Injecting politics into your veins

Yesterday I was reminded again why I think politics is a bad thing to allow into your life. Even a little.

I have yet to see anything made better by politicizing it-- better in any way that voluntary action couldn't have done more ethically.

That 100% includes respecting the life, liberty, and property of others (AKA "libertarianism").

I used to think politics could be ethical-- somehow-- if done carefully enough. Now I would need some concrete proof. I just no longer think that's possible. As likely as a "compassionate rape" or something. I'm embarrassed to have ever believed this idea.

What I do understand is that some people feel they have no choice but to engage in politics in self-defense. I hope they are wrong because otherwise the human species is doomed. Tit-for-tat, do unto others because they'll do unto you. Which may be the case. It doesn't do my emotional state any good to think that way, though.

Keep on prepping for the unlikely (we are told) collapse.

-

If you feel like it, check out my GiveSendGo, and share it. I really appreciate those who have helped so far.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Last chance

If anyone wants to save anything from my KentForLiberty.com website, grab it now. It's going offline in a few days. I'm going to try to keep the domain name-- partly to keep anyone else from using it for nefarious purposes.

I'll keep the mirrored pages up on this blog, as long as The Goog doesn't cancel me.

This blog isn't affected by this cost-cutting measure, other than all the dead links this will cause. Bring them to my attention and I'll do what I can when I can.

Thanks.

.

So that's what all the fuss was over?

I think all politics makes people stupid, and is likely to make them evil as well. I had long wondered what the fuss over the LP's Mises Caucus was really about, but no one could give me a straight answer when I asked. It wasn't really that important to me, but then I recently saw them called "Republicans" (Ewww!) and got curious again.

So, I went to the source as credible as any other these days-- Wikipedia-- where I read something I could at least get some answers from. 

So, the problem seems to stem from June 2021, when the Mises-controlled New Hampshire affiliate Twitter account (so, one person, I guess) made "controversial" tweets calling for "legalizing child labor" (reasonable-- just because you recognize government shouldn't forbid something doesn't mean you think anyone should be forced to do it), repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Good. Government shouldn't be involved. All humans already have equal and identical rights and this didn't change that), and re-opening Gitmo "so that Anthony Fauci and every governor that locked their state down can be sent there" (Terrible, statist, anti-liberty idea. But anyone can say stupid and evil things occasionally).

So, I see nothing particularly remarkable in that. 

As far as the call to lock up Fauci and the other Covid tyrants, in a theft-funded government prison-- that was probably said in the midst of pain-caused anger over those monstrous policies. Doesn't make it right, but I understand the anger. It's still statist and wrong and is the nearest thing to "Republican" there..

So I read on to see what their underlying political positions are said to be.

"The Libertarian Party Mises Caucus follows the laissez-faire Austrian school of economics. It supports private property rights, and rejects socialism, corporatism, and mainstream monetary policies, such as central banking and state-issued currency. The caucus supports decentralization, including secession and localism, "all the way down to the individual". The caucus strongly rejects identity politics, political correctness, and "wokeism", denouncing it as antithetical to individualism."

That all sounds reasonable and very libertarian to me.  I can see why some libertarians who are more dedicated to Left Statism than to libertarianism might not like the last sentence in the above. It's still completely libertarian to refuse to support authoritarian agendas.

"The caucus has stated that their goal is for "real libertarians" to "takeover" the party, and "fix" it by bringing "economic literacy and sound messaging". During the COVID-19 pandemic, the caucus strongly opposed lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine passports, and vaccine mandates, and criticized the wider party for being silent and "not taking a stand".

Yes, if you're going to have a Libertarian Party, it should advocate strict (real) libertarianism, which would include rejecting all those anti-liberty Covid policies. That's just common sense and principles. If the rest of the party didn't oppose those things how could they claim to be standing for individual liberty? They dropped the ball and someone else picked it up.

