'Nothing' is best government activity

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 30, 2018)

There is one thing government could do which I will support. One thing I believe it needs to spend more time doing. It's the one thing government can do best, the one thing government can do which will actually help, and the only thing which can justify taxation.
What is this extraordinary government activity? Nothing.

I support government doing nothing, and I believe it needs to spend more time doing nothing. Nothing government does is better than what the market can do. Government does nothing which helps, and nothing justifies taxation.

This doesn't mean I'm against everything government currently does; I'm against those things being done by government with money stolen from my neighbors who may not want such "services" at all. It's an important difference.

As long as people are going to imagine government is necessary or even desirable, I want it sitting in a donut shop day after day gossiping, eating, and drinking coffee rather than being out there meddling in our lives. I may still have to pay for it, but at least this would limit the additional abuses. If people are truly desperate to encounter government, let them go find it napping in its office, never running free in the community among the people.

It's why I favor gridlock. It's as close to government doing nothing as we're likely to get.

As lawyer, newspaper editor, and politician Gideon J. Tucker once observed, “No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” He noticed this fact back in 1866; the situation has only gotten worse since then.

Gridlock is a partial solution-- the one way, under the current circumstances, we can stay a bit safer from government's probing fingers.

As long as gridlock is paralyzing Washington, DC, neither side will let the other have a win, so new laws aren't being imposed.

While the politicians are at each other's throats, trying to prevent the other side from having its way with us, perhaps they'll be too distracted to find new ways of grabbing for our wallets, touching our bodies, and fighting against our liberty. It may be the best we can hope for until the people stop tolerating a distant gang of criminals always seeking new ways to control their lives.

I'm in favor of anything which helps government approach the ideal of doing nothing, even if it's only temporary and limited in scope. Gridlock is a good start.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Misplaced trust

If someone hated you and wanted you to die, would you follow their health advice? Would you let them talk you into behaviors you knew were risky? Would you listen to them at all?

Yet, people let government employees tell them what rights they have.

I see this all the time in responses from people when I say something about the right to own and carry weapons. Particularly on Quora, and especially among those who are saddled with a government which doesn't want them to have guns. (Even more than the U.S. government's aversion to an armed population, I mean,)

They constantly tell me what that specific gang of bullies says their rights are (and are not). They act as though I'm a barbarian for recognizing natural human rights.

If I pointed this out to them they might object that "their" government doesn't hate them nor want them to die; that it is only looking out for their best interests. Judging by the actions and the results of those actions, they sure could have fooled me. If they want the best for their subjects, that is.

It's a sad thing to see. I don't want to see people enslaved, especially when they do it to themselves. I don't want them trusting a gang of thugs to tell them what their rights are, or fooling them into believing rights are only privileges, and that only Neanderthals like me would expect anyone to respect rights.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Someone is confused

Terribly confused. (And I don't believe it's me.) He even stated it for the record, too!

How can he be a lover of Big Government, while being a hater of government? He can't.

On the "Hates government" side he has:

• Taxation is theft. (Yes it is. Even if you like what it pays for)
• "government hating" (which seems a dubious claim, considering)

On the "Loves government" side he has:

• "military and law enforcement supporting" (HUGE welfare programs, and what other molesters does he support?)
• "illegal immigrant hating" (it takes a government to declare something "illegal" and to decide something is "immigration")
• "border security" (HUGE welfare program, and why does he hate property rights?)

On the "irrelevant to the topic" or "insufficient information" side, he has:

• "Gun waving" (Cops wave guns. Troops, too. Government extremists love guns-- as long as they control them. Guns are just tools and it depends on who you are pointing them at)
• Free speech (speech can be pro-liberty or against... but where is he throwing it?)
• anti-abortion (I know people who are pro-liberty, and reasonable, on both sides of the issue)
• school choice (is this school I'm allowed to choose regulated and funded by government? Does my choice include not funding schools at all?)
• anti-handout (except when he's handing other people's money to military, law enforcement, ICE employees, etc. apparently)

So, yes, this guy (who I probably should have redacted, but I'm not going to) is mighty confused. That's why he's a "conservative".

