"Higher" indoc... um... "education"

Photo by Ryan Jacobson on Unsplash

I am a big fan of education. Maybe that's why I am not very optimistic.

First, you've got kinderprisons doing all they can to indoctrinate children into the statist religion and wipe out any sense of curiosity or natural intelligence. Slam those pegs of every shape and size into a uniform round hole of antieducation and conformity. And bullying from all sides.

Then, if they survive that, the option they are popularly encouraged to pursue is to subject themselves to more brainwashing through theft-funded universities run by Left-Statists.

Over the holidays I was around one such victim. She's smart, but suddenly, after a few years of college courses, she's saying things like "intersectionality" and "privilege" and ... well, you don't want to hear what all. In the interest of peace, I stayed out of it and kept my mouth shut, even as responses ran through my head like visions of sugarplums... or something.

If that's what passes for a "higher education" these days, society is better off without it. I couldn't, in good conscience, encourage anyone to follow that path anymore. I find that completely tragic because of how much I love and value ACTUAL education.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Pointless rankings

I like bad colds more than I like nausea.

I like Boba Fett more than I like the Emperor.

I like bone-chilling cold more than I like humid heat.

I like the broken rib I have now more than I liked the kidney stone I had a few years ago.

I like doing laundry more than I like dusting.

And I still like Trump more than I like Hillary or Pelosi-- and I don't like Trump at all.

Ranking bad things like those is rather pointless and is completely subjective.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Scott's strawman burns to ashes

Ewww! What's that smell? Ah. I see now... Scott Adams has stepped in it again and is tracking it all over the place unaware. It would only be polite to let him know. Right?

Years ago I pointed out that his claim to be "libertarian, without the crazy stuff" simply meant he was inconsistent.

He's done it again, while explaining he only said that back then because it was meaningless. He recently said:

"... Libertarian without the crazy parts-- what are the crazy parts? Most of the libertarian belief system is the 'crazy'. Because the libertarians would say 'get rid of government and let everyone do what they want.' ...The libertarian parts are the crazy parts." 

What's wrong with those statements? Plenty. And I'll explain so he can't whine that I said "You're wrong" without giving the reasons. (He still wouldn't like it, though.)

He doesn't know what the "libertarian belief system" is, so he has no clue what it is he seems to imagine he's criticizing. How do I know he doesn't know what the "libertarian belief system" is? It's not "mind-reading", it is taking him at his word, based on what he clearly said above. He shows he doesn't know what he's talking about; there's no guesswork or mind-reading involved.

Without a foundation in something along the lines of the Zero Archation Principle, it's not "libertarian". Distilled down to the essence, the libertarian belief system is: "don't attack others and don't take or damage their stuff". If he believes that's crazy, he's a monster.

Anything else libertarian grows out of that solid foundation.

As I have pointed out, the ZAP is not a "thou shalt not"; it is really just pointing out that you have no right to do those things, not that you have to accept this truth. And it is a promise from me to you. You do what you want, just be aware of how I will see your behavior and how I might respond when you do things you have no right to do.

Maybe his problem is that it doesn't leave room for exceptions for politics and those who practice that dark craft.

Libertarians don't generally say "get rid of government", they would say "get rid of political government/the State". Politics is antisocial and illegitimate. His wishes can't change that fact. If that's what he wants to waste time on, I wouldn't say he can't, but I won't pretend he's the adult in the room while he plays with his toy Rulers and fawns over legislation.

Pointing out the illegitimacy of political government isn't the same as saying "let everyone do what they want". Remember the ZAP mentioned above? Rulers are nonsense, but rules aren't.

Do what you want, as long as you aren't violating someone else's equal and identical liberty; do what you want and have a right to do. That's a very solid wall between "do what you want" and the rest of us.

