Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog: 06/01/2016

Thursday, June 30, 2016

So much "if"

"Something might happen!!".

Is that a good excuse for a "law"?

Well, for anti-liberty bigots it is good enough.

And, since almost anything might result in something bad happening, there are infinite possibilities for new "laws" in their sad, shriveled little minds.

What's really tragic though is when those who understand liberty fall for it- which I have seen happen. Don't do it!

Yes, something bad might happen. Would you rather risk it, or guarantee it with new "laws"?

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

"Too much liberty"? Not even possible

Moderation in all things.

Which is why liberty is so great.

Liberty is freedom, moderated by the equal and identical rights of others. It is self-regulated, so it is impossible to ever have too much liberty.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Regulation is radical extremism

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 27, 2016)

I am driven by a love of personal responsibility, individual rights, free enterprise, and private property rights. At one time these values would have labeled me a conservative. The conservative preference of an earlier era was to keep the tentacles of the state out of life.

This doesn't seem to be what mainstream political conservatives want anymore. Decades ago they became less concerned about their own personal lives and became politically progressive, moving in the wrong direction- the direction away from Rightful Liberty. Away from what I value; toward government intervention in every part of life.

Empire-building, with military personnel or bases in the majority of countries around the planet, is not a conservative value. Neither is state regulation of marriage, or restroom rules. Nor is allowing government to dictate what people eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise ingest. Nor is "securing the border" with an American version of the Berlin Wall.

Having government regulate and control so many parts of your life just so you can control the lives of others-- taking the decisions out of individually accountable hands, and giving that power to the state-- is a radical, government extremist position. And it is dangerous.

Long ago, before government extremists began to redefine words to make themselves look reasonable, the term "liberal" applied to those who valued individual liberty. No more- at least in America. Now those Americans who call themselves "liberal" want to use the force of the State to outlaw what little liberty the conservatives are still willing to allow, for the good of society, of course. Theirs is another radical, dangerous position.

It's why I generally choose to call myself libertarian in polite company.

My libertarian values would help those around me, both liberal and conservative, even if their tastes and preferences are very different than my own. All it would require is their respecting the same rights in everyone else as they demand for themselves. Is that really as hard as people seem to make it?

Regardless of the label applied, I have no wish whatsoever to use the force of the state, financed with the form of theft called taxation, to impose my personal tastes on anyone else. Live and let live. Don't attack and don't steal. Do whatever makes you happy, even if I think it's wrong, as long as it doesn't violate anyone's equal and identical rights. In which case, even if it personally disgusts me, I understand it's none of my business.

Anti-social behavior

Social behavior is cooperative and voluntary.

Anti-social behavior is coercive, aggressive, and non-consensual.

Which one of those fits how government operates? It certainly isn't cooperative and voluntary. That's for sure.

Government is the ultimate anti-social behavior. War, taxation, and all that are just the natural results of being anti-social.

It is strange to me how many people confuse "society" for "government" or "The State", when they are so clearly opposites.

.

Monday, June 27, 2016

How to blog like me

Since I've been doing this for nearly 10 years now, I thought it was time to present a blogging how-to "for educational purposes only".

Number 1: Pick a subject that almost no one in the world even knows exists.

Number 2: Choose an angle that no normal person would choose, and which will infuriate all the "normies"- if they ever discover your blog. Which, if you do item 1 right, they won't.

Number 3: Even though you don't get much attention, don't change anything substantive trying to get noticed.

Number 4: Keep it up. Don't quit.

Added recently- Number 5: Make videos which can be ignored by billions of people worldwide.

OK. Slightly more seriously...

I find I have the best blog ideas (well, the ones I think are best, anyway) while I am doing completely unrelated things. Things like taking a shower, mowing, making something, or sitting and waiting. Things that don't require much thought, but also don't put me to sleep. (But falling asleep at night is when I also have ideas.) That's when my bored mind starts working and pasting together thoughts inspired by things I have read or heard or which just form in my mind from who-knows-where. Before I know it, a full-blown blog post will be rattling around in my skull, just waiting for me to either write it down, or forget what it was.

If I am smart, I quickly stop and text the idea to my email (or, make a conscious mental note, at least), otherwise I usually forget what I was thinking and miss the chance. I really hate when I forget one, but I still haven't learned to "save" them every time- I always think "I'll remember this for sure!".

If you do it right, after a decade or so you'll have literally dozens of people reading your blog every day. Only the best people, of course, not those other ones.

Good luck!

Sunday, June 26, 2016

My recent criminal adventure

"Laws" cause even me to alter my behavior. Sometimes.

I recently raised a couple of orphaned raccoons. Their mother was hit by a car, and they crawled out of the nest days later, desperately searching for food. The landowner- a relative of mine- found them and brought them to me.

Scared, weak, and starving

And, I kept it fairly quiet.

According to some people, it is "illegal" to rescue raccoons around here, and- so I gather- particularly in town. Not that I actually checked into it, because I have a serious lack of concern about legality, but they were probably right.

I used to do animal rescues all the time- often having multiple wild orphans or injured adults simultaneously. I even had government-employed "state wildlife biologists" bring me animals without demanding to see a license or anything. I've had hawks, a vulture, a skunk, raccoons, a heron, rabbits, squirrels, blue jays, and many others pass through my house and survive. In fact, I had one squirrel and one raccoon who kept coming for visits for a long time- both had been single orphans, which got a little more attached than usual. I never even thought about "laws" during that time.

But, apparently, the "law" just gets more and more dangerous to regular people every year.

So, out of respect to others, I just kept my mouth shut. Some others didn't, and word spread through some loose lips, but I escaped getting caught committing my heinous crime.

They grew, got stronger, cost me money I didn't have to spare, and eventually began to revert to the wild after they were weaned. Just as they needed to.

Mmmm! "Milk"

This is what happens when you poop on each other

Drying after the bath

Exploring the porch...

...and the woodpile

"Quit shoving!"

Getting big

Water playtime

And now the raccoons have been put into the wild, where I hope they can survive. At least they have a better chance than they did before they came to me. And I can finally talk about it freely.

New home

Just imagine a free society, where you don't have to break "laws" to do the right thing. Where people don't have to worry about getting you in trouble by saying something to the wrong person.

Ah, the adventures of living in a police state while still managing to do what you should.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Just a heads up

The next week is going to be a very busy one. One I have been dreading for months. I have my reasons, and they may be stupid, or you might understand if you knew. I don't think I'll share details, because it might make me look bad.

It might turn out OK and I may feel foolish later for having been dreading it.

It may give me lots of blog fodder, and a need to vent, or I may miss some days of posting- I don't know which.

This would be a really good time to subscribe or donate if you want to and can.

Hang on to your hat.

.

Brexit... Texit... whatever. I love secession!

I'm probably very late to weigh in on this, but that's how I roll.

If I were a British subject, would I have v*ted in favor of the "Brexit"? Of course not.

Am I in favor of it? Of course I am.

I am in favor of secession as a matter of principle. Breaking up big government into smaller pieces is something that will always make me smile. I always support secession from any government, no matter why it is done, where it happens, or whose idea it is. Even if the secessionists make the first move with a v*te.

But my liberty isn't up for a v*te, and I won't bother putting effort into something I don't put any stock in. I'll still be happy about it when it happens.

Will this v*te lead to liberty for Brits? No. As far as I can tell, the British v*ters aren't even considering that- they are only worried about who will rule them and where their "taxes" will go, not about rejecting rulers and theft altogether.

Still, I like upsetting big governments and the plans they have, even if it's just due to another government breaking away. It's always a step in the right direction- or at least it makes me smile.

Now I see more calls for "Texit", a Texas secession from the US. I'm on board with that, too.

Do I believe the Texas government is somehow "better" than the US government? Ha ha... no.

The thugs who call themselves the Texas government are every bit as bad as those who call themselves the US government. Anti-liberty bigots to the core.

Government is inexcusable. Both the governments in question are gangs of tax-addicted bullies, seeking to use your life and property to gain power. Governments are invariably made up of the lowest scum imaginable- those who believe they have a "right" to run your life, and help themselves to your property. There's no good way to spin that.

One of the primary backers of Texit is the Texas Nationalist Movement. I don't support them because I don't need to be ruled. By anyone. Period. But I will support their secession movement. If it happens, and they are content with small gain, I will keep advocating more secession. All the way down to the individual.

So, yes, I'd like to see Texas (or any other state) secede from the US. The US is the biggest enemy of Americans' liberty, and it needs to be cut down to size by states breaking away. So it's something I would love to see happen. Or a county secede from a state and refuse to join a different state. Or a town secede, or whatever. Ad infinitum.

I've already seceded from every political collective, whether they recognize it or not. It's not up to them. Do they still impose on me? Yes, of course. Bullies do that, but that they call themselves "government" doesn't make them something other than bullies.

It would be great if the Brexit v*te gave the secession movement a little kick in the pants. Even if it doesn't, I still like it.

Secession is NEVER wrong.

#Texit

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Magic wands aren't an option

Statists desperately want a magic wand. They insist on being handed one. Reality doesn't make them happy, and they don't want to hear it.

If they are to consider letting go of the cult of Statism, they insist on everything being magically fixed in its absence. Fixed in a way they can understand and approve of. Instantly.

You can point out the failures of statism, but because you admit that Utopia isn't going to come about in its absence, they refuse to budge.

As has been pointed out, government could never live up to the standard they insist on imposing on a free society. If it didn't already exist, they would never agree to try something so insane and obviously doomed from the start. For good reason- to believe something so stupid, you have to have been raised in the belief.

It doesn't matter that their chosen cult fails to deliver, time after time, without exception for thousands of years- they'll hang on to it until someone else offers them a magic wand with which to solve everything with a wave.

I think this shows they believe they already have a magic wand in coercion.

By contrast, the grown-ups see when something is a failure and toss it, knowing that things work themselves out when people are motivated, and when artificial barriers are removed. They may not work themselves out like you expect, but people solve problems. It's what we do, unless we form a big gang which depends, for its very existence, on making the problems worse. A solved problem puts government employees (tax junkies) out of work. They aren't going to stand for that.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

"Bad words"

My 8 year-old daughter often wants to know if a word she has heard is a "bad word".

My response to her is that there is no such thing as a "bad word", but there are words which will upset some people, and it's probably best to not say those words in most cases. Then I ask what word she is thinking of.

A few days ago she quietly asked me if "doofus" was one of those words. I tried to not smile as I told her that word was probably safe as long as she wasn't trying to use it to hurt someone's feelings.

The words which upset me are probably a lot different than the words which upset my Religious Right family. Words they fling around every day are deeply offensive to me- even as I avoid saying words I know they would find offensive. Even more offensive to me are some of the concepts they embrace. Words may not break bones, but bad concepts kill.