No, "liberals"/"progressives" (who are neither) are not more consistent. I laugh at their confusion and hypocrisy just as much. And when I find a comparable hilarious example, I may share it as well.

Statists-- they don't get that way by being smart or consistent.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Don't archate, part 2

More accurate; too wordy

So, why shouldn't you archate?

The biggest and best reason is that you have no right to do so. Admittedly, most statists and kriminals (archators by another name) don't care. That doesn't change the reality, though.

And if someone is doing what they don't have a right to do, anyone has the right to use force (or whatever it takes) to stop them. If you don't like the consequences of archating, don't. This is a utilitarian reason, so not really the best, but it is still true.

If everyone archates constantly, a functional, positive society isn't possible. Trade wouldn't be possible. "Don't steal the stuff I stole from others" just doesn't work in the long run. Once again, this is too utilitarian for my tastes. And again, statists and kriminals won't care anyway.

But that's the thing, statists and kriminals don't care about a lot of things. If they did care, they wouldn't choose the path they chose. If someone isn't going to care about right or wrong, it's pointless to try to convince them an act is wrong, expecting it will make a difference to them. It won't matter to them. You're not going to talk them out of their wicked ways. So don't waste time trying. State the facts, then let the chips fall where they may. Facing unpleasant consequences is all that will matter, and it will matter most when they lose. Make them lose.

The fact is, "Don't archate" is just what I tell myself. I hope it's what you choose, but I'm only responsible for my own choices, not yours.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Statism isn't working?-- redefine "working"

I notice a lot of people have a hard time admitting when something isn't working.

They'll pretend it does work.

They'll redefine what "works" means to them-- in a way that often goes against how they originally defined it.

They'll ignore the failure as long as they don't have to change what they are doing.

It's probably smarter to stop as soon as you notice something isn't working, or if you feel the desire to redefine "works" in the situation. Think about how else you might approach the problem. Try something else. Don't keep doing what you've been doing just because it's what you've always done.

And, even if it does work, there's probably a better way just waiting for you to discover it. See if you can.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Don't archate

Don't tread on me > Don't tread on anyone > No one tread on anyone > Don't archate.

Seems simple enough. Why is it so hard for some to understand?

Probably because they don't want to understand, because it would show they need to change. To make themselves a better person.

Again, it's a suggestion. A promise from me to you. I think you'd be better off to adopt this philosophy, too, but I don't expect you to. Just know that it's how I will relate to you and others, including how I might react if you do choose to archate. For your own sake, and for the sake of humanity, don't archate.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Hair!

How many times throughout history have bullies sought to humiliate and dehumanize their victims by forcing them to grow their hair long? I doubt this has ever been the case.

Yet, how many times has the opposite been done, where thugs and bullies sought to humiliate and dehumanize their victims by chopping off their hair, or even by shaving their heads? Over and over again this has been a tactic used by vile archators against their victims. It has been done in Nazi concentration camps, U.S. government's Indian "schools", prisons, etc. Some of you history buffs may have lots more examples I'm not aware of.

Why is this the case? What gives the bad guys this idea repeatedly throughout history?

I understand some people, many people, choose short hair or a shaved head. I would never seek to force them to grow their hair out, even though the opposite is so often the case.

This is why I see long hair as a way to feel my own liberty, and why I don't cut it off. To me, it would feel wrong. I would feel less free. It would feel like giving the bullies what they want. Plus, I just like long hair (on everyone, regardless of how they believe it looks on them).

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Laws themselves a senseless crime

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 23, 2018)

Droughts are a serious problem. They cause wildfires, dirt storms, crop failure, and they deplete the aquifer. Droughts are harmful and dangerous. Someone should do something! Why aren't droughts illegal already?

On the other hand, you don't want floods, either. Or property-damaging hail or tornadoes. Those should be criminalized as well.

