All 'shoulds' flow from short list

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 29, 2017)

Almost everyone seems to have opinions about what you and I should or should not do. Most are willing to impose their opinions through laws, which they are willing to have enforced with violence.

Their opinions run the gamut: You should be patriotic. You should be compassionate to the underprivileged. You should be responsible. You should leave risky jobs to the professionals. You should pay any tax a government claims you owe. You shouldn't own dangerous things. You should obey every law automatically and without question, no matter how harmful or absurd-- and you should support, respect, and instantly obey law enforcement officers no matter what they demand.

The list is infinite!

I can simplify things. You should respect everyone's life, liberty, and property. That's your obligation to your fellow humans, and it's enough. How you choose to follow through is up to you.

How is this any different from the other "shoulds"? Look at the alternative.

If you don't believe you should respect the life of other people, wouldn't it mean you believe it's OK to kill them for no reason? Self defense? If someone is in your way, kill them. What kind of world would result?

If you don't believe you should respect the liberty of others, why not enslave them? Force them to work for you without getting the full benefit of their labor. Keep them in a cage when they aren't working, so they don't wander off without your permission. Pretend you have a magical quality called "authority" which empowers you to control what they do with their own body.

If you don't believe you should respect the property of other people, what's stopping you from taking what you want when you want it? Convince yourself you own a percentage of the money they earn from their labors-- a behavior which mirrors slavery; you are forcing them to spend part of their life supporting you. Don't allow them to use their property as they see fit. Impose restrictions which have no bearing on protecting the property of their neighbors.

Where would you be when your victims realize anything you permit yourself do to them could be turned around and done to you? Anything permissible for you is also permissible for your worst enemy. It's that simple.

All legitimate "shoulds" flow naturally from this short list, while false "shoulds" are exposed in short order. The sooner you learn it and take it to heart, the better things will be.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

The gift (?) of Oddness

Looking back on my life I find that the times that hold the most value are the times when I did things that were strange, unexpected, unconventional, risky, or just weird. Those are the things I remember and smile about the most.

That doesn't mean I usually intentionally do "odd" things- they just come naturally for me. Although, I admit I once wore a black velvet sombrero with silver sequins to work just to see the reaction. (Note: it is hard to drive while wearing a sombrero.) It was fun. And it probably did nothing to change my cow-orkers' minds about my oddness. Generally, though, my natural reactions to the world lead me down the path to "strange".

But often, things that seem odd really aren't. They just seem strange by comparison to the status quo.

Apparently, valuing liberty is a very odd thing in the world today. It's much more conventional to be "patriotic" or to oppose the "other side" just because they aren't your side. You won't win many friends for politely declining their invitation to join their mob. "You're NOT of the body!!"

Libertarianism and anarchy, "odd" as they are, are a good fit for me, besides being the only rational and ethical way to live among others.

I guess it's also strange to not abandon principles when they become inconvenient, or when others think you should. Yes, my daughter was killed by a drugged driver. Yes, I still oppose prohibition and those who support and enforce it. Personal tragedy doesn't change the truth. And, the truth is and will remain that although drug abuse is dumb and dangerous, prohibition has even more innocent victims.

There were a few times in my life when I wanted to be "normal". I would try to blend in. Something always jinxed the attempt. Someone would ask something, and my honest answer would cause them to stare at me as if I had eyes on stalks coming out the top of my head. I guess "normal" doesn't work for me.

Truthfully, looking at what is considered "normal" these days, I see very little worth emulating.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Thinking of the long-term

The future. Most people want to leave a better future for their descendants, and do certain things they believe will help. Unfortunately, most of them do foolish things without thinking of the long-term consequences.

These people seek impulsive "solutions" which depend on aggression and property violation.

Even if you manage to solve some current problem using archation-- especially archation by government-- you have burdened the future with more government. With a stronger government. With more problems caused by government. Problems which will need to be solved eventually.

Government is short-term thinking. It's "pragmatism" that leads to ongoing trouble, and ever more "pragmatic" ways to deal with them. It's a hole you can never get out of until you bite the bullet and take the right way out; the way that seems strange and unfamiliar.

Yes, you have to survive the short term in order to get to the long-term. But stop seeing government as the way to fix things now. It isn't. Not really. You're only kicking the can a little farther down the road, adding more trouble for later; trouble someone will have to fix after you're gone. Using government is selfish and irresponsible, no matter how you justify it.

He's from the government; here to "help" you.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Lying

Do you have the right to tell a lie? Yes. Freedom of speech.

Do you have the right to not be lied to? No.

However, if you lie and cause harm to someone's life, liberty, or property you have done something you have no right to do, and I believe you may owe restitution.