Those are worse than any word.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Liberty offers better options, rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 20, 2016)

When discussing libertarian ideas with non-libertarians, I have discovered one common fear: the fear that libertarians would take away the government services people have grown accustomed to. To "force people to be free", as it were.

That's not my goal at all.

I support removing the roadblocks which prevent better options from being offered and then let you-- the former government supporter-- kill off that which you once supported after you see there's a better way. If you want. And you will.

How can this be?

Once you get a taste of private property rights as they truly exist, not just as permitted under government, and see how pointless and harmful those imaginary "national borders" really are, you will be excited to replace borders with property rights.

When you experience the educational choices offered once tax-funded "public" schooling is no longer compulsory to attend or fund, you'll no longer tolerate what passes for public education today.

When you see how easily real crime is discouraged once "victimless crime" laws are abolished and the natural right of self defense is respected everywhere, you'll view sticking with the current system as falling backward into the Dark Ages.

You will be eager to replace government roads, government's health care rationing, government safety, prohibition, and all the rest with the free enterprise options which will result from giving people a choice. You may even be the person with a new solution!

In each case, all libertarians want is to replace coercion with choice, and then stand back and let the chips fall where they may. The next move will be up to you.

The only changes needed are ending the criminalization of opting out of the government monopoly, and ending any "laws" prohibiting private competition with government services. If those services are so necessary, giving people more options to choose from can only make things better. Not everyone wants to wear athletic shoes or western boots, after all. The only ethical thing to do is stay out of the way and let people make their own decisions. This is what I am excited to encourage you to do.

I realize even this is too much for some government supporters. I believe it clearly shows they know how poor the current options are, and realize how easily the free market would replace them with something better. It's sad when people are so attached to a failed system they outlaw competition. That doesn't apply to you, does it?

"Support him no longer"- how does it look and how can it change things?

I'd like to share another Facebook conversation. Or at least my response to an honest question. This one is quite a bit less hostile than the last one.

I was pointing out that the best solution to the violent government extremists is to stop supporting them.

“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.”― Étienne de La Boétie

It also helps if you can get over the superstitious belief in "authority".

"What would that look like in practice, and how would it change things?"

In practice, it wouldn't look too much different to casual observers. That's because it is mostly an absence of certain behaviors rather than a presence of new behaviors.

You would stop wasting time pledging allegiance, thanking troops, writing congress to beg for a change in "laws". You would stop harboring worship for cops, politicians, and other government extremists in your heart, but you wouldn't replace it with fear or hatred (ideally), either. You'd recognize bad people are out there looking for an opportunity to violate you, and that this is not going to change no matter what justification the particular bad guys use. Just focus on avoiding them and protecting yourself from them. You would stop worrying about whether something is "legal" and focus instead on whether it is right.

I am still as polite to a cop I pass on the street as I am to any other aggressive gang member wearing his colors. I'm not looking for trouble, and don't ever intend to start it. But I don't pretend they are the good guys or somehow legitimate in the counterfeit rules they enforce. They are the same as any mobster or MS-13 gang member, except that they believe you owe them gratitude for existing. It's pretty funny if you think about it.

How would it change things?

I can only tell you how it has changed things in my life. I am much less frustrated. I don't expect government to act differently than it is designed to act. I don't expect it to rescue me, or protect me. I don't get angry when it gets in my way any more than I get angry at the wind or mosquitoes. I see statists (those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human endeavor) getting really angry or shocked over things government does. I see them putting all their hope in electing new gang members in the hope it will change the nature of the gang- in spite of all of human history to the contrary. I feel bad for them. How can they expect things to act against their own nature? It's not the individual people in the office that are the problem, it is the existence of the office. You shouldn't have an "official town rapist", no matter who you choose to fill the post. The same applies to every government position.

If it works in others as it has worked in me, it would change things as fewer people are willing to lower themselves to work for government, or to support those who do. It would cause people to stop looking to government when trouble crops up, but to find ways to solve it without violating others. Eventually, perhaps, people would find government as "necessary" as bicycles for fish.

If you are truly interested in looking into these ideas, I highly recommend The OnLine Freedom Academy.

Monday, June 20, 2016

The predictability of statist responses

I just discovered an older message on Facebook. It is from April, and went to a junk folder I didn't know I had ("filtered"). I didn't respond, but I may send him a link to this post. Or not. Depends on how I feel later.

Here is the message, edited for language:

Cops are scum? Helping them is evil? Who the f*** do you think you are? Cops are here to help and protect us? You'd call them if someone robbed you,hurt you or killed someone you love! F***ing liberal! Hypocrite! I really do pray for you and everyone like minded to you! If you hate it here so much! Leave the country and go to a lawless place!

This is so typical of so many copsuckers' responses. But I'm sure you know that from personal experience.

Yes, cops ARE scum. You can't be otherwise and continue to do that "job". Cops enforce the "laws", and many (most, actually) "laws" are counterfeit- they violate life, liberty, or property. Good people wouldn't do that. If a cop is insistent on enforcing one of these counterfeit "laws" and you resist, he will murder you to force you to submit. Only an evil person- a scum- would do that. So, yes, cops are scum.

Giving physical (or other forms of) assistance to someone committing acts of enforcement is evil. It couldn't be otherwise. Helping scum prevail against their victims isn't something a decent person would do. Not ever.

Who do I think I am? Someone who recognizes wrong when I see it, even if it hasn't yet harmed me. Who does the copsucker think he is?

Apparently, by his use of a question mark, he also doubts that cops are here to help us. Cops are "here" to help themselves. After that comes their obligation to help the bullies who come up with insane opinions, and then call those opinions "law". Cops may sometimes, inadvertently "help" someone else, but so do other bad guys. It doesn't excuse their primary behavior. If you worship cops because you believe this propaganda, you may need more help than I can provide.

Then he whips out his "just wait until you need a cop" and waggles it around for all to admire. How proud he must be of it. If I ever feel forced to call a cop, it would NOT be because I want to. It might be because an insurance company has rules that mean they won't do what I have contracted with them to do if I don't. Or, perhaps due to "laws" that would result in my being kidnapped or murdered by cops if I don't call them. And I will take care when they show up if I find myself in that situation. The chances of the cops showing up and making the situation better is so laughably unlikely that I can't figure out how anyone could still believe that myth. There is no situation so bad that it can't be made much worse by inviting a cop to show up.

Then he calls me a "liberal", thus exposing himself as a statist of the "Right". So oblivious, is he. It would be funny if it weren't so predictable. Statists... sigh.

The next insult he squeezes from his orifice confuses me. "Hypocrite"? Based on what? I have no doubt whatsoever I have some hypocritical opinions or actions. But, it would be helpful if he could let me know exactly what he's talking about... unless he is just blindly grasping for insults without paying any attention to what they mean. It couldn't be that, could it?

And he's going to pray for me. When people pray for me, I take it as a sign they care. I don't get the feeling he cares for me- in fact, I get the opposite vibe and think he is being insincere. Perhaps, even... hypocritical? Instead of praying for me, he could try to convince me of how right he is. If he has any rational arguments, I mean.

I don't hate it here. In fact, it's because I love America that I won't abandon it to the likes of him, and to the law pollution he seems to love so much. I can love the place and hate the gangs of bullies who infest it and violate all those they notice. I don't confuse the government for the place like so many statists seem to do. "Love it or leave it"? No. It's people like him who would be more comfortable in a "lawful" place like North Korea. He's the one out of place, and he should fix that at his earliest convenience.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Happy Father's Day

Go out and be a good dad if you have kids, and thank your dad if he's still alive.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

When good people do wrong

(Previously posted to Patreon)

There's a secret heartache I have been suffering. And I can't go into details because it isn't my place to do so.

What it comes down to is this: someone I care about very much apparently did something wrong- initiated force against a helpless innocent- and is paying the price for it. She lost her grip on reality, and is now in jail.

Knowing her as I do, I know this "isn't her". She has been through some extreme emotional strain and psychological torture- committed against her by one evil person- for the past few years, and she seems to have finally snapped.

And it kills me.

She knows better than to initiate force. Or she did.

I still don't believe in caging people. Not her, and not anyone else. It never helps the victim, and is nothing but institutionalized revenge. It prevents restitution and usually does nothing but cause the imprisoned person to go further in the wrong direction. I don't want that for anyone.

But, if she did what she is accused of doing (and it seems she did), she was wrong. She owes a debt to her victim. If I could, I would gladly pay it on her behalf, but I can't.

I can care about someone and still acknowledge when they do the wrong thing.

I wish it hadn't happened. I wish I had been able to help her before it happened (I did try to give emotional support). And I wish I could fix it now.

At this point, the only way I could help is if I were a really good lawyer. Not to "get her off", but to help find mutually agreeable restitution instead of a cage.

It's that time again

It's "Random Acts of Anarchy Day".

Go do something nice or helpful or useful, without getting a permit or license.

Have fun!

Thursday, June 16, 2016

What the Second Amendment is, and isn't

Remember- The Second Amendment doesn't apply to you, so it can't "give you a right" to do anything.

All it does is make it a serious crime for any "law" concerning guns to be passed or enforced. It is a clear prohibition on government weapons "laws". That's it. It does nothing else.

So, it only applies to lawmakers and law enforcers by making it illegal for them to prohibit or restrict weapons to you and me, in any way. Or for them to demand we pay for permits, background checks, or pay "taxes" on weapons, or not carry in certain places they control (they own no places). They have no say in who can buy, sell, own, or carry a weapon. If they try to anyway, they are criminals. And, they are not "Pro-gun" except in their own delusional heads (and quite possibly in the heads of the "leadership" of the anti-gun NRA).

Any government employee who tries to disarm you if you aren't currently attacking or threatening to attack innocent people (everyone has the right to intervene in this case) is a violent criminal, no matter his excuse. His safety does NOT trump yours. Not ever.

If he says he needs you to hand over your weapon "for your safety and mine" he is lying. He is a coward who knows he is committing a wrong, and doesn't want to face the consequences of his actions.

Government has zero legitimate say in weapon possession, and the Second Amendment makes that very clear- leaving no room for "debate".

Yes, the bad guys in government ignore this law and break it with impunity every day. They keep getting away with it... until the day they don't. Then they will be very surprised for a very short, quite painful, moment. Good riddance to bad trash.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Don't be fooled by appearances

When people first see me they are often fooled.

Some of the mistakes people have made as to what I am are even contradictory, but people see what they want to see.

I have been assumed to be a drug addict or dealer.
I have been assumed to be an undercover cop.
I have been assumed to hate gays- or to be gay.
It has been assumed that I am uneducated- a "hick".
I have been confused for a cowboy, and a hippie.
I have been assumed to be a religious fundamentalist.
A guy recently assumed I was an ex-Marine.