There needs to be a legal minimum and maximum amount of rainfall each month, and bans on assault weather, so everyone is safe and healthy.

Reasonable people understand it is absurd to criminalize nature. People who advocate, write, pass, and enforce laws are not reasonable people. When nature and laws collide, nature will always make a fool of laws.

I once had a short hedge which grew berries every summer. Nothing was interested in the berries until they fermented, then the robins would gather to eat the fruit and get drunk.

It was funny to watch and proves a point.

Robins aren't arrogant enough to threaten other robins with a cage for eating berries, and to kill them if they resist hard enough. Only certain humans are this arrogant.

Seeking mind-altering substances is not just a human trait. It goes much deeper into the nature of living things-- at least those with a mind to alter. Trying to make the behavior go away with laws is as stupid as criminalizing weather.

The potential to cause harm doesn't justify laws, either. Everything can cause harm, so laws covering anything could be justified by that standard.

Crime only occurs when an individual's life, liberty, or property has been harmed by the actions of another. Crime-- harm to individuals-- is the most common result of writing and enforcing laws. It's the same whether the laws are against substances, tools, or the victimless behaviors commonly called "vices".

Even in the case of harm, do you really need a law against murder before you'll accept it's wrong to murder? Would you wait to make sure murder has been properly criminalized before defending someone who is being attacked? I hope not. What is the point of a law telling you what you already know? Does putting it in writing really change anything? It justifies hiring judges, police, and prosecutors, and paying them all with money stolen "legally" through the act of taxation, but it doesn't solve anything.

You don't need laws to make acts which harm life, liberty, or property wrong, and laws which criminalize other acts or objects harm life, liberty, and property by their existence. Laws are a senseless crime.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Blogger might not like me

Just a heads-up.

Blogger has stopped notifying me about posted comments. I have no idea why, and making sure the settings are right hasn't fixed the problem. So if I miss a comment for a while, forgive me.

They've also stopped showing me search results on this blog earlier than about the past 2 years, making it hard for me to find older posts I want to link to. No idea what that's about, and my inquiry was ignored.

I'm also cross-posting on Wordpress (and just about always have, although it's somewhat of a mess) just in case Blogger decides my blog is unwelcome here. I prefer to keep this one as the primary blog, if possible.

.

Problems with "authority"

I don't mean I have problems with "authority, I mean there are problems with the concept of "authority". Besides it being The Most Dangerous Superstition.

Obviously, I'm speaking of political "authority", not expertise. Two unrelated concepts; one word used for both. Confusing by design.

"Authority" is the power to molest. That's really all it is. This power is based on superstition, but beliefs have consequences.

Probably, in the big picture, this is the thing "conservatives" get most wrong. Along with their absolute rejection of their greatest responsibility, while crowing about everyone else's "responsibility", that is. They don't understand what "authority" is, so they end up worshiping something nasty and disgusting, and criticizing others who see it more honestly than they do.

Political "authority" isn't a real thing. You shouldn't respect it. But you should realize dunderheads will murder you if they feel you have disrespected their delusional "authority". Individual beware.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

"Human trafficking"-- the "people trade"

This recent focus on "human trafficking" is ignoring the biggest offender: government. This means the activists aren't serious.

Who can possibly "traffic" even a tiny fraction of the humans that government does? Without trafficking-- trading-- people back and forth for money, government would lose much of its power and purpose.

Just the prison bureaucracy alone trades in more people than all the freelance slavers combined. And yet this is supposed to be OK? It's not OK with me.

End "human trafficking"; abolish the prison industry.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Yes, you are an "-ism"... or two

Some people like to claim they are above all "-isms". They take pride in this claim, and may even believe it. They are fooling themselves.

"-ism" is simply "a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. "

So those who say they reject all "-isms" would like you to believe they take no actions, have no principles, etc. They "do" nothing based on anything? Don't be ridiculous.

What are they afraid of?

