This is how liberty died- to your flag waving, allegiance pledging, and stormtrooper supporting. The blood is on your hands. Own it.
Monday, May 29, 2017
Memorial to what?
A very contemplative Dead Stormtrooper Day to all you supporters of The Empire.
This is how liberty died- to your flag waving, allegiance pledging, and stormtrooper supporting. The blood is on your hands. Own it.
This is how liberty died- to your flag waving, allegiance pledging, and stormtrooper supporting. The blood is on your hands. Own it.
States and Islamic losers
I've not hidden the fact that I am not a fan of Islam. I don't like any religions, but I'm particularly disgusted by Islam at this point in my life (even though Christianity actually has more of a negative impact on my day-to-day existence- but that's another issue).
This is simply my emotional reaction to it. I know all the reasons I shouldn't feel that way. All the explanations why this feeling is misguided and wrong. Emotions-- "feelings"-- have nothing to do with facts. Yes, it seems that-- unfortunately-- I am human in spite of my best efforts.
However, my personal "feelings" don't mean I want "laws" created to "deal with" Islam. I most certainly don't. States and their "laws" are worse than Islam.
How is that? you may ask. Well, Islam doesn't guarantee the commission of evil; States do by their very nature. Very few individual Muslims actually use their religion to excuse the initiation of force- but every single person involved in the Cult of State commits daily (perhaps hourly, or more often) acts of archation simply by keeping that "job". Every. Single. One. Every. Single. Day.
So, every time an act of terrorism is committed by an Islamic loser, I feel my hatred for Islam burn... but I also remember that the State is more evil, more destructive, and at the core of all terrorism. Islamic terrorist losers aren't the only losers out there. They are outnumbered by multitudes closer to home.
This is simply my emotional reaction to it. I know all the reasons I shouldn't feel that way. All the explanations why this feeling is misguided and wrong. Emotions-- "feelings"-- have nothing to do with facts. Yes, it seems that-- unfortunately-- I am human in spite of my best efforts.
However, my personal "feelings" don't mean I want "laws" created to "deal with" Islam. I most certainly don't. States and their "laws" are worse than Islam.
How is that? you may ask. Well, Islam doesn't guarantee the commission of evil; States do by their very nature. Very few individual Muslims actually use their religion to excuse the initiation of force- but every single person involved in the Cult of State commits daily (perhaps hourly, or more often) acts of archation simply by keeping that "job". Every. Single. One. Every. Single. Day.
So, every time an act of terrorism is committed by an Islamic loser, I feel my hatred for Islam burn... but I also remember that the State is more evil, more destructive, and at the core of all terrorism. Islamic terrorist losers aren't the only losers out there. They are outnumbered by multitudes closer to home.
 |
| Terroristic losers |
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
This is one debt that can't be repaid
(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 26, 2017- Yes, you've probably read this before. The court tried to silence my voice, so I am using every venue I can to bypass their censorship. Feel free to help.)
Editor’s note: Vincent Heredia of Benton, Arkansas, last week pleaded guilty to negligent homicide in connection with the 2015 death of Cheyenne McManigal.
He was sentenced to 72 months in prison.
Kent McManigal’s letter was provided to the court in connection with sentencing:
Dear Mr. Heredia,
Your bad choices led to the death of my beloved daughter. But I don’t hate you, and I hope this tragedy serves as a wake-up call for you. I would like to see you turn your life around.
I am not going to add my voice to the chorus of people calling for your head on a pike, or a lifetime in a cage. Punishment isn’t justice — although most people have come to confuse the two. Justice involves restoring the violated person back to how they were before they were hurt. Nothing you could do, and nothing anyone could do to you, would ever bring my daughter back and heal the emptiness in my heart.
Nothing can replace my ex-wife's daughter, my parents' and ex-in-laws' granddaughter, my grandsons' mother, my son's and daughter's sister.
Besides, "an eye for an eye" is nothing but revenge, and is barbaric. I don't blame people for feeling that way when tragedy strikes, but it still isn't right in my mind.
I don't believe in "laws", including the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. I don't "believe in" police, or prison, or "even" government. Those things infest our lives, and yet didn't stop your actions or save her.
What I do believe in is restitution. However, there are some debts which can never be paid. This is one.
If you want my forgiveness, you have it. That doesn't eliminate your debt, though.
