Problems don't call for policies

Buy the book

The existence of a problem doesn't beg for a policy.

A policy will probably make more problems than it solves, especially if the policy is political in nature. Political "solutions" usually come in the form of legislation; a counterfeit "law". And even if it does somehow manage to solve the problem, it is unethical. Legislation always is.

The statist mind is always assuming every problem needs a policy to address it. When theft and coercion is in your tool kit, that's the lazy way to approach it. Statist "solutions" are a band-aid, not a permanent solution.

If, like me, you rule out those statist approaches automatically you'll need to find real voluntary solutions. Voluntary solutions will be more robust and longer-lasting, too. Partly this is because people are willingly embracing these solutions. No gun in the face is needed. With political "solutions", when the political winds shift the gun often ends up pointing the other direction. All political "solutions" are subject to change every time a new ruler is holding the gun. That's not a real solution. Not a long-term solution. You can do better.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Gear post: Possibles bag for modern life

Click to embiggen

Mountainmen of Old usually carried a bag filled with anything they might possibly need. Not their shooting bag, which carried support items for their firearms, but a separate bag for everything else. We call this the "possibles bag". I learned the benefit of having such a bag long ago, and have adapted this to the modern world. Some hurtful people have called the possibles bag a purse.

My mountainman possibles bag would actually be a nice thing to have in any difficult situation, but there are some modern problems it wouldn't be ideal for solving. So I took a bag which had belonged to an ex-wife, added some inner pockets, and made it my modern-life possibles bag. I have other bags and pouches I can carry in other situations, but they don't get carried regularly (other than the one I carry when I walk to the post office so I don't need to carry the mail in my hand and hang on to it in the wind).

The possibles bag is made of commercially tanned leather and measures 8.5" wide by 7" tall. It has a button made of buffalo horn (probably water buffalo) secured with a thong of braintain buckskin (for durability and strength). The strap is 2" wide and adjustable, but I haven't changed the length in a long time.
The contents are more variable than any other EDC I carry, and I don't actually always have it with me. Just if I go to the next town by car, or sometimes if I know I'm going to be out of the house for a while.

The picture reflects where in the bag the stuff is kept, separated by the specific pocket it is in. If you look hard, you can probably see how it fits in each pocket.

Top left: home-assembled magnifying glass-- USB cord-- Swiss mini-tool-- cheap folding knife-- Sharpie-- pencil.

Middle left: bullet mini-light-- P-38 can opener-- hair clip.

Bottom left shows how the inside of the bag looks currently.

Top right corner: paper clips-- short USB cord-- USB-C adapter in bag-- back-up battery-- notepad-- wet wipe-- 91% alcohol for hand cleaning and glasses cleaning.

Middle right: lighter-- hair ties-- lip balm.

Bottom right is the contents of the main compartment. Moving sort of from the left to the rightish: a bottle handle/strap made of paracord, and another little bit of paracord-- a rag made from a sweatshirt for cleaning glasses-- a bag containing earbuds-- some little emergency flashing lights-- dental floss-- USB car adapter-- more floss-- leather thong-- 2 types of gum-- medicine vial of coffee substitute-- Maglite (LED)-- prescription sunglasses in their case-- another rag made of cotton shirt. (I carry a lot of things for other people, since I can't seem to get them to be responsible for themselves.)

Now, this will probably be the last regular EDC post unless someone asks about something else. I'm not going to go into defensive tools I may or may not carry, nor a few other "tactical" things I may or may not have on my person at all times. Anything else would just be the clothes on my back or trinkets I wear. I hope you've enjoyed the tour.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

The Notre Dame Ruins

From news.com.au

A landmark has joined-- probably at least for the rest of my lifespan-- the list of historic ruins around the world. Like the Coliseum in Rome, the Acropolis, and more.

I have no religious or nationalist (but I repeat myself) attachment to the Notre Dame Cathedral, but its destruction saddens me anyway.

I hate to see any historic landmark or artwork destroyed. Whether by accident or intentionally, by stupid politico-religionists. I like old stuff. Oftentimes more than I like new stuff.