You can look at it similarly to the right to own and carry a gun. You have that right. No one has the right to forbid you exercising that right. But if you shoot an innocent person by misusing that right, or wrongfully damage their property with your gun, or credibly threaten to do either one, you have violated them and will owe restitution.

Some people feel that their right to lie means if you are defrauded it is your fault. "Too bad, so sad, Sucker. You should have been smarter and realized you were being lied to." I wonder if they feel the same about someone "allowing themselves" to be in the path of a fired bullet.

There are two types of lies: a lie told to protect the innocent from someone who wants to hurt them, and a lie told to harm someone. I've seen many people who don't see a difference-- especially when they like to hurt people. If you lie to protect the innocent, I believe you've done the right thing. If you tell the other type of lie, you've done wrong.

Government-- the State-- is based on many lies. Guess which type. Look at the body count if you can't figure it out.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Autistic shrieking"? Nope.

How silly is this new meme of calling rational libertarian/anarchist objections to blatant statism "autistic shrieking"?

Incredibly silly-- and probably insulting to both the libertarian and the autistic. But, it follows a pattern I've noticed before, in unrelated areas.

When someone is telling you something you don't want to hear, it seems louder. It grates on your ears and sets your nerves on end. I've had my daughter tell me to "stop yelling" when I'm telling her something, in a normal tone of voice, that she doesn't want to hear. Truth can be uncomfortable, and that discomfort can be mistaken for a higher volume.

The truth that anarchy is the only ethical way to live hurts many people's ears, thus they want to accuse you of "shrieking" to cover for their own discomfort. So, when someone accuses you of "autistic shrieking" while you are defending liberty, know you've hit a nerve and laid open their hypocrisy.

They won't thank you for it.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Violating a thief's property rights

A few days ago on Facebook, a guy got completely obsessed over his idea that the victim of theft has no right to trespass onto the thief's property to get back the stolen goods.

Let me think about that a little...

Are you obligated to respect the property rights of a person who has demonstrated that he doesn't believe in property rights? Well, maybe. Chances are, he does believe in his own property rights, while making the conscious choice to violate yours. Just like a murderer doesn't want you to kill him in self defense-- and you still have every right to do so.

No, a thief can't "lose" his rights by his act of theft- rights can't ever be lost; that's not their nature.
You can't magically get new rights, which didn't exist before, by someone else's wrong act.
He had no right to take your property.
You have no right to trespass.
You also can't delegate rights which don't exist to someone else-- such as, under the current situation, cops, or in a hypothetical free society, "property retrievers".

So, where does that leave you? Violated and out of luck? Perhaps... but...

I have always said that if you feel you must do something you have no right to do, do it and accept the consequences.

That might mean getting shot while trying to retrieve your property. It might mean (in a free society) facing arbitration for trespassing. If you were truly retrieving property which had been stolen, that would be taken into account when deciding how much restitution each party owed the other. You might owe an ounce of silver for trespassing and for any property damage you caused while doing so; the thief would owe restitution to you for the same acts, which would cancel out. He might also owe you for your time, trouble, and labor which was necessary to get back your property because of his act of theft. The thief would end up owing more as long as you didn't wantonly destroy his property as a way to get back at him while retrieving your own.

If you respect the Zero Aggression Principle things will always work out in favor of the person who didn't "start it"-- if it favors anyone at all.

Still, you might decide that knowing who is a thief, and advertising that fact while avoiding (and keeping an eye on) this person is good enough. If everyone knows what he is, he may not live long unless he changes his ways. Your response is up to you. I'm not going to second-guess a person who trespasses to retrieve his stolen property.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Unlucky vs evil

The reason I consider cops (and other government employees) to be worse, to be more guilty, than someone who committed negligent homicide lies with their intent.

I don't for a second believe the person who committed negligent homicide intended to cause harm. Yes he made bad choices, but so do we all. You or I could easily do something stupid which results in the death of an innocent at any time. To pretend otherwise is denial. No act is truly safe, although some are obviously more risky than others. And, intentional or not, if you cause harm, you owe restitution (which may not be possible to fully pay).

But cops make the conscious decision to do what they do; they intend to commit the acts they commit-- acts of enforcement of counterfeit "laws"-- in exchange for stolen money. And they seem to feel proud for it. Proud for doing wrong. Utterly unrepentant in almost every single case. And they expect to be thanked or even worshiped. That is disgustingly wrong. That makes them more guilty.

One is basically unlucky*; the other is the enemy of everything decent.

-

*We make some of our own "luck", some is randomness, and some is choices we have made combined with the random "luck of the draw". We may be confused over how much of each type we encounter in our life.