Sure, there are many really disgusting "-isms". Ignorant ones based on horrific beliefs. But to pretend to be above them all is delusional. If nothing else those who pretend this are devoted to "antiismism". That's got to be one of the oddest "-isms" there is.

Don't run from "-isms", but choose wisely. There are good ones and bad ones-- learn to tell them apart. It's really not that hard to do.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Caught in the Doldrums

Sometimes I think the world, and what passes for society, is insane.

I can't help but be relieved two evil rulers of two evil governments seem to not want to blow up the world to spite each other right now. How low is that bar? How did they get this kind of power in the first place? These guys-- and others like them-- shouldn't be able to affect the lives of anyone but their immediate familes, and yet, here we are. That's crazy.

People are still denying property rights by shilling for national borders, border walls, and a police state because of their hatred of this thing they call  "immigration", and kids are getting caught in the crossfire. Taking kids away from parents, whether the practice was started under Obama or Trump, is insanely evil. So are Border Patrol traffic stops and other property rights violations. Borderism... ugh. Nasty stuff, that.

The anti-gun bigots aren't screeching quite as loud at the moment, That's good. But just wait until the next "gun control" emboldened evil loser decides it's time to slaughter. It won't be long, I'm sure.

Then you have a vast mob of people openly supporting a brutal nationwide gang of molesters who rob and murder for the "offense", among others, of not bowing down to them fast enough. Completely insane and related to another bit of craziness...

Government, which if it is allowed to exist at all, should never tell any individual what to do, has been allowed to morph into a nasty master rather than a timid servant. Insanity! It's totally stupid to allow government of any kind to ever set itself above any person or individual rights, for any reason. Government, specifically the State, needs to die.

Yeah, today the insanity is really getting me down. Not the first time, and I know it won't be the last. It's not even just all the above. Birthdays get to me, as does Father's Day. This isn't my favorite time of year. It's all causing a bit of writer's block, and just generally making me feel bad. It's always temporary, but I hate when it happens.

So, if (or when) this happens to you, how do you bring yourself out of it?

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Must suck to be on the wrong side of history

So... LEGAL WEED GAINS MOMENTUM AS TEXAS REPUBLICANS BACK MARIJUANA DECRIMINALIZATION... yet after I had pointed out the stupidity of prohibition in a column, the local molester gang spokesvermin promised it'll never happen here.

Presented for your amusement.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Statists against humanity

One objection to a free society that statists frequently grasp at is their claim that without government control ("laws", "taxes"), no one would help others. Or at least, there wouldn't be "enough" help to go around.

This is so ridiculous that it doesn't even need to be addressed, but I will anyway.

I once bought $300 worth of tools for someone I didn't even really know, just so he could get a job. No one forced me to do it.

I have several subscribers to this blog whose monthly subscriptions help me pay the bills. No one holds a gun to their heads to talk them into helping me.

The world is filled with charities-- supported voluntarily-- which help people out in spite of governments robbing people under the pretense of helping those same people. So, people are paying twice for the same thing; once under threat of death, and once just because they care. People still choose to go above and beyond to contribute on top of what they are forced to hand over to the State. Do statists really believe ending "taxation" (and regulation), giving everyone more money, would cause these contributions to dry up? It's what they claim to believe.

Recently, truly generous people helped me afford a vet visit to save my daughter's cat's life. I'm more grateful for that than I can express. They didn't have to help; they chose to.

A few years ago, people chipped in so I could travel to attend my older daughter's funeral. Again, no one made them do it. I'll never forget.

People like to help others. I like to help others.

I still give what I can when I can. If I weren't under continual threat to be robbed by the State I could afford to give more, like I used to back when I had more money to shuffle around. I'm confident others are like me in this regard. Seeing opportunities to help, and not being able to, is one of the saddest things to me about being broke.

If government extremists are so sure ending the extortion racket would end in disaster, let us try it for a year and see how it goes.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Then I suppose you can go back to having your goons rob me at gunpoint.