But it's so much easier to attack the strawman in ignorance than to address the uncomfortable reality. Well, Scott's strawman just burned away. He'll need to build another one to attack next time.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Political animosity will only increase

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 20, 2019)

Are you concerned over how divisive politics has become? Do you notice the growing intolerance for opposing opinions? Do you wish everyone could go back to a time when there was civil debate and people could agree to disagree?

Yet, at the same time, do you support using government and its legislation against others in ever-increasing ways?

You can have a civil society or you can have government control; you can't have both. Government has been allowed to get too big, powerful, and noticeable in our daily lives.

The more power you give government to interfere in more facets of life, the more heated the disagreements will be. It will only get worse unless you turn completely around and start taking power away from government.

If you want more "gun control", a border wall, higher taxes, marijuana prohibition, or any other government control, you aren't interested in civil debate. The same goes if you want to ban vaping, plastic grocery bags, carbon dioxide emissions, or pit bulls. You will force others to fight you for the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. And they will fight. They may even turn the tables and use government to stop you from doing things you enjoy.

You can't threaten to use government against other people and then claim the political anger shocks you-- you've caused it.

If people were willing and able to put government back in a tiny box or otherwise rein in its excesses, civil debate could be possible. Until then, political animosity will increase.

A lack of tolerance is self-defense. You shouldn't tolerate those who want to enslave you. Your choices are "fight or flight", and there's nowhere left to flee to anymore. No frontiers remain for those who don't want government regulating every moment of their life and death.

Government should be neither seen nor heard. The more government is noticed, the more people resent those trying to use it against them. It can't be otherwise-- not in the real world.

If you want civil debate, stop looking for things other people do that you want government to regulate. Stop threatening your neighbors with government. It's antisocial.

Politics is based on some people winning at the expense of everyone else. This isn't civil. Political anger will only get worse as long as this trend continues. You can end it by refusing to be part of the problem, or you can keep feeding the political monster like you have been. It's your choice.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Donations for Christmas?

If anyone has any disposable money left after Christmas shopping and wants to dispose of it in an environmentally responsible and very PC way, feel free to make a donation to this blog.

Oh, and if you have a visceral dislike of donating, feel free to buy a handful of Time's Up patches to send to gun owners in the occupied territory of Virginia. Either way.

😇

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Just people"

I was treated to a movie Friday night. We saw "Star Wars-- The Rise of Skywalker".

There's a minor spoiler ahead, so if you don't want to read it, run away now.

The quotes are paraphrased since I wasn't actually taking notes during the movie, but it goes something like this:

During the climactic battle, the Rebels are outnumbered and it's clear they are going to lose. They are losing. Suddenly the sky fills with an uncountable number of ships, with more dropping out of hyperspace every second. Yes, much like the Reavers in that scene in "Serenity".

The commander of the State troops looks a bit panicked and asks whose navy this is, and his underling says it's no navy, it's "just people".

My thought at that moment was that this State was probably regretting "allowing" the people to keep and bear arms.

This is a good fictional illustration of why the natural human (or other sapient being) right to own and to carry weapons is one that must never be trivialized or allowed to atrophy.

Thank you to my sister and her wife for the nice night out.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Making politicians nervous since ... ?

Back in college, I took a required course in "U.S. government". I took a lot of required stuff I didn't want to take and had no interest in.

One day we had a special guest speaker; some minor state-level elected politician. I tried to pay attention and be polite in spite of the subject. I didn't ask any questions-- I don't remember if questions were allowed. I don't remember who he was or what his position was. I don't remember what he talked about, either.

What I do remember was that he couldn't stop staring at me while he spoke-- actually losing his train of thought several times.

I wasn't making a scene or making faces at him, so I guess it must have been my home-made buckskin jacket and coonskin cap. It was winter, and that's what I wore in cold weather. I guess if it bothered him that badly he should have spoken to the class during a warm spell.

Maybe he thought I was going to whip out a tomahawk and hurl it at him. But I wasn't going to. I probably wasn't even carrying a tomahawk.