I'm glad to see people volunteering their own money to fund the attempt to rebuild it.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Banning real progress

Begging government to ban vaping makes as much sense as begging government to ban car brakes.

No, vaping isn't totally safe. It's safer than smoking.
Your car having brakes won't make driving totally safe. But it's still safer than driving without brakes.

Banning, or heavily regulating, either one is going backward. Kind of like banning (or heavily regulating) suppressors.

That doesn't mean I want government to mandate vaping as an alternative to smoking-- it should be a personal choice. You do your life, I'll do mine.

As a tangent-- I'm always shocked at the amount of dishonesty involved in trying to fool people into joining the prohibitionists (or any statist cause, for that matter).

I saw a "public service" [sic] ad against the JUUL vapers recently, where the woman was horrified that the JUUL "contains as much nicotine as 20 cigarettes!" What is this, standard-capacity magazine hysteria aimed at a different tool?

I'm supposing you don't get all the nicotine the device contains in one inhalation. Even if you did get all the nicotine in one sitting, wouldn't it be just like chainsmoking 20 cigarettes? I've seen smokers do that (OK, I didn't count, but you know what I mean). How many cigarettes come in a pack? 20 or 25? Are you going to shove them all in your mouth at once and smoke them together? I guess you could, but I don't think there's a way to get the entire contents of nicotine from a JUUL in the amount of time it would take to smoke one cigarette-- unless you broke it open or something. But it sounds scarier to lie. Scared people are lemmings you can lead to cry for the privilege of being governed harder. So that's what prohibitionists do.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Theft Day

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

You can't have civil rights both ways

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 13, 2019)

It's interesting to me how many people want their own rights respected, while also wanting other people's rights to be violated.

People who want their rights as gun owners respected often advocate a massive government welfare program, carried out through taxation and land theft, in order to build a border wall which violates the right of association and the right of people to move about freely. They also demand a police state where you can be stopped and checked for your papers.

To justify these violations, they'll insist it's necessary because of other kinds of welfare and because of laws which all but criminalize self-defense and the uninterrupted possession of the proper tools with which to carry it out. To abolish any violations appears unthinkable.

On the other hand, those who oppose a rights-violating border wall want to continue to violate everyone by funding government handouts and usually want the rights of gun owners to be violated more than they already are.

Then you have those who seem happy to violate themselves. They'll demand their right to marry whoever they want to marry, but want government permission-- even licenses-- to do so. Or they want to have their right to use Cannabis respected while they beg for this right to be violated through taxation and regulation.

Did I say it's interesting? I meant disappointing.

It makes one thing perfectly clear: people either don't understand rights or they don't respect them.

People aren't good at consistency, especially when they don't realize that all rights are connected so thoroughly they might as well be one and the same. How can you expect your rights to be respected if you refuse to respect the rights of everyone else? How much do you really value your own rights if you'll let others treat them as privileges?

I want your rights respected, no matter who you are.

I don't want you robbed to fund things I believe are necessary. I don't want your real estate stolen for projects I want. I won't hire armed agents to impose things on you which violate your life, liberty, or property even if I suspect you are up to no good. I won't impose licensing on you.

If you violate me I have the natural human right to defend myself. Laws can't change this. It's one reason I will never compromise on gun rights. I'll stand up for all your rights, consistently. Your rights matter to me. Do they matter to you?.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Are you being played?

I suspect Scott Adams has been playing his listeners. I've suspected this for months, but have only discussed this with one person. Until now.

I'll go ahead and tell you now what I think has been going on.

I believe he is using the technique of "pacing and leading" to get his "conservative" listeners to change their minds on "climate change" (and a few other topics as well). He plays the neutral "voice of reason" with his audience who seems to mostly be Right Statist, but he is much more Left Statist than he lets on. (I so dislike using the terms "Left" and Right" in political discussions, since there's really only Statist or not. Yet sometimes it seems necessary to examine the interplay between these mirror images.)

Back when he first started discussing the topic, I got the distinct feeling this was what he was doing. In spite of his protests of "I'm just looking at the argument-- I don't know because I can't know. I'm not a climate scientist." it seemed to me he was going to take the alarmists' side when it was all said and done. He gave clues to that effect. Because he is a government supremacist, after all.

