name-calling, and saying "everyone must live this way!"

I see people scolding others for owning "too much stuff". Preaching "get rid of all clutter". Unfortunately, much of the time what a minimalist sees as "clutter" is what you'll need in a "grid down" situation, or even a lesser event.

I understand the desire for getting rid of anything not essential and downsizing. I also see the pitfalls.

It's the same with people who pride themselves on their "tiny house".

I think those over-priced tiny houses are cool. I like the way they use space (or, at least how the well-designed ones do). This is the same reason I love to explore RVs.

I also see how fragile they are to outside conditions-- and I don't mean only weather. Again, if you don't have space to store "preps" or some backup supplies ("two is one and one is none") you are vulnerable to the whims of the economy and Murphy's Law. You are more likely to become a burden on others if you don't have anything set aside for rough times. You have no cushion when you are down to bare-bones.

I understand the reason some people see a big house and lots of possessions as wasteful. And, for some people they probably are. Having a huge mansion so you have space for your dusty Beanie Baby collection, but never keeping more than a couple day's worth of food (and no stored water) in your house probably doesn't make a lot of sense. But who am I to judge?

It's not my business if you want to live in a tiny house or in a mansion. It's not my business if you are a hoarder or if you hate all clutter and pride yourself for downsizing. Neither way is wrong. Why not focus on things that matter-- such as whether the person living in that house is a thief or rapist?

As long as you don't violate others, do what works for you. Don't let anyone pressure you into feeling guilt where there is none.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Water solutions are out there

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 5, 2017)

Water is a necessary ingredient for life, second only to air in importance. Even our food supply depends on the ready availability of water.

Our primary local water supply, the Ogallala Aquifer, is dwindling, Whether or not you believe this is an imminent threat, there is no doubt it's not being replenished fast enough to keep up with demand. This can't continue without causing real trouble at some point in the future. For some people in the area, the future is now.

Several factors over many years have led to this situation, and there won't be a single, immediate solution.

Governments over the aquifer ignored the warnings; they encouraged and subsidized irresponsible usage. They encouraged water-intensive businesses to locate in the area. Their hunger for ever-increasing amounts of tax money blinded them to long-term reality.

Now, many look to these same governments to provide solutions, including an expensive, temporary patch. Relying on a reservoir as a solution, when the reservoir depends upon fickle precipitation, is not exactly thinking ahead. It's the equivalent of believing you'll be OK after the water is shut off to your house because you can use the water in your water heater tank. To spend tax money on this patch aggravates the problem.

Of course, knowing what not to do still doesn't mean I know how to solve it.

Perhaps our area simply isn't suited for the population which now lives here. It's possible. Sometimes truth isn't pleasant. I don't recommend giving up quite yet, though.

Maybe there are ways to replenish the aquifer, or better ways to recycle the water we use. I'll bet there are technological fixes which could be found or invented if the regulators would get out of the way. For example, new water-collecting materials which draw water from the atmosphere have been tested. Obviously these work better in places with higher humidity, but the technology is still young. Given a profit motive, someone would figure out a way to provide water where it's needed.

If you are under the impression that water provided by government is free, while business is greedy and costly, perhaps you'd like to put the state's motor vehicle bureaucracy in charge of distributing and selling gasoline. Free-market business (not a government-granted monopoly rife with cronyism) would be cheaper and better. Nothing is free, and businesses must convince you to trade with them, while government simply says "pay or else!" Serious issues deserve serious consideration; that's no place for government.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Outnumbered and surrounded

Concerning "immigration", no, I don't want to be outnumbered and surrounded by people who feel entitled to violate my life, liberty, and property. But... I already am whether there are immigrants or not, just because almost everyone is statist, and that is the defining characteristic of statists. That there is an "immigration control" debate is proof that I am outnumbered and surrounded.

It might be unrealistic to insist that property rights be respected and "welfare" be eliminated to make "immigration" a non-issue, but it's no less unrealistic to believe government will keep out people who advance its agenda of ever-increasing socialism. It needs them and will do whatever it takes to get them where they can be used. If "the borders" are "secured", and "immigration" is controlled, you can be certain it will be done in such a way that the State's agenda won't be threatened in the slightest. If that means using "loopholes", ignoring the "laws", or some other tactic, it WILL be done. They want it too badly to stop.

So, yes, "immigration control" will only be done in ways that grow the State, in size and in power. Believing otherwise is completely unrealistic. This is something "more" or "better" government will not solve to your liking. Ever.

If you're going to be "unrealistic" anyway, you may as well be principled while doing so.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Why must I tolerate the intolerable?

Why do those who scold me, telling me to be "tolerant", only seem concerned that I tolerate those who want to violate me?

I have no trouble "tolerating" those who prefer dogs to cats, worship gods, choose chocolate over vanilla, are some variety of LGBTQ, laugh at me because I dislike manual transmissions, believe the Earth is flat, or whatever. I may even love them, rather than to simply "tolerate" them, which seems a rather low bar.

You might tolerate the woodrat that lives under your porch, but you smile if he dies. It seems odd that thinking of people the same way is something they'd encourage.

So, yeah, I can tolerate an awful lot.

But, I won't tolerate those who want to rob, trespass, murder, kidnap, or govern. Archation is a deal-breaker. And it seems those are the people I'm most often told I must tolerate. No deal.

People who want to rob, murder, and govern you are not people you can "tolerate" and survive. They can't be a part of your future, if your future is to be one of hope and thriving. Don't tolerate them or their ideas.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Busywork

In school I detested "busywork". In fact, I didn't usually do it, no matter what consequences I was threatened with. I knew it was a waste of time, designed to keep the kinderprison inmates quiet so they didn't annoy the "teacher".

Now that I'm an adult, I see government as busywork. Unnecessary annoyances designed to keep you too busy to do what would be a better use of your time and money... if you bother doing all the busywork they assign, that is.

You end up paying "taxes" so that the thugs can afford to build and staff a courthouse to punish people for not paying "taxes" (among other things). No thanks. It's not worth it to me.

I feel there is no benefit to me of the State forcing people to get "drivers licenses", but people are forced to pay "taxes" to build and staff the DMV so that people can be punished for not having "drivers licenses".

Over and over I see government buildings and programs which exist to keep dumb people believing that those things are necessary, but which wouldn't look necessary without the problems they cause by existing in the first place.

I'm perfectly willing to risk doing without everything "provided by" government-- assuming no one will step in to offer replacements through the market-- just to be free of the annoyances which government creates.

Busywork. It's what government is. Under an illusion of necessity- for the gullible.

I don't buy it.

Exists only to prove how "necessary" it is

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Enforce the existing laws"

Bad arguments don't help your side.

For example:

"Why is enforcement of existing immigration laws, laws which have been a standard for decades, such a divisive issue? Most countries in the world have stringent immigration laws, why is it that America is not allowed to enforce similar laws? Why does the left in particular consider the removal of illegal immigrants representative of 'racism' or 'fascism?' I realize they are mostly insane, but I would just like to hear one valid and practical argument from them as to why the U.S. specifically should be saddled with wide open borders and why American conservatives in particular are racist merely for demanding that the current laws be followed?" ~ Brandon Smith

Let's substitute one Big Government lust, "control" of guns, for "control" of "borders":

"Why is enforcement of existing gun laws, laws which have been a standard for decades, such a divisive issue? Most countries in the world have stringent gun laws, why is it that America is not allowed to enforce similar laws? Why does the right in particular consider the removal of illegal guns representative of 'tyranny' or 'socialism?' I realize they are mostly insane, but I would just like to hear one valid and practical argument from them as to why the U.S. specifically should be saddled with easy access to guns and why American progressives in particular are tyrants merely for demanding that the current laws be followed?"

Because "laws" that are wrong, are wrong. Even if you believe they are "necessary". Even if bad guys would take advantage of the situation if the "law" didn't exist or wasn't enforced.

Even if you believe the Constitution has any "authority", whatever isn't specifically permitted for government to do is expressly forbidden. Nowhere in the Constitution is "immigration control" permitted, so it is an illegal act by the federal government to "control immigration".

Now, government is also similarly forbidden to import "refugees" or otherwise bring people into America, so that's not the issue at hand.

Yes, the Second Amendment specifically places guns beyond the (legal) reach of "laws", but it was unnecessary to do this, since that power wasn't mentioned anyway (and it would have been a rights violation even if the Constitution allowed it)- and the Second Amendment has been utterly powerless against the will of the bullies in Congress and the BATFEces to just go ahead and do what they want.

Whether "immigration" (not a real thing anyway) is a good idea or not, the argument made by Mr. Smith above simply doesn't hold water. It's a purely statist argument, and as such, is nonsense.

It's still a prison wall even if you can't see it

-

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

(Steemit link)