But if I'm right, and the only things left lacking in funds are those things which shouldn't be done in the first place ("services" no one really wants enough to pay for them if they have a choice), then I want the statists to shut up and go away forever. It's a reasonable deal they are too afraid to take. I suspect they know what would happen.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Wait, can I DO that?

Today is my birthday, and I'm taking a day off. I plan to be back tomorrow with more chewy goodness.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Don't trust government to keep deals

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 16, 2018)

President Trump has decided to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the "Iran Nuclear Agreement", and his critics are enjoying their opportunity to show concern.

You can debate whether the deal had any legitimacy, whether it was a good idea, and what breaking the deal means, but you'd be missing the point. Agreements are meaningless to governments.

Every government, or rather every person imagining themselves a representative of a government, feels they have the right to make and break deals. Every government sees itself as special and believes anything they do is justified. It's the same if the deal is between governments or between a government and an individual.

There is no downside for a government to agree to a deal, so they are quick to agree and quicker to break them when they become inconvenient. Just ask anyone who isn't a government extremist how well the U.S. government has obeyed its Constitutional limitations-- the charter which allowed it to exist. Or ask the Native people of America how well the treaties they agreed to were kept. Ask yourself what happened with Social Security numbers; promised to never become any sort of national identification number and made illegal to use for identification outside of Social Security, but which are now national identification numbers.

Governments feel no obligation to live up to their agreements while demanding you keep up your end centuries after their betrayal.

A problem with making any agreement with government is that you have no real recourse when the government tires of its end of the bargain. Even if your complaint is heard, it will either be heard by a representative of the same government which cheated you-- a representative who owes his job and paycheck to your opponent-- or by some other government. No government wants to find governments obligated to keep their end of any deal. It could come back to bite them. Obviously, seeking justice on your own would be called a crime by the government which violated you.

If you make an agreement with a government and expect the agreement to be honored, you have set yourself up for disappointment. If you expect agreements between two or more governments to be upheld, you seem unaware of what government is or how it works. Don't expect a scorpion to act like anything other than a scorpion. Not even if you consider it your pet.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Happy Father's Day

Great fathers teach* their kids responsibility.
They teach their kids to not attack people, to not take or damage other people's stuff, and to keep their word.
They teach their kids that searching for loopholes just because they really want to find one isn't the right thing to do.

The truly exceptional fathers also teach their kids there are no "jobs" that come with a pass to do these things; that the people who believe there are aren't heroes or anyone to look up to, but are someone to pity or revile.

And these fathers live the example, even when it's hard, rather than just speaking wise words.

If at all possible, be grateful for the father you have, flaws and all, and do your very best to be an exceptional father, even knowing you will sometimes fall short.

-

*Remember you can't teach anyone anything they aren't willing to learn. All you can do is to do your best.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

I never suspected...

...which makes sense when you think about it.

According to the graph above, my IQ is somewhere around 65.

I'm sure that's comforting to "certain people". Hey, whatever makes people feel better about themselves, right? 😜

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Identify reality

Just because you don't like what I say doesn't make it any less true.

Of course, the opposite is also true-- just because you agree with me doesn't mean I'm right.

This is a hard thing to grasp. I want to believe those I agree with are right, and those I disagree with are wrong. And, it's still possible that this is the case most of the time. But I have to be careful to not be so happy to agree with something that I don't examine it.

As is the case in so many areas of life, the more you learn to identify the plants and wildflowers, the fewer weeds you'll see. Fewer... but there still are some.

I can see why others embrace certain paths (and people), and in learning to identify some of these things, I see fewer acts as truly evil. But evil still exists.

No matter how you wrap it and put a bow on it, it is still evil to cause intentional harm to life, liberty, or property. It is evil and it doesn't matter what names you give it. It doesn't matter how much you appreciate or love those who do it. It doesn't matter that the alternative scares you or you feel you have no choice. And, even if I can identify your specific weed, I know it's still a weed. It needs to be pulled out by the roots and burned-- and it's your responsibility to do so.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium