Swapping politicians pointless change

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 26, 2022)

It might surprise you to learn this, but I don't like change. Well, that's not completely accurate: I don't like pointless change.

I have tolerated uncomfortable situations simply to avoid the pain of going through a change I couldn't see as improving anything.

However, if something is broken and I can see a solution, I want to change it. This is why I try to save people from their addiction to political government and all its various manifestations, such as police, taxation, various prohibitions, and so forth. This would be a useful change.

The kind of change I don't like is trying to vote yourself free by selecting a different political criminal to replace the previous political criminal. Even if the new boss (who is supposed to be the servant) respects rights that were being violated before, you can be positive he's going to violate liberty in other ways. The nature of politics is to ratchet up the control.

Swapping out politicians is as useless as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic after it sank.

This kind of pointless change is never a net gain.

However, I agree that sometimes any change can provide temporary relief. If a headache can make you forget about your broken toe for a while, I see how some people might choose the headache. The problem with politics is there will always be those who'd prefer the pain of the broken toe over the headache, so they aren't going to appreciate your preference being forced on them.

This winner-takes-all approach is why politics is so toxic to society. It's like voting on which church everyone is required to attend and fund for the next four years. This would cause religious wars, as history demonstrates. Political government isn't special. Don't ignore this effect just so you can govern others the way you want for a while.

To back a change I have to see how it could make things better than they are, or better than they seem to be heading.

The fewer people who take politics seriously, the better. Focus on your life-- govern yourself. Don't try to impose politicians or legislation on others to govern them. No one has the right to do so. Not even if you call it "democracy" or pretend a "right to vote" exists. Growing past this worn-out superstition would be a positive change I could support.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Trying to spread the liberty virus

I just helped advise a couple of Hillary-loving, unwavering Democrat-v*ting Lefties on buying a handgun (I really dislike the term "handgun" for some reason-- it seems to have anti-gun bigotry baked in, but that's an irrelevant tangent).

It wasn't my idea, but they did ask for my advice and recommendations, and then asked what I thought about the gun store's offerings and suggestions.

They have never quite been anti-gun bigots, but they have been politically suspicious of guns. They actually gave me a .22 rifle a few years ago. It had been passed down to them and they had no use for it; they knew I'd be responsible and appreciate it. And I do.

The past few years (including suffering through a bad case of MSNBC-induced TDS) caused them to decide they might ought to consider at least having a pistol at home, but I haven't won them over to daily carry. Yet.

I will work with them to help them with safe handling, care, use, cleaning, ammo selection, and skills, and I and my son will take them to the range.

I really think that familiarity with firearms will go far toward extinguishing fear. If I can chip away at the fear, maybe the anti-gunners will have lost a little support. Those who I see make the biggest anti-gun claims are always* speaking from a position of ignorance. Every time. Even the ex-military people you might reasonably assume would know better. But, Nope. They don't.

*(It's ignorance in every case even when it isn't also seasoned with a big helping of open dishonesty.)

I don't expect this pair to overcome their Democrat beliefs, but even a taste of liberty could be a foot (or a toe) in the door. Even if they never get past their belief in a Loving Parent Government, they've taken a small step on the road to personal responsibility. It feels like a win to me.

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Goose attacks occur where there are geese

I've noticed that when you point out that evil losers in America tend to murder people with guns because that's the tool available, and evil losers in other countries tend to murder people with different tools if guns aren't available, anti-gun bigots don't like this.

As I recently pointed out, goose attacks happen where geese are, not where they aren't.

But, just because you didn't get attacked by a goose doesn't mean you weren't attacked by something else.

An anti-gun bigot demanded I provide evidence-- with references from a source acceptable to them-- for this observation. When I asked who they would find acceptable, the question was deflected. They wanted me to do the work to provide evidence for something which is actually self-evident, and then they were going to reject the evidence because it didn't come from a source they trusted, which they didn't want to name ahead of time.

There was a time I would have done it anyway. That time isn't today.

Besides, it's irrelevant. Liberty is the greatest good and "safety" is usually slavery painted in cute colors.

-

The (economic) walls are really closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Happy Thanksgiving Day

I feel gratitude for all you outlaws and troublemakers who keep visiting my blog. 

I am especially grateful for the seven of you who subscribe (and sometimes also donate above and beyond that) and for the others who are occasional donors. You know who you are.

Together we are making the world a little bit better, in spite of the best efforts of the government supremacists and other bad guys.

Go do something enjoyable and I'll see you on the other side of the holiday.

Now, I'll get back to making food, including the cornbread above, which is going into my dressing.

-

Thanks

Be ed-jikated

Anti-gun bigots hallucinate that the "AR" in AR-15 stands for "assault rifle". We all know how stupid that is.

Gun people are always saying it stands for "Armalite Rifle". Well, it could...

Those of us who really know, know it's this way:

Educate the anti-gun bigots. They'll appreciate it.

-

The (economic) walls are closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would really appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Does politics improve anything?

Politics ruins everything it gets mixed in with. I've said it many, many times before, but I don't think it has really sunk in.

Medicine + politics is no longer medicine, but is only politics. Same with science. This is how you get mandates and power-hungry people declaring themselves to be "The Science". It becomes the opposite of what it claims.

Education mixed with politics becomes gov-school, which is anti-education.

Economics + politics becomes Keynesian "economics"; fake economics. This is how you destroy an economy.

Religion with a little added politics becomes theocracy. If you want to completely discredit your religion, this is a quick way to do so.

If you add politics to a region (or to governance) you get a State, which is going to be spending most of its time and energy violating natural human liberty. This results in destroying property lines by mixing in politics so that they are replaced by "borders".

And libertarianism mixed with politics turns into political libertarianism. Then you get people stamping their feet and insisting that "anarchism is NOT libertarianism" because "true libertarianism" embraces the State, but wants it kept "small".

Even if politics was part of the original mix, you improve a thing by distilling away the politics. Remove the contaminant and you've got something better. (According to everyone who isn't invested in promoting the dross, anyway.)

Politics seems to be the one thing that is always bad to add; never an improvement or an essential ingredient for making a superior alloy. 

I've been pondering for days whether there is anything that gets better if you mix a little politics into it, and have come up empty. Maybe I'm missing something that you can think of. And I guess it would depend on your definition of "better".

-

The (economic) walls are closing in, 

so please consider subscribing or donating.

I would really appreciate it! 

I couldn't do this without your support.

Prohibition has opposite effect

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 19, 2022)

Isn't it better to not create a problem in the first place than to try to fix it after it happens?

I appreciate those organizing a trash pick-up day, and those who took time out of their week to participate. I appreciate the people who don't toss their trash around in the first place. and those who regularly pick up litter whenever they see it, even more.

If there is a pre-existing problem, make sure any solution you try isn't going to have the unintended consequence of making things worse. In some cases, much worse. Such as what has happened with the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.

I understand the desire to try to stop people from abusing, and dying of, dangerous drugs like Fentanyl. However, it would have been better to have never started down the doomed path of prohibition which made Fentanyl (and the stronger drugs which will replace it) inevitable.

With litter and prohibition, irresponsible people made a mess and the rest of us have to deal with it. But picking up trash doesn't make litter worse, while prohibition does make drug abuse much worse.

Trash is the easier problem to deal with because no one attacks you for picking up litter, but if you try to help get rid of trashy "mala prohibita" laws-- counterfeit "laws" which make crimes of things which aren't wrong, only forbidden-- such as drug laws, you risk being harmed by those whose jobs depend on those fake crimes being treated as though they are real. In a strange upside-down way, you're treated like the bad guy.

So many of the problems society faces were created or made worse by someone-- possibly with good intentions-- deciding to use political government to address an issue.

The war on poverty, waged with handouts of money confiscated from workers, trapped many people into generational poverty which is nearly impossible to escape.

Laws mandating safety have made people helpless to use judgment to keep themselves from being injured.

Legislation against guns has made everyone more vulnerable to bad people who have no intention of following the rules anyway.

These "cures" were worse than the disease.

Keep doing the same dumb things and you'll keep getting the same bad results. It's so much better to stop creating these problems out of situations which could have been easy to handle if you hadn't fertilized them and made them grow.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Don't trust the title

Did you realize there are people out there who still don't know that legislative bills are deceptively named? And that they all get filled with junk that has nothing to do with the titular topic, but can make the whole thing a really bad idea to approve?

They believe that the Patriot Act was actually patriotic, that the "Safer communities" acts make communities safer, and a Respect for Marriage Act would somehow codify "respect" for marriage. Instead of the opposite. And they believe that's all those bills would do.