You CAN choose to not play

I'll get off the subject of cops soon- I just have a lot to get off my chest right now. Sorry.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

I'll never support government dystopia

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 22, 2017)

Utopia isn't an option. Even if you had the power to set up society the way you think it should be, reality would step in and make your Utopia imperfect. Expect the unexpected and remember it's impossible to plan for everything.

The most important thing to keep in mind: no one can design a society. The belief that it can be done is a conceit common to governments and people who believe in them. Societies grow from the bottom up, they are not designed or imposed from the top down.

You still ought to know what you would like your personal Utopia to be like. Otherwise, how could you ever know which direction to take?

What do you wish the world were like? When you imagine your Utopia, what do you see? What are you doing to get there?

My attempt at Utopia would involve removing obstacles to liberty rather than adding anything. As long as you weren't harming anyone or their property, no one would have the power to get in your way. Nor would anyone have the power to forbid you to defend yourself from anyone harming you.

I am not qualified to run other people's lives. No one can be, no matter what supporters of government believe. So no one would be in charge of anything beyond his own concerns, unless explicitly asked by an individual to lend a hand.

There would be no such thing as "authority" as it is currently imagined. Yes, there would be experts who might inspire others, but no one could get away with pretending to hold a magic quality called "authority" which gives bullies the power to push people around.

You and I both know there would still be bad people in my Utopia. Some would try to become "the authorities" again, because they can't mind their own business. They lust for control over others, and want to steal and attack without consequence, claiming magic words can make wrong right when they act "in accordance with the law".

My Utopia wouldn't-- couldn't-- guarantee that some people won’t kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from others. Government is a guarantee that some will.

There would still be natural disasters, disease, and accidents. And, as they have always done, people will deal with them. I'll help when able.

So, even though Utopia isn't an option, I'll never support its opposite: Dystopia, empowered by government. Not even when demanded by the majority, as is the current fashion.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Proud of the bad guys?

It's a terrible shame when someone chooses to throw their life away in service to a gang of nasty thugs. That shame is compounded by delusional friends and family who think this tragic turn of evens is something to be proud of. It's most certainly NOT.

I have known a few very messed up people who became cops. The "job" didn't really change them, but did give their messed up nature a veil of legitimacy and a free pass from the state-lovers around them. They could commit evil and get praised for it.

To my mind, this is not much of a loss. Evil remains evil.

I have also known decent people who became cops. The "job" did change them. From decent people to aggressive "tax" junkies-- even if the change wasn't visible to those around them. This is a huge loss for the world-- when a person who could have contributed decides to be a parasite instead.

It is a tragedy when any (formerly) good person joins that gang. This is nothing to be "proud" of; there is no "good" in being a cop.

Yes, it is socially acceptable to be a cop or most other types of government employee. I even know people who believe it's OK to work for the IRS or BATFEces gangs! Socially acceptable or not, it is wrong. Just as wrong as being a mass murdering rapist. You can deny it. You can hate those who point it out. It doesn't change reality. Wrong is what wrong does.

Yes, the person is choosing a safe career (vastly safer than they want you to believe), and the money paid to them is wildly out of proportion to the "dangers" faced and "service" provided (but they'll whine about being underpaid). They can pretend to be doing something "good" while living on stolen money and being safe.

If someone you know plans to join some gang of vermin who aren't government sanctioned, are you proud of that, too? Because the reality is that other gangs of thugs are probably better people than the government gang your loved one is choosing to join. The only difference lies in who supports the gang.

It tears at my gut to hear of some young person making the hideous choice to get a government "job", and it is compounded when that "job" revolves around molesting people.

Just. Don't. Do. It! It's not right even if it makes delusional people proud.

It hurts me that people I am closest to won't read this blog, and continue to fall for the lies of the archators-- while often being archators themselves. It hurts when people betray the values they claim to hold as soon as those values become inconvenient, and when standing firm would require holding their ground against popular opinion (popular with one political correctness faction or another). Wrong is wrong, even if someone you love is doing it. Even if it is socially acceptable. Even if the masses respect and support it. It's the bandwagon of death. Jump off before it's too late.

Cops. No worse than any others

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Liberty Butts

It's interesting to me how committed most people are to liberty.

Liberty... but not if it means leaving people alone to do things I don't like.

Liberty... unless it means I can't control other people.

Liberty... except when people want to use their property in ways that annoy me.

Liberty... but not if some people might get hurt.

Liberty... except I claim to support both gun rights and those who violate them.

Liberty... until someone I love is on the wrong side.

Liberty... unless it means I have to face the fact that cops and the military are the bad guys.

Liberty... except I like to fly the federal flag alongside the Gadsden flag which stands for everything the federal flag is against.

Liberty... but I really like seeing "the troops" bombing those foreigners.

