- KentForLiberty- Home
- Zero Aggression
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Counterfeit "laws"
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Privacy & ID
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- My Job Search
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Monday, April 28, 2008
Anyway, it's just a question that is running through my mind.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Whatever the case may be, it is disgusting.
Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Gun control, more honestly known as victim disarmament, increases crime. It doesn't make anyone safer (except for politicians and other amoral parasites). The armed goons of the state are a real and present danger, especially when they are armed. Instead of gun control, there should be some serious goon control.
Time to rein in the goons that hide in the dark alleys and in the well-lit offices of government. It is time to control those goons who hide behind their tiny shields. Free-lance and government goons are both a danger to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but of the two, the government goons are much more dangerous. They commit their crimes with the implicit assumption that they are "right". To try to prove otherwise is pretty much doomed.
There is only one way to really control both kinds of goons: be armed and ready to defend yourself and those innocents around you. Sad, but true. As I say, WE didn't choose this war.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
I watched as a woman at the grocery store, after putting her bags in the car, walked to the cart corral, which was twice as far from her car as the front of the store where more carts were lined up. I obviously couldn't read her mind, but I tried to figure out why she did that. Was it because she was already moving in that general direction, and without thinking she simply continued going that way. Was she oblivious and didn't notice the distances involved? Did she think she needed the free exercise "for her health"? Was there some person lurking in the shadows near the front of the store that she wished to avoid?
Why do people walk twice as far, and work twice as hard, to prop up government, as it would take to become free of those professional parasites. Possibly for the same reason that the woman I observed went out of her way to get to a second-best destination. But I have no clue what that reason might really be.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The "arguments" against this concept seem to stall at the point of not understanding the "harming others" idea. Invariably the dissenter will say something like "You don't really think 'speed limits' should be ditched, do you?". Yes I do. "Speeding" harms no one by itself. If you exceed the speed at which you can safely operate your vehicle (which has nothing to do with the speed limit) and hurt someone, you are responsible and should be held accountable.
So then the whiner will claim that not everyone is smart enough to drive within their ability or that going fast makes it more likely to wreck and hurt people. So?
Obviously, you should not regulate everyone because of the idiots among us. Punish only the idiots when they cause harm or they will not learn a lesson. You also can't base "laws" upon what might happen. If that were a legitimate action, you should be prohibited from ever giving anyone food. After all, they might choke, or they might have an allergic reaction to some ingredient. Actual harm to someone who is no immediate threat to you is the only basis for a real law.
It makes me believe that the dispute that arises over "as long as you harm no one else" is just because some people cling desperately to the outdated and discredited notion of "government".
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
First the "bad". It was too short. I guess that is also a "plus" since it is quick and easy to read, but I will admit I wanted more. I'm not sure what else could have been covered, though, since it seemed pretty inclusive.
Mr. Davies needed a better proofreader, since I found quite a few grammatical and punctuation errors (but then, I probably like commas too much). It didn't detract from the book for me since I am accustomed to reading much less coherent things than this on a daily basis. As long as the meaning is conveyed... Seriously, it wasn't as bad as I made it sound, and I will admit, I am much too picky.
Now, the "good": I really liked the book. It wasn't a book of esoteric philosophy or in-your-face preaching, but a pleasant vision of what a truly free society might be like to live in. Bring it on! Reading this made me feel hopeful and optimistic. I am not normally that way. I mentioned that the book was too short. My solution is that I am reading it again immediately. I think the book is an excellent complement to his TOLFA website. They could work together to instill a desire for the end of government in the fence sitters who need to be convinced in order for this to come to pass. Mr. Davies admits that his book is speculative and that events might work out differently. I think that if the liberty-meme can be spread as he proposes, his vision could be very possible.
I think Mr Davies has a very optimistic view of the future, which is good, and I hope he is justified. Some of his personal preferences were evident in his vision, which is understandable. I might not reach the same conclusions, for example, about what music will be popular in this liberated future, but I also realize it wouldn't matter to me if he is right or wrong about that minor detail.
I recommend that you pick up a copy of his book if you have a few FRNs to spare. Read it and then pass it along to someone who could use the help to envision how freedom would feel and how it might work.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Who has time for all that nonsense? The government doesn't own you. Why act like it does?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
When they told me of this development, I refrained from saying "I told you so" (even if I thought it loudly). It is very sad that some people have fallen for the lies of a socialist system instead of planning for an independent retirement strategy. Of course, the money they could have invested was reduced by a very large amount; stolen by the state during their entire careers to pay off the previous retirees.
The Social "Security" scheme can't keep going. No politicians are willing to admit that to those of you who are counting on that money, after being told your entire life that the money was being taken "for your retirement". It wasn't. That was a bald-faced lie calculated to buy your vote. There is no bank account in your name that the money is going into. You are basing your retirement plans on having enough young, working people for the government to steal from to keep paying you. That is a faulty supposition.
Listen: If you must have a job that enables the theft of your money to pay into "the system", please have the foresight to count that money as lost. Make other, realistic plans to finance your sunset years if you don't want to be working at a minimum wage job when you are eighty.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
I have done this with jobs before. I used to "joke" with friends that I hated applying for jobs because I was afraid I might get hired. If you know me, you know I chafe severely under a "boss", and make both of us miserable very quickly, although they tend to try to keep me around for some bizarre reason.
I see the same balking behavior from people who claim to want liberty, but struggle against every notion or idea that comes along. No idea is perfect, but almost all of them can be used or adapted to advance the cause of individual liberty. On the other hand, government is not conducive to liberty at all. You can't make excuses for the state and cling to some of its tentacles while claiming you believe in "freedom". It just isn't rational. Skepticism is a very smart safety tactic; making excuses for clinging to the Rulers isn't.
Friday, April 18, 2008
It ends when you and I refuse to play along. It ends when we realize there is only one legitimate "us vs them" issue, and that is "those who meddle and cause harm against those who mind their own business and harm no one else". It ends when we finally really understand that there is absolutely no reason for not treating everyone equally, unless you wish to cause jealousy and anger, thereby empowering the Rulers by asking them to punish someone for you.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
So how long til McDonald's and Burger King are required to give Weight Watchers' contact info along with their advertising? Ha ha. I know. Weight Watchers isn't a government anti-eating program, so it will never be mandated.
Still, it makes me wonder. Why can't we start a "Voter's Anonymous" program for those addicted to the delusion that voting changes anything that really needs changing? Or a place for those addicted to government to go for help. Hmmm. I already did that: KentForLiberty.com. It is hard to help those who don't want to be helped. They'll keep fighting off the life-preservers, but we'll keep tossing them back.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Can anyone besides me see the enormous lapse in logic there? Or could it be even worse; a trial balloon to see if the American voters are completely brain-dead yet?
Where does this mental homunculus think the higher gasoline production costs will be recovered? I can guarantee you it will not come out of the CEO's pocket. Did Obama ever consider eliminating the government's extortion to lower the price of oil? If so, it wasn't mentioned. That would be unthinkable to most socialists of his -cough- "character".
If this is any indication of the total lack of thinking ability from Obama, well... start learning how to knap flint and tan bear skins.
Monday, April 14, 2008
In daily life, he assumes the identity of the mild mannered, and "unpapered", A. Narchist. He comes not from another planet, but from the bureaucratic wasteland that was once an experiment in freedom: America.
With his extraordinary vision, he can see through statist propaganda and excuses. He is strong enough to lift the expectations for liberty of all people everywhere. He is able to cut to the truth, even when others protest that "tax" doesn't mean "theft". No red tape can bind him. He absorbs strength from like-minded anarchists and libertarians around him. His enemies in the various branches of The State shrink before his powerful truth.
His only weakness is the common element "Apathyte", found in the hearts of government-sympathizers and welfare addicts living among the population. It can drain his strength and resolve. He must attempt to avoid these toxic people.
With the support and friendship of the committed liberty-lovers who struggle alongside him, LibertyMan will prevail against the forces of The State, sooner than they expect.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
There is only a certain amount of pressure that liberty can tolerate before pushing back. Liberty requires a certain amount of space, and when compressed beyond that, an unstable situation arises. There is no frontier to act as a relief valve anymore, so government is going to have to back off soon.
