Malcolm and Harry

A while back I was struck by the similarity of these two characters' poses. Both seem to mean business. Both are properly armed for the task at hand. And both are confronting archators in the proper way to confront them- most of the time.

Both could be considered heroic.

Both characters have their fans; there's probably even a lot of overlap. But I still like one of these a lot more than the other.

If I had to choose, I'd prefer to be friends with Malcolm Reynolds. Dirty Harry chose to be a tax junkie, and an enforcer of "laws". Not a good guy in my eyes, even if the thugs he went up against were worse.

I might even like the actor Clint Eastwood more than actor Nathan Fillion, but as for the characters portrayed above, it's no contest.

-

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Presidential material

The recent death of Charles Manson left me pondering.

As a result of this pondering, I realized I would have preferred a President Charles Manson over a President Hillary Clinton.

I have no use for presidents, and I most certainly don't support Trump. However, I am still convinced Hillary would have been much, much worse. So much worse that I'm positive even Charles Manson (assuming he did what he was convicted of doing) would have been better.

After all, everyone knew he was crazy, so there wouldn't have been too many people openly supporting whatever agenda he would have been pushing. He was also old and in poor health, so there was a good chance of him dying instead of finishing his term- as it so happened. Probably... assuming his presidential health care didn't extend his horrible life.

Now, might all those points also mean he would have been a better president than Trump? Maybe. All I know is that dead presidents are the best presidents. At least, they can't hurt anyone anymore, unless evil idiots continue to enforce the opinions they imposed while alive. But at that point, it's the fault of the evil idiots who continue to enforce the opinions of corpses, rather than being the fault of the corpse where the opinion originated. Don't blame a corpse for the evil actions of the living.

But, isn't it bizarre to think how bad politicians must be to make Charles Manson seem a thinkable alternative?

.

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Violation can't justify more violation

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 25, 2017)

In the aftermath of any mass shooting, it is disheartening to see well-meaning people express their outrage over innocent people being violated by immediately demanding politicians violate innocent people.

I understand feeling "something must be done", but I can't support any plan which violates people's indispensable rights. The horror of someone violating people can't justify violating more people.

No one has the right to murder, and very few gun owners commit murder. No one has the right to create anti-gun "laws", yet every government does. It is wrong to violate people who have harmed no one. People clamor for more laws, even as the attempt is doomed to fail and will only make mass murders easier to commit.

Each and every person has an absolute human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon they see fit, everywhere they go, openly or concealed, without asking permission of anyone. This right can be respected or it can be violated. Rights aren't subject to majority opinion, feelings of fear, or claims of necessity. Rights don't come from the Bill of Rights-- abolish the amendment and the right remains unchanged.

Of all the unpopular rights, the right to free speech is probably the most dangerous when misused. If you disagree, you might want to take a closer look at history. Yet, no one has the authority to prohibit or place limits on speech, even if governments pretend they do. You will always have the absolute right to speak your mind regardless of any law.

Governments have no authority to limit any right; by doing so they only delegitimize themselves. Creating or enforcing anti-gun "laws"-- commonly and incorrectly called "gun control"-- is a serious crime; no better than committing a mass murder.

People who have no moral objection to murdering will happily ignore another anti-gun "law". Imagining otherwise is a fantasy. Only people who have no intention to murder will be affected. The more anti-gun "laws" you make up and enforce, the more you empower murderers, and the more victims you serve up for their pleasure.

Author Robert A. Heinlein observed "An armed society is a polite society". A related truth is that an unarmed society, where only the police, military, and freelance criminals remain armed, is not a society at all. It is a prison. A slaughterhouse. I refuse to endanger you just to make myself or anyone else feel better. I will not appease bad guys of any sort. Not ever.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Still without internet

I need at least $65 to get internet turned back on at my house. I realize this isn't an Earth-shattering crisis. But I'm tired of neglecting the blog.

As always, please don't donate if you can't afford it, have better things to do with your money, or just don't want to. Because that would make me unhappy. More unhappy, I mean.

Thanks.

'Twas the night after Thanksgiving...

I just had a rare pleasure- in fact, a singular one. I hosted a friend of the blog in my home last night. I was favorably impressed by his intelligence, kindness, and personality. He was every bit as nice as I would expect of my readers. Everyone in my household (including the cats) enjoyed his visit.

So, why doesn't this happen more often? Because I'm off the beaten path. There's no interstate nearby. No scenic attractions. A few historical sites, mostly involving Buddy Holly and Billy the Kid, but nothing people put on their bucket lists.