None of those are true about me.

I have also been wildly wrong about other people based on appearances or first impressions.

One of my best friends looked "snooty" to me the first time I met her. I was very wrong.

On the other hand, I have thought some people were smarter or nicer than they turned out to be- sometimes with tragic results. I'll leave out details.

There have been times I looked at someone and thought there couldn't be anything we had in common, and when I got to know them discovered just how much alike we were. Personally, I love when this happens because it always expands my horizons.

So, don't assume the person you encounter is going to hate or fear liberty based on how they dress or how they act. Until they demonstrate that they do. Give them a chance and the benefit of a doubt, just as you probably hope others do for you. They might just surprise you.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Laws sign of corrupt government

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 13, 2016)

People complain about government corruption, at least when they notice it interfering with their own life. They realize it's a problem, and usually believe something should be done about it. They are adept at pointing out this poisonous fruit without observing the diseased tree on which it grows.

With their continued support of that which creates the problem, they remind me of a morbidly obese person complaining about his weight and its effects on his health while continuing to overeat.

Sometime around the year 100 AD, Roman politician and historian Tacitus said "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates".

Government dreams up laws. It's pretty much its defining trait. Laws are a sure sign of corruption, but people refuse to see the connection. Corruption is as natural to government as hairballs are to my cat.

Yet, people still judge legislators by how many of these nuggets of corruption they squeeze out while in office. People have gotten this suicidal notion into their heads that unless laws are being dreamed up and enacted, government isn't doing anything. That's as absurd as encouraging the exterminator to release termites and rats into your home.

Of the two ways to get rid of government corruption, the most obvious is to eliminate the State. If you prefer to "control" the cancer rather than removing it from your body, you must at the very least reverse the runaway train of legislation.

Every halfway legitimate law was imposed centuries ago- although some weren't applied to everyone equally. Since then only harmful laws have come along; laws which violate life, liberty, and property.

It's long past time to turn this around and applaud only those legislators who "accomplish something" by abolishing laws. Any new law imposed, no matter how necessary you believe it to be, must count against them. Many people have a superstitious belief that just because a law was dreamed up and approved by a person holding a political position it must be obeyed until it is abolished. The absurdity of that belief should be obvious.

Of course, the simplest way to deal with all these harmful counterfeit "laws" is to simply ignore them. There's no need to go through the ritual of abolishing them. Illegitimate "laws" are nothing, and nothing doesn't need to be cleaned up.

So, stop permitting more laws to be enacted against the life, liberty, and property of yourself and those around you. Stop supporting corruption.

Frustration with anti-gun bigots

(Previously posted to Patreon)

It is so frustrating that people tolerate anti-gun "laws", and that they don't treat people who ban guns from private property like people claiming the right to rape-- as long as they "only" rape in their own home.

I realize my views on this are extreme- even for a libertarian.

I am not saying a private property owner doesn't have the right to ban guns as a condition of entering his property, I am saying he is a foolish bad guy for doing so. He is making his guests much less safe, while lying and claiming he is only doing it for their safety. Good people wouldn't do that.

Such people should be shunned, ridiculed, and viewed as what they are.

If someone doesn't trust you with a gun, they don't trust you, period. If they don't trust you, why would you trust them? If you don't trust them, why would you do business with them, or associate with them in any way?

I know many people have a soft spot for those who fear guns and want to stay away from them. I have yet to determine if this soft spot is in the heart or between the ears. I lean more toward the latter.

Anti-gun "laws" should be absolutely intolerable to anyone who values liberty. And anti-gun property owners should be avoided and despised- on their own property or off.

Orlando- "no guns"

A "no guns" sign is nothing but a filter.

It filters out the guns which might be used to defend you, while those which would be used to murder the innocent pass right by, utterly unaffected. It works the same everywhere, every time, without exception.

The same for "no guns" rules.

How anyone could ever believe this is a good thing is something I can't wrap my head around. It is a delusion too bizarre for words.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Truth? Who cares? See how deeply I feel!

"Truth is useless for persuasion whenever emotions are involved." ~ Scott Adams

Yes, it is. And that's a shame, but reality doesn't care if you like it or not.

Nowhere is that more obvious than in the anti-liberty bigots' response to the Orlando mass murder by a religious extremist.

Liberty is supported by facts, reason, logic, ethics, history, etc. But statists are driven by an emotional attachment to their cult, so they reject reality and substitute their own matrix of feelings and wishes in its place. Feelings and wishes that run counter to the truth, but "feel right" to them.

Liberty can appeal to feelings, too. What's better than owning your life and the products of your life? But most liberty lovers have a harder time expressing that particular dimension than do statists, who are driven by emotion rather than by truth. I know I have a hard time expressing my emotions the way statists do.

I have feelings, but I feel (ha!) my feelings are less important than the truth- than reality. If I like a comfy lie, I feel bad about liking it and would rather focus on reality until I like that instead.

If I like the truth, I want to express that truth rather than worry about how liking it makes me feel.

I want my feelings to align with the truth because reality is what really matters to me.

But, to persuade people you've got to sink to their level, and that means you need to ignore truth and focus on feelings. Especially in politics, truth has no place, unless you are talking about how you truly feel.

So, here's a bit of truth and "feelz" for you:

It deeply saddens me that anti-liberty bigots care so little about innocent lives that they keep doing everything they can to make it easier and easier for bad guys set on murder to carry out their plans in the most efficient way possible. With as little risk of being stopped "too early" by an armed good guy. Anti-liberty bigots don't care about you or "the children" at all, or else they wouldn't be anti-liberty bigots. They only care that their agenda is pushed. If you have to die because of it, well, that's a price they are eager to pay.