Our predecessors were perfectly willing to allow a certain amount of government to exist. That was their mistake; one we will not make again. Government grew out of control and kept pressing against the boundaries that were established for it. It was not content to keep within its sphere, but kept growing like a cancer, trying to crowd liberty from the face of the earth. In many cases, co-opting the very words of liberty for its own uses.
"Government" was/is a really bad idea. Why should anyone give control of their life over to people who are corrupt enough that they want it? From KentForLiberty.com:
I think government probably began as humans adopted a more settled,
agricultural, lifestyle. Roving bands of marauding thieves began offering
"protection" from other bands of marauding thieves (which may or may not have
actually existed) in exchange for goods and services. Eventually, the thieves
stopped roving and put down roots in the area that they were victimizing; still
demanding their cut of the riches. Unfortunately, the local population forgot
what these thieves really were and accepted them as a "ruling class". It has
been downhill since then.
And these thugs have made opposing them the worst of "crimes"; to be punished with bloodthirsty enthusiasm. Even suggesting that they should be opposed can be punished. Does this fact not ring any warning bells with most Americans? It does with me. Some of the recent new "laws" that legalize intimidation of bloggers (and others) who would suggest that government agents be held accountable are very alarming. As I say, the lines have been drawn by the thugs.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Which reminds me.... have you enrolled in TOLFA yet? Do it today, and help Jim's vision come to pass. Liberty is important enough to spend a little time on. Time today or bullets tomorrow. Choose wisely.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
What if you grow up in a society based upon theft? Would you recognize that there is something wrong with that? If you grew up in that culture, surrounded by the institutionalized theft, and learned to call it "taxation", or "business regulation", or "license fees" or "zoning" would you be able to see past the deception? All those things are simply ways to take ownership of money or property away from the legitimate owner and giving it to a special class of rulers. But it is necessary in order to keep that society functional, right?
Is there something wrong with a society based upon an immoral act? Yes, there is. Are you able to see that from the inside?
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Ignore for a moment the vast numbers of crimes that are committed or enabled by government at some level. Does crime still exist in our current society "in spite of" government? Do you believe that there is less crime because of government? If so, why do you hold that belief? Are you certain it isn't just because you have been told that it is so your whole life? If there really is less crime under a government, why might that be? Is it the criminals' fear of being caught and punished? Is it fear of the enforcers; fear that the enforcers might shoot them while apprehending them?
What about "crimes" that only exist because government criminalizes normal (or even abnormal) human behaviors that have no victim? That adds greatly to the amount of "crime" that is perceived.
If the fear of being caught, punished, or shot decreases the incidence of crime, that raises more questions. Do you think that only government-hired enforcers can handle real criminals? Why? Training? Superior moral character? (cough) You do realize that stopping crime is your responsibility, don't you? Why do you shirk your responsibility and try to say someone else should do it in your place? You can hide behind the enforcers and the government, but that doesn't remove or fulfil your responsibility in any way. It only causes more problems by establishing an "enforcer class" that feels that it owns you because you are running from your responsibility.
A free society would be more than able to deal with crime, without the side effects that abdicating your personal responsibility gives birth to. Think about it.
Monday, April 07, 2008
I also get anger directed at me sometimes. It seems that the things I get the most flak for are when I write about the military, cops, and guns. Some topics are just hot-buttons, I guess. When you care passionately about anything, it is easy to get worked up about it. Especially if your opinions are at odds with the opinions of others; if your views are mutually exclusive.
Is there a solution? Should there be one? Do we excuse or try to get along with those who are, in our opinion, undermining everything we are working for? Liberty, or the lack thereof, is worth getting angry over. Yet, will that anger advance the cause or set it back?
If they are designed to protect the status quo, they are doing a good job. They have succeeded in destroying the imaginations of Americans who can no longer even imagine how a free society would work. Just debate a few statists and you will see what I mean. No problem is so insignificant that it won't be completely beyond them how it might be solved without government intervention.