Liberty... until my emotions get triggered by displays of Holy Pole Quilt and patriotic songs and dead troops.

Liberty... but I like to say "Don't tread on me" while supporting those whose "job" it is to tread on me and everyone else.

Liberty... except it obviously doesn't apply to "those people" who came here from some other country without MY government's permission- or even with it if I don't like them.

Liberty... until it upsets me or shows me I'm wrong to support certain things or means I have no right to do some things I really want to do.

Liberty... but, but, but...

Are you a "Liberty butt"?

How to show you're confused about who actually does the treading

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Hate isn't worth the effort

But it's been a hard thing for me to keep in mind the last several days. I'm feeling miserable in many ways right now-- I need to get over it.

It's very rare that I hate individuals.

I can hate actions. I can hate gangs which exist to commit those actions I hate.

If an individual is in a gang which encourages actions I hate, then eventually I might start to hate that individual-- especially if their gang becomes an important part of their identity and they defend the evil they commit due to their gang associations.

If another individual continually commits actions I hate, on a freelance basis, and refuses to stop or take responsibility for their actions, then it is always possible I could start hating that individual, too. It's still about the actions rather than the individual.

More likely, though, I'll pity those individuals and see them as stupid and/or stubborn. In most cases I'll continue to hold out hope for any individual, knowing that anyone can change and stop being a bad guy in an instant. All it takes is realization and a refusal to excuse the inexcusable just because it's convenient.

And pity is healthier for me than hate, anyway.

Bad guys of the Blue Line Gang

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Spurious quotes"

It bothers me when a quote which is truthful is doubted just because the "famous person" the quote is attributed to may not have ever said it.

Truth isn't propped up by the person who says it; people are raised up by the truth they speak.

It doesn't matter at all whether Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." At the time, it was a true statement, no matter who said it. If a guy pumping gas at some crossroads in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming said it, it is still true. Even if no one knows for sure who said it, it is true. Someone said it sometime, because there it is, right up there near the beginning of this paragraph. That's good enough.

Anti-liberty bigots quibble about who said what, because the truth of what was said is inconvenient to their cause. But if they can make the argument about who said it, and make you believe that if Famous Person X didn't say it, it's not relevant, then they can fool some people into rejecting the truth. Truth is damaging to the anti-liberty bigot's cause, because truth is pro-liberty.

So, the next time some anti-liberty quibbler whines that George Washington never said “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” let them know YOU said it. The truth doesn't rely on who said it, it remains true regardless. Claim all true "spurious quotes" as your own and shut down the bigots.

Truth, even if the American Lenin never said it- but irrelevant

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Vincent Heredia sentencing update

I feel cheated. (Pieced together from this site)

Well, OK. They covered their butts.

§ 16-90-1114 – Derivative rights of member of victim's family (a) If a victim is a minor or is incapacitated, incompetent, or deceased, a member of the victim's family may exercise the rights of the victim under this subchapter. (b) If more than one (1) member of the victim's family attempts to exercise those rights, the court may designate which of them may exercise those rights.

Cheyenne's mom was apparently the designated speaker; none of her words were aimed at the evil tax junkies of the court, so her statement was less "inflammatory". It spared the goons' feelings. (Added: just to be clear, I don't have any animosity toward her or what she said, but only toward those who chose to let her words be heard and squelched mine. Well, I intend to do all I can to spread mine far and wide! Read them here.)

And, there's more from the sentencing, if you are interested, from here.

.

Obviously, I don't consider any of this legitimate; I share it for information (and historical purposes) only.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Courts: the circus of cowardly clowns

My opinion of government-- and the unethical cowards who work for it-- has just slipped down another couple of notches. I didn't know that was still possible.

Employees of this gang were too scummy to read my letter at the sentencing of the guy who caused the accident which killed my daughter Cheyenne a year and a half ago-- probably because it wasn't very accommodating toward the evil which is government nor toward those who debase themselves by working for it.

And, yes, every person who works for government debases himself by doing so-- anyone would be a better person not working for government than they are while holding a government "job".

But, back to the Tools of the State: Don't offer me a chance to speak if you don't have the backbone to actually follow through, you nasty cowardly parasites.

I admit I wasn't too surprised. I know the nature of the scam. Still, it angers me.

I'm also disappointed at how many people on "my side" still think it's reasonable to put people in cages. If I believe someone is such a danger that I feel they belong in a cage, I'd much rather see them killed in self defense the next time they try to initiate force. Self defense comes closer to justice. And until then, if you are worried about them, watch them so closely they can't lose a skin cell without it being noticed, and share every move they make with anyone who wants to know. If they don't like that they can voluntarily separate themselves from society at their own expense. It's something they should have thought of before they made their bad choice.