If it's a bill, you can know it will be given a name that is the opposite of what it embodies, and it will be filled with irrelevant, harmful legislative trash. If congressvermin have any shred of ethics left they will v*te against every bill every time.

Even if a bill has some good stuff in it, it should be v*ted down anyway just because no more legislation is needed, and it all needs to be abolished.

Government licenses are among the most useless and harmful things I can imagine.

Are you operating your vehicle in a reasonable manner? If so, I respect your driving abilities and no government needs to get involved to either "respect" or sanction your driving with a license or recognition of your license from another state. No government involvement is wanted or needed.

You tell me you're married? That's good enough for me. I consider you married. I don't need to go ask a government bureaucrat whether or not I should "respect" your marriage. I have never once asked someone if they are "really married-- like, does the government say you're married?" As if that matters to me.

And, obviously, since I don't want government to meddle in your life, I don't want them to use your marriage status-- married or not--  as an excuse to molest you or reward you. Your rights don't depend on your relationships with other people. 

"But what about contract disputes?" If the two (or more) of you are splitting up and have a dispute, find arbitration-- the state isn't necessary for this either.

-

I would love it if you'd at least consider subscribing or donating.

Think about it, would you?

Political libertarianism

It seems to me that political libertarianism is a separate thing from libertarianism. There is obviously a lot of overlap, and there's a load of friction where that overlap occurs. Friction can be good or bad-- it can wear away rough spots that need to be removed. But the friction in this case seems mostly destructive.

What do I mean by "political libertarianism"? Political libertarianism is concerned with pragmatism, politics, government, v*ting, the LP (and party politics in general), and not "scaring the women and children" with harsh truths. It seems to hate something external to itself more than it loves liberty.

I've watched political libertarianism used to justify police, "borders", war, taxation, and many other statist problems.

I think all libertarians slip into political libertarianism sometimes-- it has happened to me-- but some choose to wallow in it. I don't think anything beyond a quick dip is healthy-- and I'm not sure how healthy even the quickest splash really is.

-

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

I really, truly appreciate it!

Getting what others deserve

I approve of Trump running for president again. 

Not because I want him to be president (I really don't care either way and I don't need a president), but because he breaks the brains of those who hate him. That does amuse me somewhat.

No, I'm not going to v*te for him. Nor for one of his opponents. But if I'm going to be subjected to political drama, it might as well be entertaining in some way.

I had supposed that once Trump was out of office the TDS would subside and its sufferers would shut their pieholes about him and move on to some other topic. But, no. I was wrong. They can't let him go (they are much more attached to him than even his supporters). If I'm going to have to listen to it anyway, it might as well be for something real-- an actual sitting president that makes them crazy, not an irrelevant former president they can't get over.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

You do you, but...

You might have the desire to v*te. You might have the ability, the opportunity, and the power to v*te. One thing you don't have is the "right" to v*te.

That's because such a right can't exist-- the very idea is in conflict with rights. To imagine you have the "right" to impose government or politicians or legislation on others is to deny the existence of rights.

If you are in a situation where you believe you need to v*te in self-defense, there are other, more effective ways to defend yourself. Ways that don't guarantee "collateral damage".

V*ting in "self-defense" is like firing randomly into a crowd and hoping you hit the bad guy who is violating you. Sure, it's possible you might get him, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. If enough people join you in firing randomly into the crowd, your chances of success go up. So do your chances of harming the innocent.

Yes, if you know your target-- say a bad ballot proposal that threatens to violate your liberty-- and enough of you get together to v*te against that one thing and all of you leave the rest of the ballot blank, you could credibly claim that you v*ted in self-defense. 

But what if your side loses? Will you comply? If not, why not skip the unnecessary step?

You are almost always going to be outnumbered because [Unfortunate Truth #1]. People respond to promises that they won't have to be responsible. And bad guys run the election system from top to bottom and they count the v*tes. The game is rigged and by now you ought to know it.

I get it. I used to think liberty might be won-- or protected-- by v*ting for the less bad candidate, too. But then I observed and learned from my observations. That new information caused me to change my mind.

-

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

I'd like more details

Go figure that this would be my most popular ever comment on (this account on) Twitter. It would be nice if that translated into actual beliefs regarding "government officials", rather than people thinking I was joking.

-

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

I really, truly appreciate it!