A few years later I married the sister of a fellow classmate (ex-wife #1) and he told me he remembered that class and me.
I wonder if the minor tyrant remembers. I doubt it. But it still makes me smile to remember.
And, no, I don't think I still make any politicians nervous. That was probably a one-time thing.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Blog issues?

Is anyone having trouble accessing this blog? For the past week or so, about half the time when I try to visit the site I get a "this site can not be reached" page instead.


.

Upsetting the spoiled brats

Wanna hear a really dumb opinion? Sure you do. Maybe that's even why you visit here. But this opinion isn't mine-- I copied it from another blog's comment section. It's as dumb as the opinion that "taxation isn't theft!", which I encountered moments ago somewhere else.

"the Left created libertarians in order to siphon votes away from the Right"

I suppose this guy believes the Right-Statists are entitled to the v*tes of people who don't support them. As if you and I somehow owe them.

The "mainstream" DemoCRAPublicans' support for anti-gun "laws" of various kinds had already-- before I even learned what a libertarian was in 2001-- convinced me to stop v*ting for the anti-liberty clowns of the "Right" or the "Left". Any of them. I don't owe them my support; they worked so hard to earn my contempt.

The broken promises and empty words of the Republicans with regard to gun rights, forgotten as soon as they got political power, had lost them my support, and the Democrats never had it to begin with, even though I was (and am) an environmentalist.

Why would I support someone who would only stab me in the figurative back as soon as they got into office? And they did-- time after time.

The "Left" didn't create libertarians. Neither did the "Right". Humans are born libertarian and it takes brainwashing and lies to turn us into statists-- "Right" or "Left". Those who don't like the consequences of their lies and their villainy might complain that you aren't supporting "their side", but it's a filthy lie that you owe it to them.
You know what they can do with their malignant sense of entitlement.
The spoiled brats.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"By invitation only" vs "Open to the public"

This may (I hope) be the wrap-up to the recent posts on anti-gun bigots, right-of-way, and all that mess.

As I said in a previous post, I see a big distinction between private property which is "by invitation only"-- your house, yard, car, etc.-- as opposed to private property which is "open to the public"-- a business or something like that.

If you invite me to your house, I will assume you aren't going to say "no guns", just as I would never do to you or anyone else. But if you do say that, I will decline the "invitation" (which I won't see as an invitation at all, but as an insult). There was no necessity for me to go to your property, and if you don't trust me armed, you don't trust me at all. And if you insist I show up disarmed I will assume you intend to violate me in other ways, too, and don't want me able to fight back. So, no, I will not go to your place. I doubt I would invite you to my house either after that.

But maybe you have a rational reason-- strong magnetic fields in your house that would turn a gun into a dangerous projectile or something like that. Unless you can give a reasonable explanation of that sort that's not based on mere feelings, I will never again trust you because of this violation of trust.

If you have a business that you claim is "open to the public", then I'm going to assume you mean what you say. I always assume liberty unless shown otherwise. If, however, you were lying and your property is not really "open to the public" but is only "open to disarmed people" I will go elsewhere if I have an alternative. And I hope I have an alternative because I really don't want to support your bigotry with my money.

Is a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign the same thing as a "We don't care if you die" sign? Not even close.

Requiring you to wear clothes might be the same as asking you to carry concealed rather than having an AR15 slung over your shoulder, though. It's about what's in the open, visible, outside your personal space zone. Not wearing a shirt reduces that zone down to the surface of your skin. Requiring shirt and shoes isn't usually the business owner's personal feelings anyway, but is generally mandated by the State. I've seen many businesses turn a blind eye in certain circumstances. Wearing a shirt isn't likely to harm you in any way, and if your shirt suddenly caught fire no business owner would have a hissy fit if you stripped it off to keep from burning to death. It's possible to take off your shirt if an emergency requires it; it's not possible to conjure a gun out of thin air if an emergency requires one.

And, obviously, it's a serious crime for any government facility to pretend they can forbid guns. Yet, they get away with it and will murder you for ignoring their violation. Which just shows what they really are.