How does that truth make you feel?

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Orlando mass murder. Will people ever learn?

A guy intent on murder has succeeded again, largely due to "gun control laws". Yes, he is ultimately responsible, but politicians (and property owners) practically held his hand, led him to his killing floor, and pointed out targets for him to kill. Because some of them are so blinded by a political agenda that they still believe saying "no guns" will save lives.

Idiots. Evil idiots.

These places are always "gun-free" slaughter zones- places where the good guys obey the evil rules saying they can't be armed, but where people who don't care about counterfeit rules (you know, like people who intend to murder a bunch of people in spite of laws forbidding murder) waltz in and start picking off the defenseless targets who have been disarmed for their convenience.

Anti-gun "laws" kill- or at least make it easy for bad guys to use those "laws" to get a large body count. Notice how the killing always comes to an end after people (in this case, other bad guys) with guns show up. Why give the bad guys that time advantage?

If a place says "no guns", remember what they are actually saying: "We don't care if you die". Oh, they'll be really sympathetic afterwards, but they'll keep their insane policy in place- or even double down- to make it easy for bad guys to kill unopposed yet again.

Do not obey anti-gun "laws". Your life depends on it.

Judging by the guy's name, I do have a suspicion that this was a Muslim "killing two birds with one stone"- killing homosexuals like his religion (among others) orders him to, and killing Americans who his politics tells him to kill. Perhaps I am being prejudiced in this suspicion and it is completely unfounded. Perhaps.

Added: Statement from the Pink Pistols on the shooting: Pink Pistols Saddened by Attack on Orlando Club

"We're DOOOOOMED!!!"

The worst political fears- the ones used to manipulate people into accepting (or even begging for) government coercion- almost never come to pass. They are "hobgoblins".

Yes, bad things do happen. Horrific things. But these are usually the result of government "doing something", not due to government "failing to do something". The worst thing that can ever happen when a problem is noticed is for government to step in to try to solve it.

The belief that one candidate is worse than another is another hobgoblin. The ways in which each is bad may vary a little, but not enough to actually matter to your life (if you'll switch off the "news", anyway).

Look at history before you hyperventilate over whatever it is the fearmongers are trying to scare you with.

.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Confidence, arrogance, and doubt

I am too confident in some things, and not confident enough in others.

I know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that aggression and property violations are something no one has a right to do. In most cases, this means they are wrong. It doesn't matter who is doing it, or what justifications they grasp for in those cases.

I am completely confident in this truth, and that confidence may come across as arrogance. I have been told it does- and have lost friends over it when they want to worship bad guys with government "jobs" and they didn't like where principles led. It is what it is. I could pretend to have doubts about it, but I'd be lying.

In fact, though, I used to be filled with doubts over this. Each time I doubted, either due to an objection I had thought up for myself, or due to an argument someone made against it, I would examine the alternatives or the arguments. And each and every time without exception, those arguments failed. They were self-contradictory or didn't hold up in some other way. I'm not going to pretend a failed idea is valid.

That doesn't mean I won't consider opposing opinions anymore. Of course I will. But each time I do, they still fail. I will continue to give them consideration, whenever someone makes the effort to present them. But I don't expect them to succeed any more than I expect to drop a brick and have it float up and away. Past experience has been a good teacher.

If someone ever makes a reasonable case for aggression or property violations, or if I ever lose a brick to a light breeze, reality will force me to adjust my expectations, and my confidence will be shaken. Again.

Liberty has earned my confidence, and if having confidence in Liberty is "arrogance", so be it. But, I've never been arrogant about myself, regardless of how I come across.

Thursday, June 09, 2016

Why can't statists act civilized?

I can dislike something and still not want government to make or enforce "laws" against it.

I can dislike a person and still not want government or its "laws" used against that person.

I can HATE someone and still object to force being initiated against them or their property being violated. By anyone. Even if I believe they "deserve" it in a karmic sense.

I can like something and still not want you to be forced to fund it.

I can love someone and still acknowledge they are dead wrong if they initiate force or violate private property.

Why can't statists do that?

Instead, they focus on silly things like "respect the office even if you don't like the person holding it". What horrible drivel! The office is the problem. Without that office, the evil fool holding that office couldn't hurt you from behind his veil of imaginary legitimacy. If he violated you, you could defend yourself without having his gang, numbering in the millions, coming after you.

And statists are always looking for ways to justify aggression and theft, even as they object to it if it is used against them. Some even "justify" aggression and theft used against them or their loved ones if they fear calling it what it is (evil) would undermine their arguments for The State.

And, yet, I am still willing to leave statists alone. But they can't seem to return the courtesy. I just don't understand that mindset at all.

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

Radicalized aggression and cops

Radicalization. Specifically radicalized Islam. That's what a lot of people fear these days.

Radicals can be found in any group, and it's not even necessarily a bad thing to be a radical. It depends what you are radical about.

If you are radical about the Zero Aggression Principle you will be no danger to anyone who isn't a bad guy- and bad guys need to have the cost of doing what they do raised to the point they take a different path.

But, if you are all about aggression and property violations, then being radicalized is never going to be a good thing.

This brings me to cops.

Cops are radicalized "law enforcement".

Cops were never the good guys, and I could never support them, but they got much worse after they became radicalized.