If you want to cage someone, do it at your own expense and don't pretend it's on my behalf. Imprisonment doesn't "work" for its claimed justifications, in fact, it probably only makes things worse. It certainly doesn't "fix" anything.

I hate that I felt I needed to keep up with that was going on in some government theater the past few days.

After this, I feel drained, disappointed, angry, and sad. I know-- my fault. I shouldn't let it get to me. I'm flawed.

--

Just for your information, if you are curious, the court gave him a plea deal for 72 months in a cage-- he's up for parole in a year. The cops bungled some of the drug testing, apparently by doing it illegally, so it was inadmissible in court. He plead guilty to "negligent homicide" (for which justice would require an attempt at restitution, not a cage) and "felon in possession of a firearm" (a counterfeit "law"). But of course, anyone who expects justice from government courts will be disappointed. Fortunately, I knew justice wasn't even on the table. Never is. Punishment is the substitute they prefer, because it empowers the State. That's ALL those monsters care about, really.

Irony illustrated

Added: Here's what I was able to find (from here)--

So, did they screw me over, or not? Is it worth the stress of having to deal with "people" I despise and have zero respect for? I don't know.

Added later: Here's the court record: link

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Agreeing with the opposition

I have sometimes said that I agree with "conservatives" and "liberals" each about half of the time: when they are right by opposing the opposition. That may be a slight exaggeration- they are probably right less often than that.

I agree more often with "conservatives" who are criticizing "liberals" than I do with "liberals" who are criticizing "conservatives".

I have wondered why this is.

I do come from a "conservative" family, so that might have something to do with it.

When "liberals" criticize "conservatives", they seem to always do so by advocating a Big Government response or solution. And that drives me away, even when I agree with the existence of the problem they are wanting to solve. Sometimes they whine over "fairness" or "feelings" or some other maternalistic garbage, and that loses me completely. On the rare occasions when they criticize "conservatives" rationally, by pointing out their hypocrisy or inconsistency or ethical failings without suggesting the solution is more government, I can agree (while recognizing how funny it is to see people in glass houses throwing stones).

When "conservatives" criticize "liberals" they usually do so by pointing out the stupidity of the "liberals'" Big Government leanings-- its history of perfect failure. Something I agree with. When they start talking "morals", "authority", or other paternalistic garbage, they lose me.

And, no matter what anyone, on any "side", is criticizing, if their "solution" is a government project or program or "better enforcement", their solution is no better than the problem it pretends to address. Therefore I reject it utterly. There is either a better way, or the problem is best left alone.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Government web of socialist programs

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 15, 2017)

Frequently, people see a problem and demand government step in to solve it, without noticing government is the cause of the problem in the first place. Adding more government to a problem is like trying to fight a fire by piling dry wood on it.

"Public" school is one of the most stubborn cases of mistaking a problem for a solution. Even among otherwise sensible people, as soon as you bring up "public schools", reason flies out the window, and is instantly replaced with emotion. Extraterrestrial visitors might be excused for believing they are witnessing devotion to a religion instead of to a government program.

Supporters of government schools confuse schooling for education, have been fooled into believing government schooling is "free", and undervalue education to the point they believe that unless they are forced to fund and attend these compulsory indoctrination camps, people-- especially "the underprivileged"-- would go uneducated.

Those who believe in government schooling fret over test scores, budgets, teacher salaries, trans-gender restrooms and showers, bullying, and other problems which have one very simple, ethical solution: the abolition of government schools. Then, let people choose their own path, paid for with the money they'll save through elimination of the taxes.

If the only way you can have what is important to you is to finance it through the government theft scheme called "taxation", then your idea is obviously not as wonderful as you imagine.

If something is valued, people will find a way to get it. If they are decent people, they'll find a way to get it without resorting to theft or coercion.

Simultaneously eliminate welfare and you don't even have to worry about an uneducated generation expecting to live on other tax-funded programs. For those who simply can't learn, or refuse to try, let them rely on charity-- which is both ethical and better at weeding out the undeserving.

This web of interdependent socialist programs is like a giant domino chain. Once the dominoes begin to fall, a free society becomes more within reach with each piece that topples. Those who love socialism will do everything in their power to prevent such a turn of events; using every excuse they can dream up.

I don't mind. A free society won't happen until liberty matters to enough people. Until that day arrives, I'm willing to keep speaking out, even when it upsets those who cling to the status quo. How about you?

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Stupid or stubborn?

If someone is doing something the wrong way-- and I don't mean a way you simply don't like, but one which doesn't work very well, when there is a better way which is not more difficult, complicated, or inconvenient-- and you show them the better way, but they never stop doing it the wrong way, what explains their behavior? Inertia? Habit? Or something else?