So, then I read the criticisms--

"The Mises Caucus has been highly controversial within and outside the Libertarian Party. (Yeah, that's why I'd heard of them, even though I'm no fan of politics.) The caucus has been accused without evidence by many of harboring racists (racism is stupid, but racists are going to be in every group, and this is just the excuse for much authoritarianism.), anti-semites (see the note about "racists"), and transphobes (if they resist the bullying tactics of trans-activists, while not seeking to violate anyone's natural human rights in any way, this is just a silly claim by the bullies who want to be beyond criticism), although the caucus strongly denies this."

So, if I were to be political-- which I think is wrong-- I see nothing wrong with siding with this group against their critics. I see no criticism that holds water, and they seem to me at least as libertarian (while being involved in politics) as any faction of the LP that might oppose them. Maybe more. Now I know where to file the criticisms (beyond those I pointed out) of this group.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Non-specific details

If you want a few more details on my health issue, go here.

.

Politics has destroyed what people think of science

Of all the tragedies of the past few years, the degradation of science in the minds of the public will probably leave the worst legacy.

Because superstition was (and is still being) sold as "The Science"-- and even people who recognized it as superstition fell for the story that this was science-- too many people now have a knee-jerk rejection of actual science.

Others demonstrate that they have no clue what science is, mistaking it for whatever "authorities" say. 

And it's not only about Covid, but about so many other things as well: climate, "gender" [sic], economics, etc.

This doesn't bode well for the future of my species.

And it's all the fault of those who pushed their anti-scientific political agenda under the label of "Science". I hate what they've done.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Apologies

Today I have an appointment to see a doctor about something I don't want to see a doctor about. It has had me really upset for the past couple of weeks-- ever since the office called to tell me they had made this appointment that I knew nothing about. Medical issues (even potential ones I didn't know about) make me feel helpless and wrecked. Ever since my bike wreck when I was 12, I've had an irrational panic over medical things and I hate being around doctors, no matter the context.

I know it has affected my writing-- and even my ability to write anything-- recently. I find it hard to think about anything else. As the appointment approaches, the effect has been even worse. For that, I apologize.

There's really no way this appointment can go any way that makes me happy unless they say "Oops. Never mind." Suggesting tests to be done isn't a good outcome-- in fact, that's the one I dread the most. 

I may not mention this again, so there may be no updates.

For more info: link

War is yet another government lie

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 2, 2022)

Whenever a government wants to go to war, you can be sure it is lying; to its population and to anyone who listens to its justifications. If anyone supports a war, they have been hoodwinked by the lies. Without lies, no ethical person would ever support war.

The aggressor has to lie and present itself as the victim. Otherwise, its cannon fodder would be less enthusiastic to die for the government's agenda.

Unfortunately, the victim populations' government will lie, too. It's just what governments do. The exact nature of the lies will vary according to the situation, but the lies are going to be told.

Other governments around the world then line up behind whichever set of lies serve their interests the best-- the interests of the politicians, the deep state, and the military industry, not of the people they rule and tax. They'll lie to their populations as to why it's necessary for them to join the war. Many people will believe the lies and feel patriotic in response. It's still all lies.

I fell for the lies which led to the first gulf war-- at least for a short time. I'm ashamed of it now.  I'll probably never believe the lies told by any government to justify a war ever again. Fool me once, shame on me, but you won't fool me a second time.

It's different if the threat is coming down the street toward our homes. If organized invaders, sent to die for an enemy government-- I mean, other than the one we suffer under every day-- suddenly came marching down our local streets, the residents who fought back wouldn't be at war; just defending our homes from criminals. It's a critical difference. For one thing, it wouldn't matter whether politicians declared war, or what uniforms the invading hordes wore. We the people would recognize the enemy.

If you learn more about history you'll discover even the "good wars", where you've been told there was a righteous side and an evil side, weren't good wars. Often those on the good side did evil things over the years which caused conditions the evil side used as justification to go to war. Then the good side did things as evil as their enemies once the war began.

Ethical behavior is always an early casualty of war. Some people are fine with this, but if they are I wonder what other situational ethics they embrace.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Infinite politics

War seems to be maximum politics. Maybe infinite politics.

Politics is bad-- it is always win/lose-- but when politics overwhelms everything else, you get war. War is when there's nothing left but politics.

I don't think even a little politics is acceptable. And the more there is, the worse things get. Until there's nothing else and you're in a war. 