And this is the general arc of what I've watched happening.

He started off leaning slightly to the skeptical side. So as to agree with the listeners he was (apparently) wanting to influence. Pacing them. He has been slowly and carefully moving slightly more to the alarmist side since then. Two steps forward and one step back. Leading them to where he seems to want them to go.

He has straight out said he uses persuasion (and hypnosis) techniques in his writing and podcasting. He has described these techniques and pointed out examples when they are used by others. Then he uses the techniques on his listeners. He's doing it right in the open. I believe his intent is to influence his listeners to move away from Right Statism toward Left Statism-- maybe to bring them to a center position.

Can I prove it? No. He would say I'm mind reading and there is no written or stated evidence that this is what he wants to do. As I've said before, since I can't read minds I am left with reasoning out what someone is thinking by their actions. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The future will tell.

I still listen to Scott because I find him interesting and because I still find it informative to get insight into the workings of the statist mind. But I try to mentally vaccinate myself against his persuasion while doing so by knowing what he's doing. Who knows if I'm protected sufficiently.

Years ago, when I first started reading his Dilbert blog, he once claimed to be "libertarian, but without the crazy stuff". I pointed out that the "crazy stuff", as he defined it, is also called consistency. Consistency, based in principles. Things which get in the way of a full-on embrace of statism. Once you believe it's OK to govern others and use government violence to force others to do what you want and stop them from doing what you don't want them to do, there seems to be nothing that's too far to justify. This is the road he travels. He expects you to follow. And he may be tricking people into following him.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Statism is...

Statism-- the unhealthy obsession with what others are doing.

It needs to become much more unhealthy... for the statists.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

"Intellectual"

"Intellectual" is not a dirty word. It disturbs me how often it is used as one.

On the other hand, many of those who are called "intellectuals"-- particularly "public intellectuals"-- are really just government extremists and elitists. They may have degrees and positions, but their position on issues is anti-intellectual. They follow the religion of statism and worship the god of government.

It is not rational to be a statist. It is vulgar to believe people should be governed by others, and to use politics as a tool for this purpose. Any illiterate punk might believe the same thing, but without claiming the "authority" to force everyone to go along.

They believe they know better how to run your life than you do. And they are willing to use government violence to prove it.

These people may be clever. They may be smart in some ways. But their ignorance and emotionalism overwhelm their intellect. They betray their own intellectualism with their belief system. They've decided which is more important to them, personally. And it's a shame.

Think of all the good they could have otherwise done if they are really as "intellectual" as they are made out to be. The world is poorer for having lost their contributions. When you side with darkness and ignorance-- with statism-- your intellect, if any, becomes a net negative to society.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Is it theft?

I've been working on this flowchart to see if I can articulate what theft is, and why certain "legal" acts are not exempt.

If I've missed something or screwed up in some way, let me know.  (I already see that I forgot a "yes" leading to "It's not theft" from the "Would your wish violate anyone's life, liberty, or property?" Just put that one there in your mind.) If you need the picture enlarged to be able to read the boxes, try this.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Mired

I'm discouraged. It's not just finances, which you might suspect, although that's a part of it. It's just that it seems every day brings more difficulties before I have found a solution for the ones I'm already dealing with. And there's no end in sight.

I can handle things like power outages and short-term water shortages. But some things I don't have the skills to deal with very well.

I'm not trying to be a downer, but if I miss a day of blogging (or two) you'll understand the reason. And I'll try to not do that anyway. I'll keep pushing through.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

My provisional support for "borders"

The only legitimate justification for something like a "national border" would be to separate a free territory from any unfree territories around it. In order to protect the people in the free territory from the statists surrounding them.

This situation doesn't exist anywhere in the world because there are no free territories (other than small scale experiments, maybe). America hasn't been a free territory since America was replaced by "the United States" with the ratification of the U. S. Constitution. As long as there are "taxes" and other counterfeit "laws" and politicians in a territory, it is not free. Even though there are differences in degree, there are no differences in kind.