Before they are shown the better way, they can be excused by ignorance. We are all ignorant until we learn. But once they have been shown, ignorance is no longer an option. Something else must lie behind it.

I think it must either be that they are stupid or stubborn. Or, possibly refusing to change to keep from admitting you were right after all, which seems to be both. And, if they don't make an effort to break a habit after being shown their way doesn't work very well, and there is a better way... well, they have moved back into "stupid or stubborn" territory.

Democrats and Republicans, or "progressives and conservatives" if you prefer, (or more simply, statists) are stupid and/or stubborn in different ways. They have been shown better ways of getting the right things done, and yet they never change. They'll keep doing the wrong things the bad way until it kills them. Or you.

They continue to do things in poor ways that will either fail outright, or just not work as well as they could. When what they are doing (or trying to do) is wrong, that's a blessing, I suppose.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Prohibition and slavery

Several days ago I compared a disgusting group's support of prohibition to support for chattel slavery. You may have thought I was exaggerating. But was I? Let's look at the comparisons.

1.

Pro-slavery people claimed that the slaves "needed" slavery. They were too childish and ignorant to survive without being "taken care of" and told what to do by paternalistic "owners". They claimed the slaves would die otherwise. In truth, many former slaves did die when slavery went away, because slavery had kept them from learning how to live in liberty. Abolishing slavery was still the right thing to do.

Prohibitionists claim that without prohibition, addicts would drug themselves to death-- they pretend prohibition is necessary, even helpful, to its victims. And, undoubtedly, when prohibition goes the way of chattel slavery, many addicts will die, having never learned self-control. Abolishing prohibition is still the right thing to do.

2.

Pro-slavery people claimed a religious basis for their support for an evil institution- and could show you passages in the Bible to back up their claim. No one takes that argument seriously anymore.

Prohibitionists claim a religious basis for their support of an evil program, although I don't know of any who pretend to have Bible passages supporting their claims. (No one claims it is a good idea to overindulge to the point of hurting your health.) And no one will take this religious claim seriously either, in time.

3.

Pro-slavers said it was the "law", and the "law" should be obeyed until or unless it is changed. Anyone who broke the "law" was a criminal and deserved whatever "justice" was brought down on their head.

Prohibitionists say the only thing that really matters is that it is the "law", and the "law" must be obeyed until or unless it is changed (although they stop supporting the "law" as soon as it does change; another strike against them). That the "law" destroys the lives of users looks like "justice" to these sick people.

4.

Pro-slavers said the end of slavery would be economically devastating. How would the cotton be picked without slaves? What about all the new people looking for jobs and going into competition? Chaos! Disaster!

Prohibitionists often have ties to the prison industry or "law enforcement" and would suffer personal economic harm if prohibition were ended. What would all that prison space be used for, and what would all those "law enforcement" bullies do?
(I shudder to imagine! Evil statists can always find new ways to molest people with "laws" and cops.)

5.

Pro-slavery people didn't like the enslaved people for "reasons"- cultural or racial. They didn't want to see the culture changed by treating former slaves like human beings.

Prohibitionists don't like "those people" who use drugs. They don't want to see them doing what they want, openly, even if they aren't harming anyone but themselves.

6.

Angry slaves sometimes killed people. Former slaves might also hold grudges and kill people. Self defense from anyone is always a viable option, no matter their circumstances or justifications or excuses.

Sometimes drug users kill people. Self defense from anyone is still always a viable option, no matter their circumstances or justifications or excuses.

7.

People didn't want former slaves to v*te or own guns.

Government's "laws" often forbid convicted prohibition violators from v*ting or owning guns.

-
I'm sure there are more comparisons which could be made, but you get the idea. Supporting prohibition is a completely unethical position to hold. Be better than that.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"We don't care if you die!"

Seriously. They don't.
And this is how they let you know for certain:

They will never be honest enough to post this truthful version instead:

Anti-gun bigots aren't honest. They are dangerous and delusional.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Don't lose your way

Over the years I have noticed a tendency for people to start out good, and then begin to veer off-course. I could list so many I have seen this happen to- both "libertarian famous" and "nobodies".

They start out rationally standing up for Rightful Liberty, or however you choose to refer to this concept which (I hope) unites us, but then something triggers them to start following a false trail.

Sometimes a politician arises that they like.
Sometimes they decide their culture, warts and all, is more important than consistency.
Sometimes they decide their religion gives them justification to violate others, and begin standing against anyone who exposes this lie.
Sometimes they get caught up in the pageantry of war; the flag waving "patriotism".
Sometimes a personal tragedy fools them into believing just a little bit of archation is necessary.
Sometimes a loved one accepts a "job" with the State and they'd rather turn their backs on the truth than remain consistent and risk their relationship.
Sometimes they just get so focused on one tiny thing that they forget to look up and see where they have wandered.