Excluding "illegal immigrants"

If you don't want an "illegal immigrant" on your private property, that's your right. You can exclude anyone just like you can invite anyone (including those government forbids you to invite). 

I'll never understand how anyone imagines they can tell someone's "legal status" without checking the government paperwork and being a lawyer, but whatever. 

I may think you're a jerk, depending on your choices, but I'm not going to try to force you to allow just anyone into your home. You have every right to be an unpleasant hermit.

If, however, you have a store that is open to the public and you say "illegal immigrants" aren't welcome, I think you're in the wrong in more ways than one. Maybe you don't understand what "the public" is. If you have a store that is open to the public, there's a presumption baked in that people don't have to wait around outside your door to find out what exceptions you impose.

If you want to exclude some people, based on anything other than archation being committed right now or the credible threat of it being committed while they are in your store then don't invite the public. 

If, instead of being open to the public, you want to have a "buyer's club" sort of thing and access is granted to members only, and you choose who is allowed to be a member and who isn't, that's acceptable. I doubt I'd join, but you do whatever makes you happy.

That's different than letting someone force you to provide a service you don't offer. I don't think it's right (or sane) to force someone to "bake the cake". Who would be stupid enough to consume food or drinks prepared by someone who is doing so against their wishes? Not me! That's completely different than buying a sock from someone who doesn't like you.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Don't care about fake laws, crimes

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 12, 2022)

Being political leads to unfortunate outcomes. Politics never makes people act smart.

I don't think federal agents-- FBI or anyone else-- have any business digging for things over which to prosecute Hunter Biden. I don't find federal agents credible.

When someone is targeted for political reasons, whether Donald Trump or Hunter Biden, it makes those targeting them look unintelligent and corrupt. Maybe because they are unintelligent and corrupt-- as bad as their target, or worse. All politically connected people have done things truly wrong, so why do their opponents choose to be political, too?

Because it's easier.

I don't care about Hunter Biden's so-called tax crimes or gun crimes, no matter how clear the evidence may be. I have no love for the Bidens, but I don't believe there is even one legitimate tax or anti-gun rule. Not one. Accusing someone of breaking one of those fake laws is completely pointless.

The same would go for charging him with drug crimes for the things he was seen doing on video.

People want to see those connected with the other side get what's coming. The Trump-obsessed anti-Trumpers want to see Donald Trump hurt, just like the reactionary anti-Biden faction would love to see Biden hurt by targeting his son. Leave me out of your political circus.

The thing is, I only care about real crimes-- where an individual's life, liberty, or property has been violated. Trump, Biden, and every other former and future politician violates everyone in some way. Yes, even the president you like the best. If you're going to go after them for something, look at these real crimes.

No, having "classified documents" isn't real either, since government shouldn't keep any secrets from its bosses.

I don't care even a little what such laws say. Even if I wouldn't do what someone else does, if the legislation is illegitimate-- as is all gun, drug, and tax legislation-- then I am not in favor of using it against anyone. Not even someone I think is clearly a bad person. If you can't find a real crime with an individual victim, then back off. I'm not interested in using fake laws against anyone.

The root problem is allowing anyone to hold the office of President of the United States, or any political office, and wield its political power. Strike at the root instead of thrashing at the twigs by prosecuting illegitimate "crimes".

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

I need a lift

I need my spirits lifted. I don't know if it's just because November 17th is approaching, all the medical crap that is looming in a couple of months, other things that have been going on forever, or whatever. My financial circumstances certainly aren't helping. Maybe it's the combination. But whatever the reason, I'm in a dark pit. If you can tell me something that might be uplifting, I need it.

-

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

Government supremacists embrace freedom

Government supremacists who don't understand liberty seem to be big on talking up freedom. They use this as a way to justify liberty-crushing things they want the freedom to do to you.

They'll honor government troops for dying for freedom. They'll v*te, rally, and protest for freedom. No one advocates liberty.

Freedom has become almost as distasteful to me as democracy. That's because people who focus on freedom too much always seem to want the freedom to violate others.

If banning guns is what you want to do, you want the freedom to do so.
If you want the freedom to lock down the "border" that's what you'll focus on. 

Never mind that you don't have any right to do those things-- they are anti-liberty-- but if you want to do them, you'll want the freedom to do them.

(And everyone seems to want the freedom to impose their ideas on abortion on everyone else, which is a whole other mess and seems to have been the driving force behind the recent election outcome.)