I don't trust anyone who tries to deny anyone's right to be responsibly armed. I never have and I never will. I wouldn't do that to anyone and I expect reciprocity.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Wishful thinking

"It's a clear and present danger, I think, to our democracy..." says one political bully about Trump-- another political bully.

Sigh... If only that were true.

And, it's their democracy, not mine or "ours". I take no part in mob rule. Why would I?

-

h/t Rational Review (please help their year-end fundraiser!)

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

What should a State not have?

Well, a state shouldn't have anything, but I had something specific in mind.

One sure sign someone is economically ignorant is when they start talking about "national economic policy" as if it's a legitimate thing for the State to have. It's not.

There needs to be a separation of economy and State, not "policy" which allows the State to manipulate the economy.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Principled better than wishy-washy

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

A common criticism of libertarians is that we are wrapped up in principles; in absolutes. We are called "purists" as if this is a bad thing, yet the opposite of "pure" is "contaminated".

Ethical principles function like a conscience. You won't always do what your conscience tells you, but without it, you can't know you've done wrong.

Another word for "principled" is "consistent". People balk at principles and consistency when they want to do something they know isn't right. Consistency doesn't mean you're automatically right-- it's entirely possible to be consistently wrong-- but inconsistency is a sure sign a person is off-course.

This may explain why most people seem to prefer utilitarianism-- using whatever approach seems useful and effective in the situation. They believe they can't be principled because the real world isn't perfect. Reality may not be perfect, but it is absolute.

By contrast, politics avoids principles like the plague. It's said to be "nuanced" as if right and wrong don't apply. Politics is utilitarian.

Politics can't be absolute because it needs useful and effective flexibility so as to provide excuses to do wrong without being seen by the majority of its victims as the bad guys. Reality is what it is; politics is whatever you can get away with.

In the real world, you don't have the option to use magic when you don't like the way things are. In politics, you can say some special words and permit yourself to violate life, liberty, and property-- usually without consequence.

If you want a car but can't afford one, the political utilitarian might encourage you to steal one or steal the money with which to buy one-- through taxation, perhaps. Theft can be both useful and effective. It can get you what you believe you can't get otherwise. However, if you insist it's wrong for someone to steal from you, how can you pretend the rules don't apply when you're the thief?

If you want to find a way to do wrong you can use the excuse that it's a nuanced "gray area"; it's useful and effective to violate others who stand in your way. Politics "works".

Since principles and politics-- opposite approaches-- can each have utility, utilitarianism is meaningless.

Is being principled better than being conveniently wishy-washy? I believe it is, as long as your principles are worthwhile, but it all depends on how you define "better" and what you want to get away with.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

"Where were the 'brave', 'heroic' gun owners?"

Not around here... or anywhere else I've ever lived.

Anti-gun bigots frequently ask why gun owners don't intervene and stop attackers more often-- which gun owners claim as one of the main reasons they own and carry guns.

Maybe my situation will illustrate a possible reason.

Say I have a gun or two and am willing to carry to protect myself and others.
However, because of rampant anti-gun bigotry and statist support for it, the reality is I have 4 options:

• I can stay home.
• I can go out of the house but leave my guns at home because there are no essential businesses* in this region that lack a "We don't care if you die!" sign at the door. Thus, bolstering the anti-gun bigots' point that guns are useless for defense of society and might as well be banned.
• I can go out, but leave my guns in the car, rendering them useless for defense and more vulnerable to theft. Thus, again proving more of the anti-gun bigots' points.
• I can go out, armed, in violation of the signage.

That's it. Those are my options.

And this is in Texas and New Mexico-- supposedly fairly "pro-gun" places.

A right you are unable to exercise is worthless and might as well not even be a right. Just a wish.

That's why evil losers are able to commit mass murder, time after time, with little effective opposition. I find this situation unacceptable.