It's a sad and disturbing thing, and seems almost inevitable, given time. There are so many more ways to be wrong than to be right.

I hope that hasn't happened to me, and if it hasn't, I hope it never does. I do make a habit of taking a breath now and then, looking up from what I'm doing to look around and see if I'm still on course, and nudge myself back on track if it seems like I may be drifting.

I always know I might be wrong. I may be the evil one, or at least taking the evil position. It's unpleasant, but it's possible.

-

(There are those of course, who never lost their way. Liberty lovers have lost one of the true good guys with the death of William N. Grigg. RIP. I will miss him!)

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Toxic day

Or, it sure feels that way.

I am very upset over the death of William N. Grigg. He is irreplaceable and was just a really good man.

Then, on top of that, I found out someone I care about has a (step)daughter who is becoming a cop- and while I tried to be nice in my response to the news, I probably wasn't. And the response I got back wasn't any better. They are "proud". You know how that situation looks to me. Such a tragedy and a wasted life. And you'd think people would know better.

So, yes, I am heartsick.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Are "you" what you do?

Is a person only what they do, or is there more to it than that?

You are born with certain unchangeable attributes. What you choose to spend your life doing is not one of those. It is probably a blank slate-- or close to it. What you choose to do is a choice.

What you do you can stop doing at any time. And if what you were doing was wrong, you can attempt to make it right with those you have wronged by your actions.

But, if you continue to do something which violates others, and you refuse to face that what you are doing is wrong-- and never stop or try to make amends-- then that choice is also on you. It's not "you" exactly, but you are tying your identity to those actions.

You may still be more than what you do, but how far will that go toward absolving you?

If a person commits rapes, and is truthfully identified as a rapist, does that define him? Can he still be a wonderful person, otherwise, even if he continues to rape? What if he believes he has good reasons or somehow believes he is doing the right things? What if some people agree with him? How many have to find no fault in his actions before he's a good person? Can he be a popular rapist and a good person?

Or what about someone being a good serial murderer? Is it possible?

If the answer is "no", then there can be no such thing as a "good cop", either.

Missed his calling- as a cop he would have lived longer

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

The situation report

You and I live in the real world. A world filled to overflowing with statism. This is just as much our reality as is the fact that the world we live in is full of disease and natural disasters.

Almost everyone around us thinks it's OK to steal and attack- and a few people even believe those things are OK when they aren't done in the name of governing.

You may as well find ways to navigate around this reality, and use it to your advantage when you can-- without joining the archation circus, of course.

Sure, we can do what we can to try to eliminate these bad things, or find ways to limit the damage they do, but they probably aren't going to stop being a problem in our lifetime. And they shouldn't prevent you from doing the right thing and prospering. Yes, it would be easier in a world without statism, but things worth doing are worth doing even when they aren't easy.

We are better and stronger and smarter than they are. We can do it.

Statism allowed free rein

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Don't fight politics with politics

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 8, 2017)

Why has everything become political? It's a tragedy.

Politics drives people apart. It makes people miserable, angry, and sad. Politics makes people believe crazy things and gets them to defend the indefensible. It turns regular people into bullies and scapegoats. Politics distracts people from doing productive things and keeps them too occupied to do pleasant things.

I understand. It is said that even if you don't have an interest in politics, politics is interested in you. The same could be said of a mosquito.

It's a shame that politics, and those addicted to it, can't leave anyone unmolested. The hunger to control what other people do, even when they aren't harming anyone else's life, liberty, or property, is one of the most vile traits ever found in humans, yet is a most common failing.

I view politics as an attempt to live among people you don't like. When you like someone, politics isn't mistaken for a proper way to interact. You just get along, compromise, or agree to disagree-- and move on. With people you don't like, whom you feel a need to use politics against, you skip the civilized behavior and move straight to asking someone to use violence on your behalf against them. The more people you dislike, the more political you become.

Maybe you believe others should finance things you feel are important, but they won't do it voluntarily. Send in the guns of the State to force them to contribute, or suffer the consequences.

Perhaps they do things you don't like, but which don't actually "pick your pocket or break your leg", to use Thomas Jefferson's phrase-- so self defense isn't an option. Send in the guns of government to force them to live as you would prefer, or suffer the consequences.

This is as wrong as attacking them in person, although it has somehow become more socially acceptable.

When someone starts using politics against you-- and there's no other way to use politics than against someone-- it's only natural to be tempted to strike back. Natural, but there's got to be a better way than to fire "laws" back and forth in some never-ending "Hatfield versus McCoy" feud.