The one thing you might do, in an attempt to pay this debt you've taken upon yourself, is to never again choose to drive under the influence of anything. In fact, you would need to make it a personal commitment to never again commit any violence against the nonviolent, and to never violate the property of any person. That means no government "job" financed through taxes, even if it were allowed in your future, but instead an honest job where you bring actual mutual benefit to yourself and those you serve, voluntarily. You can try to contribute monetarily to my grandsons' future, but the absurdity of "laws" is such that, due to those fleeting moments which led to my daughter's death, you'll probably be prevented from ever being in the position of having money to spare for the rest of your life. You aren't a Kennedy, after all.
I hurt for myself, my family, my daughter who won't get to watch her children grow, and for my grandsons. I also feel sorry for you, and if I could go back in time to divert you from the course which resulted in my daughter's death and the situation you now find yourself in, you know I'd do it. I just wonder if you would have listened to me if I'd had the chance to speak to you beforehand.
Sincerely,
Kent McManigal
He was sentenced to 72 months in prison.
Kent McManigal’s letter was provided to the court in connection with sentencing:
Dear Mr. Heredia,
Your bad choices led to the death of my beloved daughter. But I don’t hate you, and I hope this tragedy serves as a wake-up call for you. I would like to see you turn your life around.
I am not going to add my voice to the chorus of people calling for your head on a pike, or a lifetime in a cage. Punishment isn’t justice — although most people have come to confuse the two. Justice involves restoring the violated person back to how they were before they were hurt. Nothing you could do, and nothing anyone could do to you, would ever bring my daughter back and heal the emptiness in my heart.
Nothing can replace my ex-wife's daughter, my parents' and ex-in-laws' granddaughter, my grandsons' mother, my son's and daughter's sister.
Besides, "an eye for an eye" is nothing but revenge, and is barbaric. I don't blame people for feeling that way when tragedy strikes, but it still isn't right in my mind.
I don't believe in "laws", including the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. I don't "believe in" police, or prison, or "even" government. Those things infest our lives, and yet didn't stop your actions or save her.
What I do believe in is restitution. However, there are some debts which can never be paid. This is one.
If you want my forgiveness, you have it. That doesn't eliminate your debt, though.
The one thing you might do, in an attempt to pay this debt you've taken upon yourself, is to never again choose to drive under the influence of anything. In fact, you would need to make it a personal commitment to never again commit any violence against the nonviolent, and to never violate the property of any person. That means no government "job" financed through taxes, even if it were allowed in your future, but instead an honest job where you bring actual mutual benefit to yourself and those you serve, voluntarily. You can try to contribute monetarily to my grandsons' future, but the absurdity of "laws" is such that, due to those fleeting moments which led to my daughter's death, you'll probably be prevented from ever being in the position of having money to spare for the rest of your life. You aren't a Kennedy, after all.
I hurt for myself, my family, my daughter who won't get to watch her children grow, and for my grandsons. I also feel sorry for you, and if I could go back in time to divert you from the course which resulted in my daughter's death and the situation you now find yourself in, you know I'd do it. I just wonder if you would have listened to me if I'd had the chance to speak to you beforehand.
Sincerely,
Kent McManigal
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Protecting the delusion of "good government"
I find it disgusting when someone is so dishonest they advocate "good government", as if such a contradiction were even possible.
Like this delusional statist: This is what democracy looks like
So, I posted a comment:
Like this delusional statist: This is what democracy looks like
So, I posted a comment:
"Good government" makes about as much sense as "compassionate rape".
http://famguardian.org/Publications/OurEnemyTheState/OurEnemyTheState-byAlbertJKnock.pdf
Surprise, surprise, my comment was removed by TED.
Now, I just know if I had said the exact same thing, ridiculing something other than "good government"-- say, something anti-Trump or something-- they wouldn't have had a problem with it. It would have fit with their agenda. I seriously doubt their censors automatically remove any comment with the word "rape" in it. I believe they were triggered by my accurate observation which offended their sensibilities.
Prove me wrong.
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
The difference between cops and other bad guys
The only real difference between cops and other bad guys lies in the beliefs-- and thus the behavior-- of their victims.
Both sets of bad guys have their own "code" with which they justify violating those around them.
Both use violence to impose their will on others.
Both demand unearned "respect".
Both archate as a matter of course.
I see no real difference between them. A difference which makes no difference isn't a difference.
Cops, just like all bad guys, are scum.
But cops have the distinct advantage of their victims believing that cops are on their side, and accepting just about any awful thing cops do to them and their loved ones. Copsuckers must be masochists and self-loathing people who feel they deserve abuse at the hands of cops, bolstered by their belief in "the law". So they don't fight back or defend the innocent from these bullies, but usually support and defend the bad guys.