I know other gun owners who carry and say they've never seen these anti-gun signs around here. Am I hallucinating all the signs? or are the other people selectively blind to these nasty insults to human dignity?

What solution do you see? "Too bad"? "Move"?

-

*Ignoring for a moment whether there is any such thing as a right-of-way since there is some contention on that point, I see a big difference between property that is accessed "by invitation only" and property which is "open to the public" for business or such.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Property rights: essential but not sufficient

In spite of what some readers may think, I am a radical supporter of property rights. I am inflexible in my support of the principle. I have been told I'm an extremist on the topic.

This means I have thought hard, for a long time, about the foundation and consequences of property rights-- where they come from and where they lead. If they have limits and if so, where those limits might lie.

This has led me to see property rights (with regard to real estate) as absolutely essential, but not sufficient. These property rights are a slice of the pizza, maybe all but one thin slice, not the whole thing.

If you don't have absolute rights to, and ownership of, your body, no matter where it is, you have no property rights whatsoever. Nor any other kind of rights for that matter if people are right when they say all rights are property rights in one way or another.

All property rights grow out of your right to your body. And, like it or not, that includes the immediate contact surface of your body; your "personal space". I have described this in the past as the bubble surrounding you, from your clothing inward. Without this zone, you have a right to your naked body and nothing else.

To insist that real estate rights trump these self-ownership rights is to put the cart before the horse. It is to focus on the leaves while saying the trunk and branches don't matter.

Nothing I'm saying implies you can damage (or credibly threaten to damage) any private property around you, it doesn't mean you own any private property outside your sphere of "personal space"-- *any private property where your body may be that isn't property you own (As in, if you are standing in your neighbor's house or in Walmart, you have no claim to those properties. You only own yourself and your "personal space" immediately adjacent to your body. You can't reach out and stuff something that belongs to someone else into your pocket and then claim it is yours now-- your action violated their property. Your ACTION)* [between the *s edited for clarity], and it doesn't mean you can become a squatter on that property. If you have right-of-way, you still have right-of-way even if you are asked to leave-- but why hang around longer than you have to? Get out without hesitation.

I have said a lot on this topic over the years; there's no way for me to say it all again, or to even find everything that needs to be part of this post. If you are interested in digging deeper, try the "Property Rights" tag and sift through those posts.

You may not agree with me, and that's OK, but if I were to characterize my view in any other way, I would be lying to you. And I don't do that-- I won't do that on any topic. It's not me. For good or bad.

Relevant recent links:
Right-of-way
Right-of-way and (sometimes) guns
"Possession"

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Possession"

One of my earliest independent libertarian realizations, around the time I was a pre-teen or young teen, was that simple possession-- of anything, anywhere-- could never be a real crime; a wrong. That for something to be wrong, it had to be used in a way which harmed someone. There had to be possession plus harmful action. Possession was passive; there was no harm. Unless the thing you possess is radioactive or emitting toxic fumes ("active" being the key), obviously.

It was the action alone, never the possession.

And being "offended" by the presence of something isn't the same as being harmed by it. If you are offended, you are violating yourself and no one else is responsible for that.

My parents always watched "the news" and every evening I was hearing reports that someone had been arrested for "possession"-- usually of drugs, but sometimes of other objects.

At that time, I was still a supporter of prohibition. I had never heard anyone question it in the slightest way and it wasn't an important issue to me.

Even so, the realization dawned on me that this wasn't a real crime. It couldn't be. They possessed something but hadn't hurt anyone with it, or even threatened to do so. I hadn't thought of the concept of counterfeit "laws" at that time, but I instinctively knew that any rules against possessing anything-- and not against actually doing something harmful with it-- were wrong.

Later I stopped making imaginary distinctions between what people did in the name of government and what they did as individuals. If it's wrong for government to do it, it doesn't become OK just because you're not a government employee acting on behalf of government.

This, along with my independent recognition around the same time that "property taxes" were unethical, formed the foundation of my later libertarian thinking.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Turn signals

Here's another opinion of mine you'll probably dislike:
I don't like turn signals, and I'm not at all a fan of other drivers using them.