The next time someone you don't like does something you disagree with, or tries to use politics against you, why not try to deal with the situation in a mature way-- non-politically. Give it a shot and see if you can be the better person.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

An extraordinarily evil "citizen"

Look at the magazine cover below:

What information can you glean about the people who publish it?

First, it is published by "Focus on the Family". I consider this group to be a political cult within Christianity, due to decades of familiarity with them, but that's obviously just my opinion.

Notice they use the political term "citizen" as the name of the publication. This indicates their focus is probably political in nature. The group would change its name to "Focus on the Politics" if they were interested in being honest. If...

The "political means" is the unethical way of interacting with others-- the means used by muggers, politicians, rapists, cops, and other bad guys-- as opposed to the only other option for interacting with others: the economic means. If you can't get what you want by mutual consent, where both participants gain, you force them-- at gunpoint, if that's what it takes-- to do what you want, with "laws" and enforcer gangs, so that there's a winner and a loser.

Being political also goes against just about everything taught by Jesus, but it would be inconsiderate to point this out to them.

"Citizen" is also a term used to indicate slave status under the State. Strange position for this "religious" group to take and promote, since this puts the State in the place of God.

It is interesting to me that a "religious" group would embrace unethical behavior so completely that they would name their publication "citizen". This is why I differentiate between "moral" and "ethical". They are behaving "morally" according to the "principles" of their group, just like the suicide bombers of other religions are doing, while being completely unethical, as illustrated by the cover story.

And, let's look at that cover story.

They obviously believe that "vices" should be crimes, and should be enforced as all "laws" ultimately are. They are claiming it is a "bad idea" to stop killing people and destroying their lives with "laws" based on lies. Lies about a plant. Lies about who should have the power to control each person's body. They believe a state refusing to stop molesting people is a good thing. Sick!

What if someone turned the tables on them and outlawed something they value?

Their twisted position in support of prohibition makes me wonder what their position on ending (other forms of) slavery would have been. Actually, I don't really wonder- I think it's pretty clear. They would have been celebrating any state which refused to get rid of "laws" legalizing chattel slavery. They would want slaves to obey the "law"-- to be "good", obedient slaves-- and be punished or killed if they didn't. They would want fugitive slave "laws" enforced, and would support the agents who enforced those "laws". If they object and claim that they wouldn't support that position with regard to slavery, then why the inconsistency? Why the hypocrisy?

The real "bad idea" here is giving people the political opportunity to meddle in the lives of others, and punish them when they don't cooperate with their own violation. No good group would condone such evil.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Killing aggressors

The only ethical "death penalty" is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything else is revenge.

This doesn't mean you are unethical if you don't kill the attacker, no more than that you are unethical if you do. Your choice.

The burden lies on the person who chose to archate, not on the person who had to react.

I only question the use of "should"

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Police" is not a "race", it's a gang

Recently there have been more and more attempts to make awareness of the scumwad nature of cops somehow comparable to racism, or automatic hatred of people with tattoos. Yes, really.

The story goes that you can't judge a person by the color of their skin, the tattoos they wear, or the uniform they put on. It's a lie. And, it seems very racist and insulting, too.

No one wakes up one morning and decides what color skin they'll have. And even if they did, skin color means nothing about the content of the person's character.

Sure, tattoos are chosen, not inborn, but again, they mean nothing about how the person wearing them will act. Aggressors could have tattoos of bunnies and unicorns, and the best person you know could have a tattoo of a gang symbol, wormy skulls, or Bernie Sanders' face. 

Police, though, wake up each and every day and make the choice to enforce harmful and arbitrary "laws" against people in exchange for money stolen from their victims. It's not about the cop as a person, it is about the aggression and theft they commit as a condition of keeping the "job". But, the fact a person would choose to do that shows something very important about their character.

Yes, sometimes cops do good things. So do other gangsters. It doesn't excuse the existence of the "job" in either case.

Cops are not a "race" or an expression of personal taste- they are an aggressive gang. The worst and most dangerous aggressive gang in America. Being aware of this fact doesn't make you a bad person, so don't feel guilty.

I understand some people are afraid and believe cops will protect them... you can't fix cowardice or stupidity.

Not a race; a gang

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Diversity"

Diversity.

Voluntary diversity is a good thing.

Forced "diversity" is disastrous.

Forced anything is.

Forced "charity" is theft. Forced "safety" is slavery.

Recognizing the disastrous nature of forced diversity isn't justification for government "borders", though, because forced division is just as harmful as forced diversity. Government's involvement can turn any idea into garbage.

Anything government touches turns to crap. Good thing government won't touch liberty with a 10-foot pole!

Diversify or else, feline!

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)