As it is, national borders are rather like the internal fences in a feedlot. They separate different groups of cattle from each other for the purposes of those who exploit them. It's not for the good of the cattle. It would be genius to brainwash the cattle into believing it is.

In our human situation, it's as if the cattle in one pen are getting angry at the cattle who hop the fence instead of focusing their anger at those who manage the feedlot. "We must remain 'King of the Dung Heap' in our little pen!"

Those humans who hop the fence may be hoping to avoid a looming appointment on the kill floor, or maybe they hope for more food on the other side. But if they are looking for liberty they are doing it wrong and looking in the wrong place. Still, I can't blame them for doing something in their desperation, even if it amounts to jumping out of the fire and into the smoldering kindling.

And, the ones who hop the fence and then demand to make this side similar to the side they were desperate to escape are being stupid and are committing evil.

To be clear: nothing excuses archation by fence hoppers. Nor by fence defenders.

Instead of abandoning principles over your "border", why not make this side of the fence free. Create a condition of liberty. That means zero "taxes", zero counterfeit "laws" of any kind, and zero politicians. This side of the fence cannot be a State.

Then, and only then, I'll help you secure the border from anyone who tries to bring a little bit of archation into this free territory-- while welcoming all others (because they couldn't be a problem). Anyone else should be free to cross this border in either direction with no delay or difficulty whatsoever.

Because it's always up to the believers to convince the skeptics, it's up to those who support the "borders" to make this a free territory and convince me to support their walls and fences. If they have a workable plan which doesn't involve me compromising food with poison or liberty with statism, I'll jump right in.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Gear post: Vest and its contents

Click to enlarge

For years I've worn a vest every day. It's my largest holder of EDC items.

My current vest is a Wyoming Traders "buffalo leather" vest. It has lasted far longer than the canvas vests I wore before this one. But unless I can find another on eBay for a good price (the way I stumbled on this one) I'll go back to the canvas vests when this one wears out.

I always like the 4-pocket vests. This one also has an inside pocket on the left side, plus I made a soft leather pocket for the inside right. I hated for that space to go to waste.

You can examine the picture to see what I actually carry inside. Any comments or questions are welcomed.

I swap stuff out fairly often and change the pockets each item is in as I do. I hesitate to do this because I like knowing which pocket to reach in to find what I need, but I have found that I go into the pockets often enough that it doesn't seem to take any time to know what is where.

Now, yes it is hot here in the summer. A vest might seem like a bad choice. Really, it isn't usually an issue. If I'm miserably hot with the vest, I'm not going to be any more comfortable without the vest. I do usually take it off for lawn work, though.

You can probably understand why a metal detector in a doorway represents-- to me-- just an absolute "no-go zone". It's not worth it and I'm naked before I can make it through. I'd say that has only enhanced my life, though.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Theft and coercion shouldn't be your default

I have a few things to add related to my recent post about Scott Adams' mistake about "climate change" not being a "power grab".

You and I know it is.

Scott would say this just shows you are pretending to read their minds. Plus you would be assuming they don't actually believe AGCC is the apocalyptic crisis they claim it is.

My counter to that is that since we can't actually read minds, what we have to do is infer what someone is thinking by their actions. Even if they actually believe AGCC is a life and death crisis, they are choosing the path which gives government more power.

There are paths to solving "climate change", if it needs to be solved, which don't give government additional power. Paths using economic means rather than political means. Why are they not promoting those paths?

You could imagine they don't know those other paths exist. Yet, they do exist and they aren't hard to find or come up with on your own unless you can't imagine solutions which don't involve government. Theft and coercion shouldn't be your default. If they are, there's something wrong with you. Probably what's wrong with you involves at least a bit of power lust, and hoping that the new system will put you a little higher in the power hierarchy.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

None obligated to obey bad laws

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 6, 2019)

While I appreciate when governments express support for natural human rights, I wonder if they really understand the rights they claim to support.

Roosevelt County was recently declared a "Second Amendment Sanctuary" by the county commission. How serious are they?

Are they only concerned with additional violations of the Second Amendment by the state? What about enforcement of all the violations on the books beginning in 1934 with the National Firearms Act?