Government supremacists like freedom, but not responsible freedom (liberty). They don't seem to understand or want liberty, since liberty would limit their freedom to violate other people's life, liberty, and property in ways they want to get away with, but which are irresponsible.

Let freedom ring? No. Let liberty ring, instead. It's better in every way!

-

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

I really, truly appreciate it!

Getting away with murder

If I decided to commit some horrible crime, perhaps a murder, and I publicly announce what I'm going to do, and to whom, but I say the victim will just have to let the courts decide afterward whether it was wrong or not (and I personally face no consequences either way), wouldn't that be premeditation at least? Wouldn't I be clearly making a credible threat, making self-defense against me ethical?

It is obvious that this is the case.

It's not hypothetical; it matters in the real world because this is exactly what anti-gun politicians do every day. 

Yet there seems to be nothing anyone can do about it until after the damage has been done because of the rules of the system, even though the bigots give plenty of warning of what they are planning to do (making credible threats), and it's already known to be a crime. 

Could no one intervene and say, "No, that's not OK. We've warned you not to murder anyone and if you attempt to do so you will be stopped, using whatever amount of violence it requires, before you can harm the victim in any way"?

Everyone is supposed to just sit and watch (and comply or be punished) until it crawls back through the court system again, just so the decision can be ignored by these same criminals in the same way again later when they impose their next legislative crime? Is there no way to shut them down "legally" once and for all?

If that's your system, screw your system!

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Welcome to the Politics Cafe

Still, people keep filing in to sit at the table and place their orders.
Then, they complain about what they are served and what it costs.

Of course, the sad truth is that even if you refuse to participate, you'll be held down and force-fed the majority's choice, and you'll be charged for the "pleasure" too. Politely declining the "meal" isn't allowed and fighting back is seen as "wrong", even by most people who don't want to eat the meal. 

And yet some people still don't see politics as the evil it is.

-

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

Election thoughts

I don't v*te. I don't believe there's any such thing as a "legitimate election". Majority opinion-- even when supposedly constrained by a constitution-- gives no one any "right" to govern others in any way.

I don't want Republicans (or Libertarians) to have political power, but... 

I never ever from now until the end of time want any Democrat to have even the slightest amount of political power ever again. Not until and unless they reject and repudiate w0keness in all its forms completely and without reservation. The past few years have convinced me of that.

Political power is never ethical. But, to use political power to try to impose a denial of reality on a population, and to punish those who refuse to say there are "five lights"... may even be more evil than anti-gun bigotry (which Republican political criminals also suffer from).

I don't want Republicans to win, but I want Democrats to lose HARD. 

No crushing loss would be decisive enough to satisfy me, so I already know I will be disappointed. I also know that caring at all is something I should purge from myself. Politicians and their "laws" shouldn't even matter to me. I'm already OK with living as an outlaw, so why would it matter?

Of course, v*tes don't count; only counting v*tes counts. The fix is probably already in; Democrat spokescritters are already signaling that election results will take a longer time than v*ters expect, which seems almost as good as an admission that results won't be "official" until they are what those in power want. 

Will liberty get chipped away at slowly for a few more years, or will it be crushed quickly under the thumb of toxic w0keness? 

Or is all this just a reflection of how I'm feeling about everything recently?

-

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

Musk wields the ban-hammer now

I've had my criticisms of Elon Musk in the past. He's smart enough that he ought to "get" liberty, but it may be in his financial interests not to.

However, I have to admit I'm enjoying the way he is antagonizing the Left-statists on Twitter.

I disagree with him permanently banning anyone, ever. No matter how twisted and evil they may be. That's always my position, regardless of anything else. But, if he would use a temporary ban just to make them flip out, then reinstate them after a few hours of tantruming (I know, not a word), it would just be funny.

It's like everything he does is done to poke them just enough to make them act really stupid in response. Planned or not, it's amusing.

It's even more hilarious seeing them contradicting themselves when it's their own side facing the axe instead of their opposition-- only months ago so many were cheering the "other side" getting treated the same way-- or even worse. Especially since I think Musk is joking and the previous Twits were clearly not.

Again, I don't want anyone banned ever for any reason. Free speech is non-negotiable and I want evil people to feel free to express their evil so the rest of us know who they are and what they are thinking. It's just a personal flaw of mine that makes me enjoy seeing them melt down over being treated the way they've been treating others for years.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon