Statist-Speak

What do I mean by "statist-speak"? I mean words or terms which have zero meaning, except through the lens of the State.
For example:

"Resisting arrest"

"Immigration"

"Tax avoidance"

"licensed"

"Legal"/"Illegal"

None of those mean anything, unless you look at the world as the State directs you to.

It's probably impossible to avoid all atatist-speak all the time. But, when you see those words or phrases, remember what they are.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Peace, at what cost?

Someone recently wanted me to state that "peace" was my goal. It isn't.

Sure, peace can be nice, but liberty is better.

After all, no one is more peaceful than a corpse.

Bad guys who want to violate you without risk to themselves want you to be peaceful. They want you to go along to get along, and let them do what they do. They don't want you to fight back or defend yourself from them. Peace always depends on what someone else is doing. No matter how compliant you are, there's no peace if you are being violated. So, peace isn't really up to you.

You can, however, choose liberty. Exercising it won't guarantee peace, in fact, in this Era of Authority, it will pretty much guarantee the opposite. That's not your fault. You can't let the bad guys set the tone for your life.

So, yeah, peace is OK as long as you don't sacrifice yourself on its altar. It isn't worth it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

"He's just being a boy"

So many times I see those words used to excuse aggressive behavior or property violations by young boys.

Yes, boys are often more active than... well, just about anything. Violent, even. There's nothing wrong with that. It's normal and natural, and doesn't have to be bad. In fact, it can be a great thing.

However, they will never learn to channel that energy into good behavior if no one will hold them accountable and show them that aggression and property violations have consequences, and are not OK. Saying "Well, he's just being a boy" or "Boys will be boys" trains him to believe it's OK to violate other people. You might even end up raising a cop!

Boys (and girls) can be violent and active without being aggressive. Violence is ethically neutral, but no one has the right to initiate force or violate the property of others-- even if you believe they are too young to understand. Of course, leading by example is a huge part of teaching this lesson; possibly the hardest part.

If you won't start teaching them healthy principles while they are young enough to really make this a part of themselves, when will you get around to it?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Cheating by changing the rules mid-game

Also known as "ex post facto laws". These are laws which make illegal an act that was legal when committed, increase the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or change the rules of evidence to make conviction easier. Supposedly the Constitution forbids this sort of governmental cheating, but in practice it is standard procedure in Police State USA.

And, when popular opinion is against the targets of these rule changes, no one seems to care.

Two common targets of these kind of "laws" are sex offenders and those who were convicted of domestic violence. I have heard other categories may be subject to these "laws" in certain places. 

Yes, they might be horrible people. On the other hand, they may have agreed to plead guilty, believing it better to just get this ugly business behind them-- after all, the accepted punishment seemed tolerable-- only to find the rules changed later, after the debt was thought to be paid.

It's dangerous to even stand with these victims of government cheating and against these kinds of "laws", because you'll be seen as standing with a hated class of people. However, if government can violate the Constitution to heap more punishments on those you hate, it can do the same to you.

Just imagine if you paid a "fine" for speeding a decade ago, then suddenly a new "law" says if you have ever pleaded guilty to a traffic offense (and they define paying the "fine" as an admission of guilt) you forever "lose your right" to own or operate a motor vehicle. And you will also be prohibited from owning firearms or any "dangerous weapon" for the rest of your life. And whatever else they decide to saddle you with. Perhaps a registry you are required to inform of your every move so they can keep tabs on you.

What's to stop the government from coming up with exciting new punishments whenever it suits them? To the cheering, or the yawns, of a population who doesn't see it as affecting them at all, but only "Those People"; those "criminals".

Don't think it could happen? Then you don't understand the nature of government.

If you're OK with government doing this to some people, who do you expect to come to your defense if (or when) government decides to do it to you?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Personal responsibility not that difficult

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 24, 2017)

Responsibility seems to be in short supply these days. It's an endangered species; unpopular and under-valued.

It doesn't have to be this way.

Being responsible isn't hard. Don't hurt anyone on purpose, and be accountable if you hurt someone by accident. Clean up after yourself. When you finish with something, put it back where you got it. Do what you say you'll do.

Do you live responsibly, or do you leave a trail of disgusted victims in your wake?

If a person drives dangerously or aggressively, even if they don't cause an accident, they will scare other drivers and make them angry. These scared, angry drivers will decide it's a wonderful idea to have police swarming the roadways, interfering with travel and shaking down travelers. Some of us would rather not have to deal with the mess created by irresponsible drivers.

What about those who find it hilarious to smash glass bottles around picnic tables-- like the teenager I saw do this last week? They are short-sighted and childish. Their amusement matters to them more than a child cut by broken glass. They are costing you by making otherwise reasonable people believe they need to use tax money to clean up these messes. The lack of forethought or concern is inhuman. I picked up his broken glass, by the way.

Irresponsible people give others excuses to try to govern them with "laws". This hands government an opportunity to destroy everyone's liberty because of the behavior of a foolish minority. Hold irresponsible people accountable for their behavior, but don't treat everyone as if they are irresponsible. People live up, or down, to your expectations.

Being responsible for your own behavior doesn't only apply to situations where others might decide you need to be governed.

If someone eats in a fast food place, makes a huge mess by leaving trash on the table and food on the floor, they make dining there more expensive, because more work is needed to recover from their presence. Maybe they don't mind paying more for the privilege of being irresponsible and not cleaning up after their children, and in this case perhaps they'd be happy to pay an extra fee to cover their behavior. The rest of us shouldn't subsidize them.

You don't even necessarily need to try to make the world a better place for your having been here; just don't work to make it worse. It's really not that difficult.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Non-verbal communication: government

I can communicate so many things without words. Many nice, friendly things, without even using any standardized sign language. I know, because I've done it with people who couldn't hear and people who spoke no language in common with me. And we always managed to get the point across.

But think about how to wordlessly communicate the concept of "government"; The State.

I suppose grabbing someone by the shoulders and shaking them, or slapping their face, would work. I seriously can't see how you would make it understood that you are speaking of government without showing it is thieving and aggressive. Because that is the defining trait which changes an act into a State-like act, different from all other types of behavior.

But, then I wonder why it would be necessary to communicate such awful things to someone.

It's not voluntary; it's aggressive

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

First prize!

I will toot my own horn a bit. 🎺

I have excelled beyond all competition in one area: I have conducted the least successful fund-raiser in history! I actually lost ground during it. Hey, there is one thing I do exceptionally well.

I might as well find humor in the situation. Right? 😉

A smart person would take this as a sign to try something different...

Anyway, I send thanks to all my continuing supporters, those who did help out during the fund raiser, and all those who have helped in the past, as well.

Government is insanity in action

All government is based on the insane notion that it's OK to use violence against those who disagree with you.

And that idea will always lead to State-like behavior: archation.

Just let the victim choose his own bully, and it's OK

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Security services - Dispatches from Libertopia

A new post over at Dispatches from Libertopia.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Liberty- it's all or nothing

If you are against liberty in one area, you are against liberty.

If you are for anti-gun "laws", you are against liberty.

If you support cops, you are against liberty.

If you are for the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, you are against liberty.

If you are wishy-washy about the right of association, you are against liberty.

If you don't respect property rights, you are against liberty.

If you are for a government "solution" to anything, you are against liberty.

You can pick and choose the bits of liberty you personally exercise, but not which bits you unconditionally respect and support. Not and still value liberty.

You may still be a nice person; you may even be mainly "good", but by undercutting liberty anywhere, you undermine it all.

1 or 0? There is no 0.9

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Random thoughts

You can't save those who don't want to be saved. They'll always find a way to self destruct, and they'll drag you down with them if you let them.

-

The only way you can say cops are good is to redefine "good" especially for them. To carve exceptions for evil acts when done by cops so that you can claim those evil acts aren't evil as long as a cop is committing them. In other words, you must lie.

-

I've been seeing a lot of cognitive dissonance lately. Especially when I tell the truth about cops. And it often turns into hostility and hatred aimed at me. I wonder if this of how people in 1930s Germany were treated when they tried to warn others about what was happening around them. People are so desperate to believe the goodness and legitimacy of government that they drive away those who try to warn them.

-  

Peace isn't as worthy as liberty. Peace is the desire of every violator who wants you to go along to get along.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

I WILL "appropriate" your culture!

I am nothing but cultural appropriation. From my head to my toes; from birth until today. I don't expect that to change and I will never feel guilty about it.

You should be proud that I value your culture enough to "appropriate" parts of it. I'm not going to copy junk.

All human ideas, inventions, and such are available for us ALL to incorporate-- or "appropriate". We are all human. We can even incorporate "culture" or whatever from other species if we want. It is your right as a sapient being. Don't let any idiot make you feel bad because they tell you otherwise. They are lying.

Appropriate away!

You have an entire planet, and hundreds of thousands of years (at least) of ideas and clothing and art to choose from. Pick the good. Reject the bad. Make yourself the best you can be.

Dare you appropriate the Crow-Magnum Man's culture?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Copsuckers can be funny

The other day I accidentally ended up in an online conversation centered around the fact that ALL cops are bad guys and gang members.

The other person in the conversation disagreed strongly. Even though she's always posting about her own illegal (but ethical) activities, and apparently ignoring who puts her in danger. She posted all the tired old justifications and apologetics-- it was like she had her own copy of The Copsucker's Handbook (I should write that!), and had memorized it. I responded to a couple of her points, but she was flooding the thread faster than I could write. I even tried to call a truce and drop the subject a couple of times, but she wouldn't let it go. Copsuckers are so sensitive!

Finally she asked me to explain how I can hold that opinion about cops, and how I can say they are a gang. I said "OK". (It's easy to do, and not difficult to lay out clearly enough that anyone who isn't blinded by their religion can see.) But before I could post even the first bit I was writing, she told me to go to a different group to post my response-- which seems counterproductive since that's not where all the lead-up had occurred. So I asked "why?"

Instead of answering that question, she started proclaiming how angry she was with me. Finally she squeezed out this gem:

Writers are gang members! And I hate them all and wish they would shoot each other and die! The world would be a better place! 

(She also told me I think I'm "so smart", but I'm stupid, and said she would never talk to me again, but that's not relevant.) 

Well, shall we compare the claims?

Show me the writer gang. Go on, show me.
(I can show you the cop gang-- I can drive you past their clubhouse-- I can show you their gang signs, symbols, and tattoos-- I can translate some of their street talk-- and I can show you how their gang membership drives their loyalties and behavior.)

Writers are all over the place as far as their beliefs, ethics, and principles go. Not unified in anything but that they write. Some are even so low that they defend and promote government and enforcers! Perhaps you could make the claim that writers belong to many different opposing gangs, but even that is a shaky claim. But, lets just pretend the claim has merit. Writers are still better than cops.

Writers, by the act of writing, don't violate anyone. I can't force you to read anything I write-- nor would I ever consider trying to do so. I can't force you to shell out money so that I can afford to keep writing-- again, why would I do such a disgusting thing? I don't believe that by writing, I have any "authority" over you. I don't believe that I am entitled, by virtue of writing, to molest you or use force against those who aren't violating anyone. If I do violate you, I don't believe I am immune to consequences just because I write. I expect that if I murder someone because I'm scared of them, my status as a writer won't protect me from a murder conviction. Again, writers are better than any cop.

I would say the pro-cop/anti-writer rant says more about the person who wrote it (wait... does that make her a "writer"?!) than about other writers. What do you think?

Anyway, it is a reminder just how delusional most of the people around me continue to be. They are "why we can't have nice things"... they love their chains and bullies too much to admit they have been duped. They are cowards. And they are growing more hostile every day.

This is totally me!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Exploring different views worthwhile

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 17, 2017)

It is important to know where you stand on issues, and why. It's equally important to understand the position others take. Especially when those positions are the opposite of yours.

To understand the other side, you need to talk to them, and to read things written from their perspective. It might be unpleasant, but it's necessary.

I don't mean you should join them to participate in things you know are wrong. Never violate your principles, but learn why they believe what they believe and why they do what they do. It will make you a stronger, wiser person in the long run; better able to defend your position.

I recently read "Wage Labour and Capital" by Karl Marx. His errors were numerous and glaring, and I see how all governments more closely resemble Marxism than anything remotely libertarian-- especially the way they interfere in the economy. Governments share many of Marx's superstitions. They believe the economy is a pie and the size of your slice depends on the size of the other guy's slice. They imagine people will put in a lot of effort to do no more than break even. They feel individuals are assigned to a particular "class" with no hope for change. They pretend someone can determine value for another. They act as if the right price for everything can be discovered and imposed.

It's easy to show Marx was wrong; it may be harder to understand why the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is wrong. Why government interference with, and rationing of, medical services is wrong. It may be harder yet to see why sobriety checkpoints are worse for America than drunk drivers. That liberty is always better than "safety".

Your only chance to evaluate these things is to read the justifications and excuses of the other side, and make an honest attempt to understand, even though you don't agree.

You may even change your mind about something, which isn't as painful as you might imagine. I've always found it better to change my mind than to hold a position which can't be defended honestly.

As a libertarian I have unlimited opportunities to read things from an opposite perspective. Almost all news is written under the assumption that governing others is a legitimate activity, that laws can be beneficial, and that a career in government is a life of service. Almost everyone you talk to believes the same.

It's harder for those who hold these common beliefs to explore a different perspective. It's worth the effort.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Warning the innocent

Do you flash your lights to warn other drivers of a cop ahead, waiting to molest them?

If not, why not?

Would you alert your neighbor to a burglar climbing in her window?

Would you let a couple walking in the park know you saw a guy with a stocking over his head hiding in the bushes waiting to ambush them?

If you don't warn other drivers is it because you know the other drivers might be "speeding", so they "deserve" to get stopped?

What if your neighbor has a wall-sized television that you envy? Is it OK for that to be stolen by the burglar?

What if the couple in the park are rich and have "too much money"? Is it OK for them to be robbed?

What if the thieves in each case don't stop at theft, but attack in other ways as well? What if the burglar is also a rapist? What if the guy hiding in the bushes is also a murderer? What if the cop has "officer safety" issues and is prone to be trigger-happy when frightened by an unexpected move or by the presence of a gun that isn't under his control?

Bad guys are bad guys, and I am happy to warn others of their presence.

Highway patrol

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Statists have it upside down

Statists always make the claim that liberty-- anarchy-- can only work in tiny communities, not in the larger world.

They are confused.

The more people, the more important it is to respect everyone's rights. A large society of rights violators is not civilization. Society only works-- only results in civilization-- if most people act libertarian most of the time.

Those who use the political means are the cheaters. The cancer. Sure, civilization can survive a certain number of them, but not too many. When the percentage of archators gets too high, that's the death of the civilization. Thus, the more people who work for the State, the closer society gets to the tipping point. To death.

So, don't worry about the vacuous opinions of people who are pleased with their ignorance. You know the reality. Just keep living it.

-

Thank you for your support of KentforLiberty.com. 

(Steemit link)

Fighting the urge to help

Many times I find myself watching someone fumbling with something and must repeatedly remind myself of a fact of life: I have to fight the urge to help, because help isn't always welcome. In fact, it seems it is rarely welcome. And, it isn't "help" if it is forced.

A couple days ago I was with my daughter at the pool, and was watching a kid spreading her towel against the wind-- or trying to. I desperately wanted to show the kid that if she turned around and worked with the wind, it would spread her towel for her, rather than continually crumpling it at her feet. But I sat there letting nature take its course. Hoping maybe this realization would dawn on her. It didn't.

A while back I saw some people trying to break into a car. The driver had gotten out and locked the door before realizing she had left the keys lying in the seat. I walked over to ask if I could help. They said "yes". I could see what they were doing "wrong"-- or at least why what they were doing wasn't likely to work-- but they didn't want to listen to my suggestions and didn't want to move aside to let me try (or get and use the tool I suspected would work better). So I stood there watching as they kept failing and flailing. I wasn't going to impose myself on them. They were still at it an hour or so later when I left the area.

Back to the day at the pool, I saw someone taking a picture of their daughter... with the sun behind her. I wanted to point out that if they wanted to see her face, they only needed to turn a little. But I kept my thoughts and observations to myself. Maybe they wanted a silhouette.

The same applies to those who are in desperate need of rejecting belief in the state. They would rather fumble and fail than to have someone point out the obvious to them. They don't want help.

Personally, I try to keep in mind to always accept offered help. It isn't always easy. Sometimes I have to keep my mouth shut in that case, too. If I believe I know how to do something better than the person who is trying to help, I'll probably have a chance to do it my way after they give up. But, I may just learn something from them.

Be humble enough to allow people to reject your help, and to accept help when offered.

I have a small suggestion, if you don't mind...

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Islamo-loserists, and other losers

Acts of "terror" aren't. Not for me. They don't terrify me in the slightest. But they do make me angry. And they make me think.

"Terrorists" aren't terrorists if they don't create terror, but-- by killing random people-- they show they are losers.

They are all losers. No matter what motivates their acts of loserism. The fact of them being losers renders their motivation irrelevant.

Maybe they murder for politics, for their superstitions, or maybe for politics which are more accommodating to their superstitious beliefs. Whatever. It's just that, in the current world in which we live, the majority of the losers who get publicity murder random people in the name of Islam. So, they are Islamo-losers.

If they murder for a god, that god (if he exists) is obviously evil. Do they really believe an evil god who lusts for death wouldn't lie to them? Of course he would. Lies come before the call to murder-- they lead up to the murderous mission. If there were an afterlife of any sort, their evil god probably lied to them about that, too. Instead of 72 virgins (or a city with streets paved with gold, for other losers) they would be facing an early entry to an eternal roasting pit. Are they really that anxious to get started right away?

Any "leader" of this loser group who encourages them to be losers is also encouraging them-- if he believes what he's pushing-- to hurry up and exit this life so they can get started on the unimaginable suffering they earned by their act of loserism. Congrats on earning that, Losers. Hope you like it better than this miserable life of sunrises, kittens, and people who make you angry.

Just so you don't think I'm picking on Islamo-losers, the Pentagon and US government are also filled with people excited by the prospects of engaging in world-wide loserism. They just don't want to die in the process of killing random people, unlike those losers who are happy to kill themselves along with their victims. That doesn't make them any better. I guess they are Imperio-losers.

Losers initiate force; the initiation of force makes a person a loser. Don't be a loser.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Archator vs archator

I really can't get too concerned when an archator targets archators with some freelance archation.

Whether those bad guys on either side were connected with DemoCRAPublican Party A or DemoCRAPublican Party 1 is a distraction. As is the fact that a privileged armed archator stopped the archation. This was a case of a lone archator targeting members of an archation gang and being stopped by their gang's enforcer. No good guys involved anywhere in this deal.

If they are looking for sympathy, they'll have to look elsewhere. My thought is, if you can't handle it you should reconsider dishing it out.

Archator advocating for more theft

-

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

(Steemit link)

Abusing "Amber Alerts"

Years ago I signed up for Amber Alerts on my cellphone. It seemed like a small, crowd-sourced step I could take to help watch out for the safety of others. But, things have changed.

I can't take Amber Alerts seriously anymore, and it's because 99% of them (I'm guesstimating) are issued for custody disputes rather than actual abductions.

I feel this is a case of the alerts crying "Wolf!" to the point they have become meaningless. At least, to me. I have heard others say the same thing, so I know I'm not the only one.

Yeah, I know-- Amber Alerts are probably a statist program anyway; I'm not interested enough to really look into it. I can see a place for something similar in a free society, just like I can see a place for libraries, roads, and spaceships. If a kid goes missing, I think it's good to have as many as possible keeping an eye out to find them, even if I'm not willing to rob you to pay for the service.

But the way it is currently being implemented isn't going to keep working.

"Custody" is a result of government meddling in the first place, and isn't something I put any stock in.

I can understand when the parent who has gone to the State, and asked to be given possession of a child, finds out that the other parent has ignored the dictates of the State and taken off with the kid, and gets panicky. Just to think that someone would ignore the dictates of The Court!

I'm not even saying that a parent could never be a danger to a kid. For goodness sake, many of those parents probably work for the State-- some might even be cops! And some might be bad guys in other, completely unrelated ways. So, yeah, they could pose an actual risk to the kid. But, if alerts are going to be issued for custody disputes, there probably ought to be a different category of "alert" for those cases. That's all I'm saying.

In a free society, I'll bet there would be.

And until there is, I will be paying less and less attention to Amber Alerts. I find that tragic and preventable.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Stop poisoning yourself first

If you are taking a medicine that is poisoning you-- killing you, the smart thing to do is to stop taking it. Now!

There is nothing else you could do that will help you as much as this one simple act. No antidote, no alternative, nothing. Just stop ingesting the poison.

Don't wait until you find another medicine to replace it with. You can deal with that later, after you've stopped killing yourself. If you actually need something else. You may well discover you don't. You may find your problems stem from the poison you thought was supposed to help.

Well, the State is also a deadly poison, administered into your life through statism-- mostly of your own doing. You shouldn't wait until you find a replacement to stop ingesting more of it. Just stop. Now.

And, yet, so many demand a replacement be perfected before they'll even consider stopping the poisoning of themselves and their loved ones.

Do they even realize how totally insane this is?

Only addicts fail to realize it, and act on it. How addicted are the statists you know?

Of course, it will be labeled "Miracle Cure. 100% Safe!"

-

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

(Steemit link)

Government shouldn't be in medicine

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 10, 2017)

It's 2017, ObamaCare has morphed into TrumpCare, and it's still not about "care". Instead, it's about government controlling a huge segment of the economy, taking away choice, and robbing people to pay for things they may not want. Government has no business meddling in medicine.

People are also still arguing over whether health care is a right. All rights concern what others have no right to do to you, not what others owe you. For example: no one has a right to forbid you to own and carry a gun-- to "keep and bear arms"-- but you have no right to demand someone give you a gun to "keep and bear".

Health care is also a human right. You have a right to do whatever you feel you need to in order to stay healthy, or to get healthy again if you are sick or injured. You have the right to use, grow, manufacture, or buy any and all drugs, services, or practices you believe will help your health, or help you deal with physical or emotional pain.

No one has the right to interfere-- not in the name of preventing drug abuse or anything else. No politician's opinion (often mistakenly referred to as a "law") can change your rights into crimes. The DEA, and its War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, is wrong even if you approve of their crusade against Americans.  If your choices cause worse problems, you are back at square one and no one is obligated to rescue you.

Although health care is a right, you have no right to force anyone else to provide your health care; to force doctors, nurses, or hospitals to give you their services. You have no right to force pharmacists to give you medicine you need to survive. You have no right to force others to pay for your health care, not with their money nor their time and labor. To pretend otherwise is to promote slavery.

Socialized medicine-- any government involvement in health care whatsoever-- is unhealthy, whether it comes from Barack Obama or Donald Trump. To quibble over details is to ignore the real issue: you have the right to any kind of health care you can buy or negotiate for yourself, no one can ever have the right to meddle in your choices, but you have no right to demand anyone be enslaved on your behalf. Insist on a separation of medicine and state.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Run all you want

Telling kids "Don't run!" is a waste of breath, and causes frustration for everyone.

I understand the reasons for it, but I also see that it is completely pointless, and probably counter-productive.

Running is how kids naturally and normally move from place to place. It just is. You aren't going to change that with rules. Nor should you.

Instead, let them run. In the process, maybe they'll learn to watch where they are going and how to not fall. Or learn how to fall well, and bounce back up. There will be bumps and bruises, and maybe knocked-out teeth and concussions. The alternative is probably worse in the long run.

It's the same with adults. Let them take risks, make mistakes, and fail. How else will they ever learn? The State and all it's "laws"-- imposing someone's ideas about "safety"-- are making people pitiful, delicate, and inept. It's going to hurt when that bandaid gets ripped off... and it WILL get ripped off sooner or later. The longer the delay, the more it will hurt, and the more who will not survive.

Yet, this is someone's idea of "safety"? You aren't protecting. You aren't helping.

Might as well say "No breathing"

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Truthishness"

Some things seem as though they might be true... until you actually think about them. Like the cartoon above.

If you believe you can get food, housing, clothing, or anything else you require for survival without working for them at all, try it. Even thieving is work.

People also need things to trade for the things they can't grow, make, or build for themselves. Money, of whatever sort, is the best way to have a widely accepted trade good. But, you don't need for there to be money for the cartoon to be wrong.

Also, "taxation" isn't specifically about stealing money-- it's about stealing any sort of property. Do these people believe government would hesitate before stealing a percentage of their crops or livestock? Or enslaving a firstborn child or wife for "the common good"?

Most ideas are based on fantasy. The idea expressed by the rose-holding ball is a good example. And, if AnCap Ball doesn't see the false premise behind Rose Ball's flawed claim, he'll be falling for a lie soon. Either this one, or the next pleasant-sounding one that comes along.

Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Terminal Stockholm Syndrome- is there hope?

"Our government"
"Our Constitution"
"Our president"
"My congressman"
"Our flag"
"Our troops"
"Our military"
"Our police"
"My taxes"
The above phrases are symptoms of a terminal case of Stockholm Syndrome. They indicate a person so deep into the brainwashing they may never dig their way out, and will willingly sacrifice others-- or even themselves-- for those beliefs. Beliefs which are nothing but a silly, yet dangerous, superstition.

There is a cure, but it seems too scary for most of the sufferers to consider.

The E Plebnista beats and whips you for your own good

-

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

(Steemit link)

At someone else's expense

I have mentioned the book Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, at least once before.  Here is another point he makes that really struck me.

He says if we could see people's innermost private thoughts and motivations, we would see that their wishes and hopes are almost invariably at someone else's expense. 

For most people, operating under the most common systems of belief, that's probably true.
But, there's a big exception.

The principled stance of libertarianism (particularly, once all contradictions and inconsistencies are stripped away) doesn't come at anyone else's expense. It doesn't cost anyone else.

You can't seriously make the point that stopping theft or an attack on the innocent costs the archator. He might wish you believed that so he could guilt you into staying out of his way, but it's simply not reality. Stopping someone from violating you doesn't burden them.

I know from experience they'll whine that it does.

Twice I have caught someone trying to cheat me in very expensive business deals, and both times, when I backed out as soon as the dishonesty was discovered, I was said to be the bad guy.

In one case the person had her lawyer husband call and threaten me unless I went through with the deal-- he couldn't even dispute the facts I had discovered. He simply said I had no choice but to go through with the deal. I didn't.

Years later, another person who was trying to scam me told everyone in town I had cheated her and broken a contract-- and even years later her husband tracked me down on MySpace to tell me what a "piece of ____" I am. I feel sorry for him, because apparently he wasn't aware of what she had done (he was a good guy; his wife was a crook).

Even apart from business and money, I've been told that not allowing someone to control me is the same thing as controlling the would-be controller. That not allowing someone to force their will on me is the same as forcing my will on them. What? Twisted "logic", to be sure.

So, while most people cost others, those who stick to voluntary associations and mutual consent don't. Even though those who want to violate you will pretend it does. Statism-- it's not caused by rational thought or consistency.

DemoCRAPublicans and other socialistic parasites

-

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

(Steemit link)

Late Night Horror Movie of your own making

Dilbert's Scott Adams says everyone sees the world as a sort of "movie" playing on a screen in their mind. Different people see the same events differently, depending on the specific "movie" they are watching.

Mostly, he's been using this observation to explain how different people can disagree so strongly over things Trump does. I believe it also explains how people see "immigration".

For example...

Movie 1:
America is being invaded and destroyed by lazy, filthy greedy foreigners who will v*te for the Democrats (who promise to hand them America's wealth and culture) only to waste their opportunity and turn America into the same kind of craphole the foreigners left. Only Big Government can save America-- with a border wall, deportations, arrests, checkpoints, national IDs, etc.

Movie 2:
America is being destroyed from within by Nazi politicians and the deplorably ignorant v*ters who support them. It can only be saved by Big Government bringing in new blood-- the helpless victims of the US's wars of aggression (but don't end those wars!) so they can make a new start, keeping their old lives, cultures, and values, free from restraint. You can't ask them to change anything about the way they live- that would be racist and bigoted. And, obviously, they need handouts (financed by "taxation") to give them a fair shot.

Movie 3:
Everything government does ends badly; everything it touches turns to crap. Growing or empowering government, for any reason, is suicidal.
This is the movie I am watching. I believe it is the most accurate, and is verified accurate daily. Your opinions may differ (in other words, you might be wrong 😉).

-

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

(Steemit link)

Temporary is still worthwhile

The statist excuse for rejecting anarchy is that it would only be temporary. Some evil moron will always try to set himself up as Ruler, and idiot followers will let him. Until he comes along, those idiots will keep looking for someone to push them around. "It's human nature", the statists say.

So what if it is?

Do you not bother with anything "temporary"?

Well, everything is temporary.

Each individual life is always temporary.

Life will always end in death, so does that mean living isn't worthwhile?

Anarchy is life.

Even if anarchy is always temporary, replaced by the next dumb idea until that idea inevitably fails and anarchy happens again, does that mean it's wrong? That it was pointless? Never!

Establishing a State is always the wrong thing to do. It's always stupid and will always lead to bad things. And it will always fail. When it does, don't beg for a new State. Enjoy the liberty until the short-sighted idiots around you set up their next failure-to-come. Temporary liberty is still better than never getting a taste.

-

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

(Steemit link)

City-run range would be misfire

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 3, 2017)

I love libraries, parks, and zoos. However, I'm not selfish enough to believe other people should subsidize things I enjoy. For me to force someone to hand over their hard-earned money to pay for something they don't want and won't use would be wrong. Every dollar I take is a dollar someone can't use for things such as food, the electric bill, toys for their child, or medicine. My wishes don't change theft into something moral.

To have government do the taking on my behalf, through taxation, doesn't magically change wrong into good.

Government should never do anything which could be done privately and funded voluntarily. I believe this covers everything which should be done at all. If something isn't popular enough to be funded voluntarily it should go away. If people miss it, they can bring it back and pay for it.