I certainly don't get it when people go off about people who don't use turn signals-- at least these drivers who don't signal aren't lying to me.

If I knew where the other person intended to turn, it might not be as bad. But turn signals leave a lot to guess-work. I don't trust them when I'm wanting to pull onto a road and an approaching car is signaling. Do they want to turn onto the road I'm on? Do they want to turn into the parking lot just past me? Is it safe to pull out or not? What good does the turn signal do? None. I end up waiting until the other car actually does something that shows their clear intent, regardless of the signaling. I could (and would) do that without the signal.

I guess if I were always in a rush and willing to burn rubber to dart across traffic, I might feel a bit differently. But probably not. I've always hated turn signals for their lying deceptiveness.

Yes, I use them anyway, but when I think about it, I hate using them and I hate seeing them used by other drivers. Guessing, based on other hints and mind-reading, would be just as effective as turn signals in most cases.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Right-of-way and (sometimes) guns

I just can't stop kicking this hornet's nest, even though I find the experience intensely unpleasant, because I think it's important.

Of the libertarians I know and respect with whom I have discussed this, half say it's obvious I'm right while the other half are adamant that it's obvious I'm wrong. Both "sides" have explained their positions to me, either in private or in the comments on my blog, explaining why it's so plain that the other "side" is wrong on this matter. It's clear this isn't as obvious or cut-and-dried as either side seems to be positive it is.

Obviously, there is a blind spot, and I fully admit it may be mine. However, I'll try to explain why I don't believe it is. A primary part of that is because, regardless of how those who disagree frame my position, it's not about guns. It never was, nor have I ever claimed it was-- unless it was in the heat of the moment and I misspoke. It's just that guns are where the subject comes to a head.

If right-of-way is a legitimate concept, and I see no good arguments against it (and I have looked), there can't be anything you are arbitrarily forbidden to have on your person as you pass-- as long as it stays on your person and causes no harm nor any credible threat of harm. To forbid any specific object (including a gun) under these conditions is completely arbitrary and, I believe, wrong.

Supposing you have to cross someone's property, and-- due to right-of-way-- they grudgingly allow you to do so, are you then obligated to cross naked if they post a "no clothing" or a "no personal property allowed" sign? What if the weather would kill you if you were naked but it was essential for you to cross now instead of waiting until the weather is perfect?

If you are only allowed to take your bare body and nothing else-- no suitcase with clothes to put on once you get someplace where your humanity isn't violated, and not even anything stashed in either of "nature's pockets" (because that would be concealed carry)-- you'll never be able to take anything to or from your house. No food, no raw materials, nothing. You can't engage in trade. You are a prisoner and a slave to the other property owner.

Probably too hypothetical, but hypotheticals can still expose flaws in reasoning even if you say the situation is highly improbable.

So, my position is not just about guns-- even though that's where some people seem to believe the exceptions lie so that's where they focus their criticisms.

Why would clothes be different than anything else you need to carry? A gun is only "different" than clothes because of superstition. It is personal property which is necessary for survival in specific circumstances-- just like clothing. "But a gun can be used as a weapon!" So? I could strangle a person with a sock if I were a thug with that sort of training or experience.

You might say "You don't need a gun the same way you need clothing".
Well, you don't need clothing if the temperature and humidity are perfect, there's no chance of sunburn (since even wearing sunblock could be forbidden by the property owner you're dependent upon if he specifies "nothing but YOU") and if the weather were incapable of changing. But even in this case of absolutely perfect weather with zero chance of it changing, would such a requirement be reasonable or legitimate? Remember, you are surrounded by this other person's real estate-- "his property, his rules". His rules could (and probably would) kill you.

Clothes wouldn't be necessary in a climate-controlled world.
A gun wouldn't be necessary in a world without aggression.

We don't live in either of those imaginary worlds.