At one time I would have supposed that this was an unintended consequence of dumbing down the education so that no one would fall behind (or get ahead). Now I am pretty sure that, overt or not, this is considered a "benefit" of public schooling. At least to the rulers.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
- Do YOU want to be ruled, or do you just want OTHERS to be ruled?
- Do you believe in any form of "The Golden Rule"? Are government employees exempt from it?
- Should it be OK for government employees to do things you and I aren't allowed to do? If so, should I be allowed to do things you are not allowed to do?
- Then I would ask if they realize that statism is utopian: "Statism is the belief that a group of people, who possess all the guns and all the legitimacy, able to make all the rules for itself, will not want to exploit its subjects. Instead, they will act completely altruistically and help fulfill the values of their subjects."
I am sure there are more questions that need to be answered. Those questions would go a long ways toward getting me to understand something that is morally reprehensible to me. Perhaps those questions would get statists to really think about their beliefs. Nah.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Hunting is something that teaches people to provide for themselves. It short-circuits the welfare cycle that government depends upon for loyalty and dependence. Pretending to own the wildlife and then "selling" it to hunters simply gives them more unwarranted power over the people. It is another way to take money from productive people and give it to government. Plus, in order to hunt, people need to own effective weapons and have the skills to use them. That is more reason for government to require a license: to keep track of armed people.
I am not advocating mindless slaughter of wildlife. I hate waste. If you shoot it, you had better be prepared to eat it. I also know that some of the money from licenses goes toward habitat and such, but the amount is a tiny percentage (that which is left over after all the bureaucracy is paid for) and could be done much better by the market. Mostly your license fees go to support those who want to exercise control over you and your guns. Wildlife management is often a joke. I have some insight into this, having taken wildlife management in college. I was horrified at their idea of "management".
Thursday, April 03, 2008
When I look up the dictionary definitions of just about anything people are talking about, with regards to philosophies and such, I almost always discover that the dictionary definition is not how the word is being used. Whether it is "libertarian", "anarchy", or "socialism", the adherents always say "but that isn't what it really is!" Yet it seems that only I am expected to stick to the dictionary definition, and always mean the entire list of definitions. I'd hate to debate the definition of the word "ring" with some of these people!
I am not claiming that the dictionary is wrong, just that it is insufficient to really capture the meaning of the words we are actively using as we speak. That is why, from now on I will try to remember to preface my explanations with "when I speak of 'X', this is how I mean it". After all, all my life I have heard people do the same and thought it was an accepted practice.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Even their dogs are usually just as oblivious. I once startled a dog by simply saying "hi, boy" as it trotted past; nose to the ground. The dog almost wet itself before running back to the safety of its people.
Another time I was sitting beside a well-used trail in a park; "Cooper Ranch" just outside Gunnison, Colorado. There was a stump inhabited by a mother chipmunk and her babies, so I sat down beside it to watch. The babies were ignoring their mother's protests and crawling on me.
Suddenly they all darted back into the stump as a person approached. As she walked past I said "Hi". The woman yelped and jumped in the air. She said "I thought you were a statue!" (Why there would be a full-color statue of a guy in buckskin clothes reclining against a tree alongside the trail, I don't know). I knew the truth. She was staring at the ground just beyond her toes and missing the world.
I suspect that most people are doing the same thing politically. They are oblivious to what is going on around them. Unless they personally become caught up in some government abuse of power, they don't know, or care, that it is happening. They don't wish to be made aware of it either. It disturbs their quiet, simple little world. Besides, if they noticed, they might feel guilty for not "doing something" about it, or for being a cog in the gears of tyranny. In moments of extreme frustration I have, in the past, referred to such people as "oblividiots". I am usually nicer now.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Yes, Partnership For Drug-Free America, that is what we have been trying to tell you all along, you disgusting ninnies! You and your "drug warriors" have decided to take away the ability of all Americans to decide for themselves. So Americans who go along with you have given up the liberty that makes them free Americans. Do you get it now? Probably not.
"This is your brain on drug prohibition"