"War crimes" and "political crimes" seem redundant since war is politics and politics is crime.

.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

How about a swap, Putin?

Maybe Putin would end his attack on Ukraine in exchange for territory. It seems like he has offered. But, why only Ukrainian territory?

I suggest offering him California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington DC, Chicago, New York City (or just lump it in with NJ), and any other statist garbage heap that insists on enforcing anti-gun legislation.

The offer will drop any of those places that suddenly decide to recognize the natural human rights of those who live (or travel through) there, but it will replace them with any city or state that proposes new anti-liberty rules during the negotiation or within a century of the agreement.

It's a win/win. Putin gets new territory and America takes out the trash, making the remaining population more free and stronger. 

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Turning FRNs into goods

Should smart preppers (and others) be holding onto cash, or should we be turning that cash-- and even more so, the electronic "money" in bank accounts-- into hard goods? Goods we will need if money loses what little remaining value it has.

If I knew when/if hyperinflation will hit, the answer would be easy: Get stuff now.

I've done a little of that anyway. I'm hoping that doesn't turn out to be a mistake (at least I don't have credit cards to max out). If TSHTF I won't be needing that money to pay for those things, which I also won't be needing, anyway.

But I don't know when/if there will be hyperinflation, and I don't believe anyone who says they do know.

I'm still holding onto my crypto-- but an EMP would erase all that as effectively as the Feral Reserve has erased the value of dollars. And much faster. If I thought an EMP was likely, I'd be spending it.

I'm also hanging onto my metals (and I know I should be getting more). 

Speaking of metals, I've acquired more "liberty seeds" recently-- but not as many more as I'd like. I suppose I could convert those back into FRNs if I need to-- and soon, probably more than I paid.

What do you think? Are you preparing for hyperinflation, or do you think that's just a paranoid fantasy? Are you keeping "extra" cash and electronic bank funds or are you using them to get things you can actually use, no matter what happens?

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Control freaks I've encountered

There are those who feel the need to control others and those who don't. 

I'm one of those who don't. The limit of my desire to "control" others is simply to not allow them to control me. Otherwise, they can pretty much do what they want as far as I'm concerned. 

I think it partly explains the difference between government supremacists and the rest of us.

"Daylight Saving Time" fans are among the controllers. They aren't content to simply start work an hour earlier; they must force everyone else to pretend they aren't doing that. Reality is their enemy.

Another example was a boss I once had. I got tired of being the one non-manager who had to stay late nearly every night (up to 4 hours late some days), but I said it wouldn't bother me if I could start work later (since I'm not a morning person). He rejected this suggestion without even seeming to consider it. He said everyone "had to" start work at the same time (but not everyone had to leave work at the same time?). He couldn't explain why, though. Apparently, for some reason, only I had to stay at least an hour late every day. I soon put an end to that nonsense, but so much trouble could have been avoided if he'd simply done the reasonable thing I asked for. He couldn't because he "needed" to control me. This need to control also resulted in him going through the whole workforce in the area, and concluding that the reason he couldn't keep good employees was that everyone in town was lazy and worthless. He couldn't face the reality that he was the problem; he wanted to blame everyone else. He would have made a good bureaucrat or politician, I guess.

When you don't have an actual reason, you try to force others to do things your way. But this only exposes your weakness.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Social media doing invisible damage

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 23, 2022)

Throughout history the older generation has thought the younger generations are weak, frivolous, and self-centered. Just as that older generation's elders thought the same of it, and so on to the beginnings of our species.

It's time to break the cycle with some reality.

Young people are not much different from generation to generation. You and I were just as foolish when we were young, as were our grandparents. Only the details of our foolishness differed. We grew up and found ways to be foolish mature people.

The problem isn't with the young people of any era, it's with the world they find themselves living in.

Growing up during war, famine, or a plague (a real one like the Black Death, not an overreaction like Covid) is going to affect the development of young people more than it affects the lives of the older generations. It's easier to damage a seedling than a mature tree.

The thing most damaging to youth today is the deceptively named plague of "social media". It's as bad as war or pestilence. But like famine or disease, there's no point in throwing blame; your energy is better spent helping the affected learn to live in spite of the trouble around them.

Most young people will overcome and go on. Many will not. Those most susceptible to the opinions of others are at a disadvantage, just as those too weak to hunt for food were at a disadvantage in hunter-gatherer societies.

If you saw someone in trouble, whether starving or injured, you'd help. Social media injury isn't always so obvious.

Symptoms of this damage-- also known as "wokeness"-- include identity problems, racism sold as "anti-racism", and a call for everyone to be exactly equal, not in rights, but in outcomes. This often results in a reliance on government to fix everything with legislation or by handing out money it doesn't have. It leaves scars as real as a missing limb, a bullet wound, or a head injury.

I was encouraged by the recent report of the four local teenagers who came to the aid of another young person who had been injured in an accident. Instead of just taking pictures of the scene and posting them to social media-- as has happened in other emergencies around the world-- they jumped into action and helped. In the end, we'll be fine because they'll be fine.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"They're gonna take away our rights!"

No. They aren't.

They might violate your rights and make it more dangerous to exercise your rights, but no matter what legislation they impose, your rights remain unchanged. Forever.

So, no matter what the Supreme Courtjesters do to the Second Amendment, your natural human right to own and to carry weaponry remains. That right doesn't exist because of the Second Amendment-- it exists because you were born human.

Sure, cops may murder you for exercising that right. Gun stores may not be able to sell you what you want. It may come to 3-D printer control and confiscation, or whatever evil legislation enforcers (a redundant phrase) choose to do in order to violate your natural rights.

It's the same with every other right you have. Whether it is popular or not. If it doesn't violate someone else's life, liberty, or property in a concrete way, then it is within your rights.

"They" can't take away your rights-- you only have to be scared into not exercising them. Be strong. They are wrong. They are the bad guys-- never forget that.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

"No guns" = "whites only"

Any argument for one works equally well for the other. 

Only libertarians can make an ethically consistent argument in favor of both, based on the property rights of the evil people who would post either sign.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Moving the needle

As I was taking my daily walk, a woman stopped her car beside me and told me she really liked my latest column, and that she's "getting more like" me all the time.

That's great!

The only possibly bad thing is that she appeared to be in her 70s or 80s. Maybe that's not as bad as it seems-- who knows the influence she has on others.

Still, I'll take what I can get. 

Most of the time I feel like a voice in the wilderness. I've spent a lot of time in the wilderness and I know that there's almost nothing you can say in that situation to make any impact. Scream and shout and maybe you'll spook a deer and some birds, but you're not going to influence anyone.

But, just maybe, there are a few people listening after all.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Without life, there is no liberty... but you won't miss it and won't care.
Without liberty, life is a hellscape.
That's why I value liberty more than life itself.

I want a quick and easy fix, too

If I could eradicate the scourge of political government ("the state") from the planet-- and from the human heart and mind-- with the quick and easy push of a button, I would push it. No hesitation.

I know a lot of people who wouldn't, for one reason or another. That's their choice, not mine.

Yes, I know it would cause terrible pain for a lot of people. So does pulling an abscessed tooth or setting a broken bone. I'd do it anyway because it is essential for long-term survival. Putting the pain off because you imagine it would be cruel will only make it worse when it finally has to be dealt with, which it will-- you're doing no one any favors by prolonging the disease.

But, there is no such button.

Instead, you are limited to the real world where you can either try to v*te yourself more liberty, fight the thugs of the state directly, or work around them. 

The first way, which most people hope is the "easy button", won't work. There's just no chance.
The second way will get you killed. Let someone else be a martyr.
The third way seems-- to me-- the only realistic option. I could be wrong, but it's what I strive to do. and what I try to encourage others to do. And, it's not easy or quick!

I acknowledge the existence of the state and its criminals ("politicians", legislation/rule enforcers, bureaucrats, agents, employees). Just like I acknowledge the existence of the mafia, freelance rapists, and other bad guys. 

What I don't do-- what I won't do-- is pretend the goons of the state are somehow less evil than the other criminal types. They are at least as evil-- probably more. They just hide it better behind a professional veil and rules they've made up to "legitimize" their crimes in the eyes of many of their victims. But their acts are no more legitimate than any other act of archation. 