I understand trying to respect property rights, but there are some instances where it is anti-liberty and unworkable in the real world to do so in this way, to the exclusion of everything else.

Property rights are essential... but not sufficient. There's more to rights than property rights. If you can be held captive on your property by someone else's property rights, then there is no liberty.

It seems that right-of-way solves that. If you let it.

And, I really do believe it comes down to a superstitious belief-- a superstition created by decades of statist brainwashing-- that a gun is somehow fundamentally different from any other piece of property. It's plainly not.

Or, is a gun somehow the only legitimate (and/or acceptable) exception to right-of-way? If so, why, and how does that work?

Is this entire discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

And, again, if I invite you to my property, I will NEVER ask you to leave your rights at my property line. Never. I can't even imagine being so twisted. If I don't trust you with all your rights intact, I don't trust you and have no business inviting you onto my property at all. It's all about actions. As long as you don't steal, damage, attack, or threaten to do any of those things, you're welcome here.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Right-of-way

Once upon a time, I believed that if your property ended up being surrounded by the property of others and they refused to let you cross their property to get to and from your property, it was "just too bad". You might starve but you had no right to complain if they wouldn't allow you to cross-- it was their property, after all. Your death was just the price of protecting their property rights.

Then someone reminded me of the concept of right-of-way.

It was something I hadn't considered before.

Now, obviously, I don't believe rights are (or can be) granted by courts or government. Either they exist, or they don't. I don't believe rights obligate anyone to do anything beyond not violating the life, liberty, or property of others.

Does right-of-way violate the property rights of some to prevent them from violating the life and liberty and property rights of another? Maybe.

Right-of-way has been recognized as a human right for centuries. That doesn't necessarily mean it really is a natural human right, though.

The purpose behind right-of-way seems to be to prevent someone from claiming property rights as justification to cause harm to the life, liberty, and property of someone else. To keep "property rights" from being used as a weapon to violate the property rights-- and more-- of others.

Perhaps the property rights of one can't outweigh the life, liberty, AND property rights (combined) of another.

Having right-of-way doesn't include the right to steal, vandalize, litter, homestead, or otherwise damage the property while you are passing through. "Leave nothing but footprints; take nothing but pictures" doesn't begin to go far enough when talking about exercising right-of-way. Keep your hands in your pockets and move along. Leave no footprints if it can be avoided, and take no pictures.

Those who believe property rights give a person the right to do anything they want to other people on their own property, claiming property rights as the justification, would probably disagree and discount the idea of right-of-way, or maybe place some arbitrary conditions beyond those rational ones I've pointed out.

Right-of-way makes ethical sense to me, but I'm open to arguments for and against.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Responsibility-- anti-gun bigot edition

If one of my family members ever gets seriously injured by an attacker-- or murdered-- in a place that bans guns, you can bet I'll sue the owners and management of the place. There's a minimum you can do for safety, and banning guns is a dereliction of duty in that regard.

I'm not "sue-happy" (I've never been involved in a lawsuit) but when someone negligently or intentionally helps the bad guys, they need to be sued. Hard.

I spent yesterday in Amarillo, and I don't think I saw a single business that didn't have a "We don't care if you die" sign on the door. Yet, I hear people from other parts of Texas who say this isn't their experience. Lucky them-- or maybe they just don't notice the posted insults to human dignity like I do. Each one of those signs is a slap in the face.

If cops made you remove your seat belts from the car before driving on "their" roads, and you were killed in an accident when a seat belt might have saved you, they would be at fault just as much as whatever caused the accident.

If firefighters made you remove the fire extinguishers and smoke alarms from your house, and you died in a fire that you might otherwise have survived or put out, they would be responsible for the tragedy no matter how the fire started.

And if a business bans guns-- safety equipment-- and someone is harmed by an attacker, then that business might as well have given the bad guy the gun and ammunition, and helped him pull the trigger. The owners and management are responsible, whether they like it or not.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.