Do they understand the only purpose of the Second Amendment was to make it a crime to pass or enforce any laws against weapons?
Do they understand that the Second Amendment recognizes and protects the right to own and to carry weapons however you see fit, everywhere you go, without asking permission?
Do they understand this right existed before the first government was established and will still exist unchanged long after the last government has been forgotten?

These are rhetorical questions because I know the answers. I also realize they call the resolution "not legally binding"; a symbolic nothing.

I wonder how seriously anyone would have taken politicians in the 1850s had they "symbolically" declared their region to be a sanctuary for escaped slaves, yet continued to allow slavery in their communities, and allowed slave catchers to brutally capture and return runaways to the individuals who claimed them as property.

You aren't a Second Amendment Sanctuary if you allow even the slightest anti-gun "law" to be enforced on your watch.

To posture over additional infringements if they are "unnecessary, duplicate, and possibly unconstitutional" is to miss the point of the Second Amendment. To try to weasel out of responsibility, claiming you "cannot determine the constitutionality of a law" is dishonest.

As pointed out in a previous column, the Supreme Court stole the power to be the final arbiter of constitutionality-- this power was not theirs to claim. Constitutionality is yours to judge. Would you wait to see if the Supreme Court says the Constitution permits the federal government to murder a peaceable neighbor over the church he attends before you know it's unconstitutional? The federal government will never allow unconstitutionality to stand in the way of established rules and bureaucracies.

No one needs to fight unconstitutional "laws" since even the Supreme Court has ruled that a law which violates the Constitution isn't a law at all, and no one is obligated to obey. All who enforce such non-laws are criminals.

Don't stop at symbolism. Respect human rights; all of them, completely without reservation or hesitation. It's the right thing to do.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Moccasins

I like feeing the texture of the ground under my feet, but I've never enjoyed being barefoot.

The only barefoot walking I ever did of my own free will was walking barefoot through the snow-- sometimes a quarter mile or so through the woods. The ice balls which form between the toes and get uncomfortable are the biggest downside. When my late daughter Cheyenne was small we had a ritual where she, my son, and I would go for a quick barefoot walk in the snow together at least once every winter. More often if she asked. She looked forward to the first substantial snowfall every year for just that reason.

Other than that, I've never been much of a barefooter.

But I love the feeling of walking in moccasins.

For a large part of my life, I wore moccasins almost all the time. Not the padded abominations with rubber soles that some call "moccasins", but moccasins with nothing but one layer of leather between the ground and you. I did always wear socks or wrap my feet in wool blanketing, though, so there was some padding.

I had a few pairs of moccasins in the closet which didn't fit well. I have been wanting a new pair of Navajo/Kaibab moccasins for years. Those seem to work best for me in civilization.

So several years ago when I had some "extra" money (haha!) I ordered a new pair. I ordered them early because we were heading to Colorado and I wanted moccasins to wear while wandering. And I waited and waited, and got excuse after excuse. A month or so after the trip I gave up and asked for my money back, and it was grudgingly refunded.

I just put the moccasins on hold after that. For almost 7 years. Then, a few weeks back, I did some closet cleaning and decided to sell my 3 pairs of old too-small moccasins. They all sold quickly and with that money I ordered (from a different place) a new pair of moccs. I've been wearing them a lot since then and relishing the feeling.

Why did I wait so long?

When you wear moccasins almost exclusively you learn a different, quieter, (and I suspect, more natural) way to walk, where you meet the ground first with the ball of your foot and then roll the rest of your foot to the ground. It's not as awkward as that makes it sound. The heel doesn't end up bearing much weight. In fact, it's also how I walk when in sock-feet, due to years of developing the habit. It's hard to walk this way in modern footwear because the shoe heel gets in the way, so then I usually revert to the clunky modern style of walking where the heel strikes the ground first, then you fall forward onto the rest of your foot. I can still walk relatively quietly this way (which is why so many people have threatened to put bells on me over the years), but it doesn't feel as right.

I had flat feet when I was a kid, inherited from my mother. My feet may still be flatter than normal, and shoes with "supportive" arches feel like there's a golf ball in the shoe, but my feet are not as flat as they were when I was in my early teens, before I started wearing moccasins. Could use have strengthened the muscles and ligaments of my feet over the years? My mother has only worn shoes with good arch support and her feet are as flat as it is possible for feet to be. I don't know if there's a correlation or not, but it's just data to ponder.