You don't do yourself any favors by pretending otherwise. In fact, you need to let others see that you view those "officials" and their ilk as nothing more than gangsters or common criminals. Let your ethical behavior encourage others to give themselves permission to see the thugs of the state as they truly are. The emperor has no clothes-- and never did have any. Say it without shame.

As Etienne de la Boétie pointed out, "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces."

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Government is NOT a "social institution"

Never confuse government for a social institution. It's not one and never has been.

I see people make this mistake pretty often. I blame schools and the media. If someone tells you a horse is a cow enough times, some number of people will begin to believe it. Others of us continue to recognize that there are FOUR lights and the emperor has no clothes. (Those mantras work pretty well against w0ke indoctrination and its compelled lies, too.)

At best, government is an anti-social institution. At worst, it's an extinction-level threat to all life and liberty. The difference depends on how strong the parallel society/ies, beyond government control, is/are.

If government refuses to be ignored or avoided, treat it like the error it is-- correct the mistake by deleting it. Society-- unless you'd call a plantation of slaves a society-- likely depends on the extinction of political government. It's soon going to be an either/or situation.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

The preps I'd get if money weren't an issue

This is a cross-post with my Casually Serious Prepping locals group.

As I've said recently, I feel pretty good about the condition of my preps. I've never been better positioned for the S to HTF, even though I don't think my location is ideal since there is no real outdoors (farmland doesn't count) within a couple hundred miles.
But if I had the money there are more things I'd get. 

I'd get much more ammo.
I'd get antibiotics packs for everyone in the household from JASE Medical.
I'd get more water containers, sturdy ones, the kind that can stack like bricks as well as a couple of water bobs.
I'd stock up on heritage seeds, even though I'm a terrible gardener. 
Even though I believe it's important to reduce dependence on electricity in anticipation of TEOTWAWKI scenarios, I'd still get a solar "generator" and solar panels to charge it.
I'd get a more secure, larger shed, and a sturdy privacy fence around my entire property.
I'd get locking gas caps, and harden my vehicles against EMPs.
I'd get more monetary metals and trade goods.

What would you get if money were less a factor?

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Legislation only creates more crime

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 16, 2022)

Legislation, which many people incorrectly call "law", doesn't reduce crime. It can't. In fact, each new bit of legislation creates at least one more crime-- often several more-- and many more criminals as a result. People who weren't criminals before are now, for doing things which weren't crimes yesterday, but which are now arbitrarily declared to be.

Every time anything is criminalized it creates new criminals. That's really the only thing it does. Anyone who doesn't understand this correlation shouldn't be in a position of power over the lives of others.

Murder doesn't need to be illegal for it to be a real crime. You would still have the right and the obligation to defend against murderers. The only thing accomplished by making murder illegal is to allow government to punish it at your expense; an unnecessary complication.

To seek to address crime with more legislation is actually going backward if your goal is to reduce crime. If the goal is to give the state more ways to punish people who don't do what the politicians wish they'd do, then I suppose it works. It's not productive, though.

If you want to fight crime you need to stop pretending something can be a crime even though it has no specific individual victim-- someone whose life, liberty, or property has been harmed intentionally by someone else. Mutually consensual acts don't create a victim and the state can't be a victim.

If there's such a thing as a drug crime, it involves someone misrepresenting their product. Maybe the weight or the purity are not as advertised, or it's stolen property. For that matter, drug prohibition enforcement is the biggest drug crime, since it attempts to punish mutually consensual trade.

There are plenty of other examples which show, again, that government legislation is the source of most crime.

If you're serious about reducing crime, abolish or simply ignore all the legislation responsible for creating it. Leave the people alone to live as they see fit as long as they violate no one else's rights. Let people defend themselves and their property without the risk of being victimized afterward by the state's legislation enforcement and prosecution gangs.

Crime is a problem. Making it a bigger problem than it naturally has to be is not smart but is counterproductive and antisocial. It's long past time to scale it back and start heading in the right direction for a change.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com