I mention this because there's apparently still talk of establishing a city-run shooting range. While I love to shoot, it would be a mistake to let the city use tax money this way, and to let the city be in charge of such a facility. Government employees and guns are a bad mix.

Noise is also a problem. If you move near a shooting range you have no right to expect them to stop shooting just because the noise bothers you. However, if someone starts a new shooting range near your house, they are responsible for accommodating you. If they go ahead with their plans, they owe restitution for the harm they cause you by their presence.

Unfortunately, when the offender is government, the offender makes and interprets the rules, employs those who enforce the rules, and choose winners and losers. When government is the bad guy, innocent people are usually out of luck. Even if restitution is paid to the victim, it doesn't cost the offender, but is stolen from the injured party and his neighbors through the fraud of taxation. The bad guys can't lose.

Of course, I've been around long enough to know once some government gets a notion, the idea never truly dies. Not even when you believe it's defeated. Government ideas are real-life zombies. Kill one and It keeps crawling from the grave again and again, with the knowledge that eventually no one will be paying attention and the program can be imposed on the reluctant population. They do it because they get away with it, and it works.

You have the power to foil their schemes. Use it.

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Only government can..."

What worthwhile thing can "only" government (by which I mean, The State) provide?

Nothing.

I can imagine many voluntary ways to provide anything needed and wanted. But, a free society wouldn't be limited by what I can imagine, so someone would undoubtedly come up with better solutions than I can possibly imagine.

Liberty is the Mother of Innovation.

In fact, we manage to find many of these solutions in spite of government trying to stand in the way every step of the way. Just imagine where we would be without that huge, costly roadblock.

So, keeping government around, because you believe it is necessary, is very silly.

No doubt this will result in roads being built

-

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

(Steemit link for those who are on Steemit,
where you can get these blog posts the evening before.)

"Respect" women?

I'm somewhat ambivalent about abortion. I always have been, to the chagrin to those fighting on both sides of the argument.

However, when I saw a local billboard proclaiming "Respect New Mexico women", and listing "Our bodies, our families, our decisions" as the aspects of women I am to respect, I knew it was all, and only, about abortion, and instantly rolled my eyes at the hypocrisy.

But, then I realized I should give them the benefit of the doubt, so I went to their website, and yep, that's all the organization is concerned with. It's one of those times I didn't want to be right.

So, that's all "respecting women" means to them? Of course it is-- to certain political people.

Funny, but I have better ways to respect women, such as committing myself to not archate against them. The exact same way I respect men, or anyone who doesn't feel they fall into either of those categories. A level of true respect no "law" can ever approach.

-

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

(Steemit link)

It doesn't win you any friends

Speaking truth, that is.

And, this fact has been known for millennia.

Long ago it was said "veritas odium parit"; truth breeds hatred. Which leads to "shoot the messenger".

After scolding Fred Reed for his, frankly, insane support for cops nearly a year ago, yesterday I found myself squirming on his behalf when he wrote some very honest things about "The Troops", which everyone is supposed to love so unconditionally.

The truth about cops makes copsuckers hate you.
The truth about the government's military will make "patriots" hate (and "unfriend") you.
Truth hurts those who support evil people.

That's not to say that lies about people won't have the same effect, but lies are more easily countered with truth. If someone says something untrue about your beloved gang, just set the record straight, and that's that.

When it's the truth which makes people unhappy, they have no recourse but to fall back on hatred. Well, they can lie, but lies won't get them far when people know the truth, or can figure it out for themselves.

Speaking truth is worth the hatred you'll get. Or, I believe it is. You'll have to decide for yourself.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Loot, if not bling

I updated my CafePress stuff, just in case you're interested in promoting my writing in particular, and liberty in general.

No, I don't actually make any money from this, but CafePress does, which is fine with me, and it could get me some new exposure, while making you look better and more refined.

The credibility of statists

I'm finding that the opinions of statists (of any degree) are becoming less and less important to me.

I'll still hear them out, but if they advocate a government "solution" to anything, I'm likely to simply chalk it up to ignorance and give their opinion no further consideration. Anything else is being disrespectful to my brain, principles, and ethics.

It's like taking science advice from a person who has been convinced (or, who's decided to "believe") that the Earth is flat. It makes no sense to pretend they are credible in this particular arena.

Well, if a person believes that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery (the political means) are possibly better ways to live among their fellow humans than self ownership, individual responsibility, and voluntary association (the economic means), they've lost all credibility with me on that subject.

-

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

(Steemit link)