Perhaps "radicalized" isn't the best term for when bullies go full-potato.

Since the problem isn't the radicalization, but that which is being radicalized, maybe the most accurate term would be "aggressionized". Because they have become radical about committing aggression and property violation. Just like the aggressionized Muslims who you'll probably never encounter in real life, but whom you are told to fear.

Aggressionized law enforcement is a much bigger danger to your real life than any other aggressionized group could even hope to be, because they are infesting the countryside at horrific levels. It needs to be stopped.

Cops have been aggressionized, and it is getting worse by the day.

Tuesday, June 07, 2016

Libertarian society already exists

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 6, 2016)

One of the minor amusements of publicly promoting a society which respects the rightful liberty of each individual are those who object by proclaiming "You're wasting your time. We will never live in a libertarian society."

They are missing the point. We already live in such a society. In fact, if society weren't mostly libertarian, it wouldn't qualify as a society at all.

Almost everyone knows it is wrong to attack or to steal from others. That's all a libertarian society is. People who break these rules face consequences.

The problem is most people carve out an imaginary exception for government employees.

We know theft is wrong, but often look the other way when theft is called "taxation".

We know we shouldn't throw the first punch, but call it "enforcing a law" and most cheer the bully. At least until they find themselves the victim of a wrong-headed "law"- then the artificial line between "law enforcement" and bully is exposed for what it is.

We know it isn't right to trespass or damage our neighbor's home, but if they call the damage "property codes" and pretend there's justification for it, they can get away with almost anything.

It's not right.

The contradictions in these examples would cause discomfort if people actually noticed them, and would cause a change of heart if people who noticed them gave the matter some thought. This is why people try really hard to avoid thinking about it.

That's all I am trying to do: point out the contradictions and get people to think. I don't need to convince you to create a libertarian society- I only need to get you to see you already live in one, and convince you to stop excusing bad guys who refuse to live by the rules and get along.

It would not be up to you to give me a libertarian society to live in, even if societies weren't libertarian already. There will always be those seeking to violate you and your property in any society. Society survives in spite of them. You do what you can to prevent them from violating you, and defend yourself from them when you can. It doesn't matter if they wear a badge, a suit and tie, other "gang colors", or are freelance.

I don't even need to persuade anyone. You already know the truth, you just need to stop hiding it from yourself, and start living like your liberty matters.

The ones you are better than

(Previously posted to Patreon)

"Firefly". Episode: Shindig:

Mal and Jayne; in a coerced meeting with Badger, who is trying to hire them for a new job.

Mal: You backed out of a deal last time. Left us hanging.

Jayne: Hurt our feelings.

Mal: You recall why that took place?

Badger: I had a problem with your attitude is why. I felt you was… what’s the word?

Jayne: Pretentious?

Badger: Exactly! You think you’re better than other people!

Mal: Just the ones I’m better than.

Recognizing you are better than some other people. It happens. In the world of Firefly it can cause problems, and it can do the same in the real world.

How can it be wrong to feel superior to people you are superior to? It might not be "politically correct", but you really are better than some people. In at least some ways, and probably in lots of ways.

You may be smarter, or kinder. You may be more generous. Or, you might be more ethical because you abide by the Zero Aggression Principle. But I guarantee you, in some way you are better than me, and in some way (I hope) I am better than you. And it's the same when any two people are compared. I am not superior or inferior in every way to anyone, and neither are you.

This oddity of not being happy about, or even acknowledging, the ways in which you are "better than" seems harmful to me. If there is nothing better to see and aspire to, then everyone may as well wallow in mediocrity. Never strive to improve.

Personally, I want to be around people who are better than me. I want to learn from them those things where they put me to shame. I hunger for that, and can't understand why anyone wouldn't want the same.

Protecting liberty by destroying liberty?

Gun writer (and generally excellent "gun righter") David Codrea of The War on Guns blog is beating the anti-"illegal immigration" drum loudly these days.

I disagree with him (although I am not intending to pick on him), and here's why.

If you can't have Liberty without having those "borders", then you simply can never have Liberty, period. It means Liberty can never be. It's nothing more than an impossible fantasy that can never exist in the real world.

Maybe that is how it really is. If so, what's the point of even trying? Just batten down the hatches and shoot all who come after you. Which, I suppose, is what borderists are advocating in a way. Or, as the anonymous commenter advocates, "Kill them all and let God sort them out"- 7 billion of "them".

You can have Liberty, or you can have government-enforced "national borders", but not both. They are mutually exclusive. (And "secured borders", and all that goes along with them, are also unconstitutional, but that's another issue.)

If you believe a government's "borders" can protect your liberty by keeping out those who would violate it, you must also believe a person can only be raped by one rapist at a time.

As soon as you have a government large and powerful enough to "secure" those borders, you will have "taxes" being stolen to finance them. You will have the property rights of those along that border being violated as being inferior to the government's imaginary "rights" (some of those violated are fine with that, believing it the preferable violation- or totally blinded by nationalism). You will have the right of association violated. You will have the right to travel unmolested being violated. Where these things are happening, there is no liberty. There is no longer anything to protect.

The big fear seems to be that all those "immigrants" come here and end up v*ting Democratic, and against the right to own and to carry guns. And they might. Especially if they see angry gun owners talking about deportation, prison, and walls, while simultaneously saying they are lazy welfare parasites, and that they "take our jobs".

That is no excuse. You've got to strike at the root.