Footwear is a personal thing. I'm sure the preferences are completely subjective. I wear stove pipe boots when I'm going to town or I know I'll be walking on abrasive pavement. But for the sheer pleasure of having feet, I just really love moccasins.

Note: The picture shows my new Navajo moccasins on the left and my old mountainman moccasins, which I made from braintan buckskin, on the right. I don't wear the mountainman moccs in the modern world for multiple reasons.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Giving up on alchemy

A show I was watching on Netflix, showing an alchemist at work, gave me an idea.

I could be wrong, but I suspect alchemy gradually evolved into science because of alchemists keeping the stuff that worked and tossing out the stuff that didn't. The magic failed, but the occasional experiment succeeded, It was a process. No one intended to abandon alchemy; it just happened over time.

I can even imagine some people clinging to hope, still searching for the Elixir of Life, the philosopher's stone, or a way to (easily and cheaply) turn lead into gold, as others were pursuing the more realistic natural sciences.

In a parallel way, politics is alchemy; libertarianism is science.

I can see how politics slowly evolved into libertarianism over the centuries as smart people tossed out the stuff which didn't work and kept doing the stuff which did. Getting closer to anarchy with each winnowing. I believe the Tao Te Ching shows some early faltering steps in that direction from around 2600 years ago. It takes time to get things right.

Yet, there are still a lot of delusionally hopeful alchemists still searching for the best kind of government, the right people to run it, and the law which will solve a problem. The shocking thing is that anyone takes them seriously.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Ammo.com's Not-So-Wild West

It has been stated before, particularly in The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry Anderson and P.J. Hill (which is also referenced in the following piece), but the "Wild West" was more peaceful (and anarchic) than any modern region.

Ammo.com presents a good overview of the topic, as they often do.
Find it here:
The American Old West: How Hollywood Made It “Wild” to Make Money & Advance Gun Control

Personally, I think I'd rather live in the Hollywood version of the "Wild West" than in modern America. But that's just me.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

"Red flag laws"

The only reason it looks to anti-liberty bigots like "red flag laws" are needed is because of the "laws" which make it harder for individuals to defend themselves from evil losers.

Again, as in so many cases, too much government gives an "excuse" for even more government. At least, the dumb people see it as an excuse.

I see it as a reason to get rid of the "laws" which caused the problem in the first place.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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

Sorry, Scott. "Climate change" IS a power grab.

On a recent podcast, Scott Adams almost had a meltdown when confronted by the evidence that many of his listeners believe "climate change" hysteria is all about a power grab by those promoting it. He says this means people have been hypnotized by the media they get their news from.

There's a flaw in his belief: I don't partake of the "news", and the "news" I accidentally get exposed to is from all over the statist map. I also don't know whether AGCC is real, whether it is a net negative, or anything else about it-- other than the fact it doesn't justify violations of life, liberty, or property by any government.

Yet I do know he's wrong to deny "climate change" is about a power grab, and here's why.

He makes the mistake of insisting that someone show him the one person who is seeking to consolidate his or her power using the excuse of "climate change" through something like the "new green deal". That's looking for the wrong thing.

Every "law" increases government power. This means any new "law"-- no matter what it's about-- is a power grab for the whole collective known as "government". Any individual who has hitched their wagon to that coercive collective is going to gain power with each new "law". Of course, any individual connected to government, who lusts for power, is going to advocate for something which will increase government power and will, therefore, increase the individual government cog's power. Maybe not to the point of that one person being the King of Earth, but enough to cause that person to advocate for the new "law". In the hope of gaining power. That's a power grab.

It's neither mysterious nor a conspiracy theory. It's human nature and the nature of the political means.

Added:
He came back the next day and said that obviously, all government is about power, so calling "climate change" a power grab is the same as literally saying nothing.
Nice backtrack... not.

I enjoy his stuff when he's honest, but he's such a flaming statist he can't even see the statism he floats around in.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

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