The underlying belief is delusional.
But more and more people are losing those beliefs. They are crumbling in the face of the behavior of the cops.
As soon as enough people see cops for what they really are, it will be a very bad day to belong to that gang. A very bad day. That day is long overdue.
Both sets of bad guys have their own "code" with which they justify violating those around them.
Both use violence to impose their will on others.
Both demand unearned "respect".
Both archate as a matter of course.
I see no real difference between them. A difference which makes no difference isn't a difference.
Cops, just like all bad guys, are scum.
But cops have the distinct advantage of their victims believing that cops are on their side, and accepting just about any awful thing cops do to them and their loved ones. Copsuckers must be masochists and self-loathing people who feel they deserve abuse at the hands of cops, bolstered by their belief in "the law". So they don't fight back or defend the innocent from these bullies, but usually support and defend the bad guys.
The underlying belief is delusional.
But more and more people are losing those beliefs. They are crumbling in the face of the behavior of the cops.
As soon as enough people see cops for what they really are, it will be a very bad day to belong to that gang. A very bad day. That day is long overdue.
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Friday, May 26, 2017
Government school IS child abuse, Chapter ... Too many to count
People who confuse schooling for education, and those who believe that because they survived the abuse (and believe they turned out "OK"), others should have to suffer the same abuse ("to prepare them for the real world/to make them stronger"), won't like this talk: Why school should start later for teens.
Even among those who supposedly watched this video, I see them trying to use the very objections she addressed in the video! That's how deep the indoctrination is. They simply can't comprehend anything that threatens their belief.
The evidence is growing that school harms kids. Homework is another issue that is only an issue because people don't want to let go of an institution that they have been led to believe is "necessary", "helpful", and "useful". Just like past forms of slavery. Let it go already.
There is no such thing as "public education". There is "public schooling"-- more honestly known as government schooling-- and there is education. The two are not connected except by accident in rare cases.
Even the tired old excuse of "socialization" is a lie. Government schooling doesn't "socialize" kids, it anti-socializes them. Go to any government school, watch the kids between classes, and tell me which of the behaviors you witness there you think my kid needs to copy and wouldn't otherwise learn. I'll wait for a sensible answer.
Death to kinderprisons!
Even among those who supposedly watched this video, I see them trying to use the very objections she addressed in the video! That's how deep the indoctrination is. They simply can't comprehend anything that threatens their belief.
The evidence is growing that school harms kids. Homework is another issue that is only an issue because people don't want to let go of an institution that they have been led to believe is "necessary", "helpful", and "useful". Just like past forms of slavery. Let it go already.
There is no such thing as "public education". There is "public schooling"-- more honestly known as government schooling-- and there is education. The two are not connected except by accident in rare cases.
Even the tired old excuse of "socialization" is a lie. Government schooling doesn't "socialize" kids, it anti-socializes them. Go to any government school, watch the kids between classes, and tell me which of the behaviors you witness there you think my kid needs to copy and wouldn't otherwise learn. I'll wait for a sensible answer.
Death to kinderprisons!
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Justification for "taxation"?
Is taxation somehow not theft because "the government owns the land"? Statists have made this assertion, but for me it only brings up more questions.
How did the government get the land? Does it really own it, or did it simply decide it owns it?
Can I form a government today and suddenly own all the land from this moment forward, no matter who has owned it, and no matter how many generations it has been in their family? And then "tax" them based on this presumed ownership?
If not, why not? What's the difference?
Is it the belief that a collective can do things that would be wrong for an individual to do? This is nothing but a superstitious belief.
Theft is still theft. It doesn't matter where it occurs-- either at stealing the land or stealing the money from those on the land.
That statist argument fails-- as do they all.
If not, why not? What's the difference?
Is it the belief that a collective can do things that would be wrong for an individual to do? This is nothing but a superstitious belief.
Theft is still theft. It doesn't matter where it occurs-- either at stealing the land or stealing the money from those on the land.
That statist argument fails-- as do they all.
 |
| Uncle Scam is gonna need a bigger hat |
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Monday, May 22, 2017
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.
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
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.
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
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.
-
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Saturday, May 20, 2017
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.
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Friday, May 19, 2017
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:
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Thursday, May 18, 2017
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.
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
"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.
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Monday, May 15, 2017
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.
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Sunday, May 14, 2017
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.
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
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?
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Saturday, May 13, 2017
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.
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Friday, May 12, 2017
"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.
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Thursday, May 11, 2017
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.
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.
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)