V*ting on rights, by anyone, is the problem. Rights are never legitimately up for a v*te nor subject to popular opinion. And if someone places your rights on a ballot, or allows a politician to live... I mean, stay in office after he has violated your rights, then that is the problem more than the idiots- regardless of where they were born- who support the violation of human rights through "majority rule".

Instead of making enemies, why not first try to be friends and help them understand why the right to own and to carry guns is their natural, individual right, too? And, if that fails, defend yourself from those who try to violate you without worrying about where they were born.

I can't see how anyone can imagine that being violated by bullies who were born in the same tax farm you were born in is somehow "better" than being violated by bullies born somewhere else.

You can't protect liberty by destroying liberty. No matter how much you wish the opposite were true. And anti-"immigrant" is just as anti-liberty as anti-gun.

(This is my 4000th blog post here. I never suspected I had that many in me.)

Monday, June 06, 2016

Positively imaginary things and their rights

I just read a strange string of words: "A country has the right to..."

Really?

It doesn't matter what the supposed right was, since a collective has no rights and never can.

Rights are purely individual in nature. A collective can't have any rights not held by every individual voluntary member of that collective (and if the group is truly voluntary for each and every member, I don't consider it a collective). And a coercive collective isn't even true cooperation- it is just a big rights-violating party where a few individuals live as parasites on the rest of the individuals.

Those rights held by a voluntary group's individual members don't change one iota due to membership in that group. Disband the group and the rights remain unchanged. The group is completely inconsequential to any rights which the individuals have.

So, no. A country has no rights. The individuals in that country have all the rights, and those rights are almost certainly violated most seriously by the individuals acting on behalf of that imaginary coercive collective they call the "country".

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Right and wrong- them and you

The nature of an act- particularly its rightness or wrongness- doesn't change depending on who is committing the act.

It doesn't matter if you idolize those committing the act or hate them.

If "their" troops are evil for doing it, so are "your" troops. Also, if "your" troops are righteous for doing something, so are theirs. Every person on the planet has equal and identical rights- and no one has the right to do things outside those rights.

Again: Right and wrong don't depend on who does them.

It seems a lot of people don't understand that simple principle.

Saturday, June 04, 2016

Government hurts the poor

If you support The State, you advocate harming the poor. You aren't showing love or generosity, or even concern for their plight. You are acting like you hate them and want to make them suffer.

Government hurts the poor and the "middle class" the most. The rich can afford the added expense and time of jumping over government's hurdles and complying with all its silly demands. They have the money, connections, and power to work around them, or even to use them to their advantage.

The poor don't.

And this isn't the fault of the rich; everyone should do what they can to survive living around a government- as long as they don't use that government to physically attack- or threaten to attack- anyone who has not attacked anybody else, nor to violate their property.

Of course, government also hurts the rich- or at least costs them- but they have enough spare resources to deal with it. They may grumble, and have to waste money protecting themselves from The State, but at least they usually manage. Everything they waste complying with, or avoiding, the State is money and time that won't go into helping others- it is just flushed down the hole that is government. It can't be invested in their businesses, it can't be used to buy products or services from people desperate for more customers, it can't be used to hire people who want a job. It is wasted.

But, the rich survive it.

Not so with the poor.

But what about welfare and minimum wage "laws"? Aren't those there to help the poor?

I would gladly trade all of those "protections" for the liberty of being free of government interference in my life. I'm just saying there's a big difference- a negative difference- between a handout or some "favor" like having wages kept artificially high, and being allowed to improve your own lot in life.

Big government prevents people from earning money the way they are most suited for. If they don't have the required permits and licenses, and if they don't pay the extortion called "taxes" for the privilege of adding value to society, they will be punished. Robbed, caged, or even murdered.

When you help government grow, you are hurting everyone, but you are hurting the poor and the middle class the most.

If you believe you can grow government to help the poor, you are moving backwards. It's like you are helping government to break their legs and then steal a crutch from someone else on their behalf. Support for government isn't just crazy, it's wrong.

Thursday, June 02, 2016

Hope floats, or maybe it dog paddles

In my family I have racists, people on welfare, lots of government employees (mostly in kinderprison jobs), borderists, and generally people who are happy to use the force of the State against those they don't like.

Liberals, neocons, or any other flavor of statist you can imagine. People who despise the force of the state being used against them, but who have no problem siccing the state on others. It drives me nuts.

I have expressed my views to them, but I can't force them to do what I think is right. That would be acting like they act.

Mostly, I simply refuse to be a part of their statist games, and roll my eyes at them a lot. And some of them are actually beginning to move ever-so-slightly in my general direction. It gives me hope.

Wednesday, June 01, 2016

Apologies

I admit I have probably not been the most pleasant person to be around recently. Family, dental/medical, personal, and financial problems just keep coming at me. And the people in my life seem to do their best to make it worse in any way possible. So, lots of stress lately.

I try not to take any of it out on those around me, nor let it color my blog posts, but it probably happens. I apologize for when it does. And I'll try to do better.

Things like this are why when I was a kid I wished I could get rid of emotions. Or at least control them like Mr. Spock or Sherlock Holmes.

To get rid of the bad emotions (or at least the ones that hurt), you'd be giving up the good ones, too. Maybe that's not a good enough trade.

Today I have the first of the dental work I need. Dentists are the closest thing I have to a phobia. I know it isn't sensible, but my brain doesn't always listen to what I know to be true.

Which means I should probably have more pity for statists whose brains don't want to listen to things they should know to be true.

KentForLiberty pages