But I'm glad to have been available to provide a way station on his cross-country journey, and glad to have met him in person. It was the highlight of my Thanksgiving holiday.

-

I'm still without internet at home, but I think I'll be back to my regular blogging come Monday. If things go as expected.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Happy Thanksgiving/Gratitude Day!

I'm still without internet at home. I'm hoping to get it back soon. Until then, I am grateful for each of you. Thank you for reading.

The economy- well, mine anyway

I'm

in need of an infusion of money. I know it's annoying when I mention such a crass subject. And I know this is the worst time of the year to mention it. But the internet is unlikely to be turned back on before they get paid, and it's cold enough I'm probably not going to ride my bike to borrow WiFi. I'm posting this from my phone, which isn't conducive to writing.

And the internet isn't the most critical thing, just the one most likely to be noticed by the outside world.

Please don't donate or subscribe if you can't afford it, have better things to do with your money, or if you just don't want to. Voluntaryism all the way.

Libertarianism can and does work

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 18, 2017)

From time to time someone will tell me they really like the idea of libertarianism; they only wish it could work in the real world. This reminds me of someone confessing they like the idea of electricity, if only it could actually work. Because not only can it work, it does.

Libertarianism doesn't just work; you are surrounded by it all the time. In fact, you practice libertarianism yourself, even if you never realized it. And so does everyone else-- other than the noticeably rare, unpleasant monsters. If this weren't the case, civilization would be impossible, and society would collapse into relentless chaos and death.

Every time you buy something instead of stealing it, you've put libertarianism to work. Each time you choose to not punch someone who annoys you, you've made the libertarian choice. If you recognize the right of self-defense against people who would injure, kidnap, steal, or vandalize-- or threaten to do those things-- you've joined the ranks of libertarian thinkers. How does it feel to successfully use something people claim "can't work"?

Libertarianism is nothing more than accepting that you don't have the right to attack people or take their stuff. You probably learned this as a child. When people say they don't see how libertarianism can work in the real world, it's often because they desperately want to allow some exceptions, either for themselves or for others. Especially where certain jobs are concerned.

Any exception is imaginary-- right and wrong don't change depending on your job.

Everyone says they are against bullying, but almost everyone supports the bully they believe is on their side. They dream up excuses to rationalize how this bully isn't a bully, even as he attacks people. They fantasize that the bully's gang isn't a gang, or that his victims deserve it. They claim society couldn't function without these exceptions.

Almost everyone knows stealing is wrong, but most people try to find ways around this when they want something badly enough. They use dishonest words to make it sound different. So, instead of "theft", they call it a tax or a fine, a property code or a license fee.

This lack of consistency is the trap which leads people to conclude libertarianism "can't work", even as they live the vast majority of their lives by its principles.

Welcome to libertarianism. Feel free to drop the exceptions you've been trying to justify, because they are only holding you down. Libertarianism works for everyone.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Are you still trusting liars?

Cops lie. Court employees lie. Prosecutors lie. Crime labs lie. The mainstream media usually accepts these lies without question and passes them along, in the form of "press releases" or statements by those government employees, to a gullible public.

The "information" is created by those who want their target to look guilty as possible, so the truth will be twisted (or ripped apart) to give the appearance of guilt. This misinformation is then passed along without fact-checking and spread to those who hunger for drama and don't care about the truth, but only want to think the worst.

And that doesn't even address the issue of whether the "law" said to have been broken was counterfeit.

This is why I never believe police reports or arrest reports without first-hand knowledge. I assume they are not completely truthful.

I know of a guy who got into this position, and was deceptively smeared by the cops and their co-conspirators, a while back.

But, as he said to me, what can you do when this happens?

Very few people care about the truth, and too many people automatically believe the liars in government.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Speeding, drunk driving, and guns

"...there are laws against speeding and drunk driving. Those are acts that endanger others. Yes, absolutely it makes sense to have such laws even though criminals won't obey them, because if and when they're stopped or caught they deserve to pay for the damage they've done. No one argues otherwise about guns."

Well, not exactly.

I assume the anti-gun bigot he was responding to was trying to make a point that guns should be banned for the same reason speeding and drunk driving are banned (but I didn't subject myself to the video), but the gun rights activist quoted above also missed the boat on this one.

The "laws" against speeding and drunk driving are every bit as illegitimate as those against gun ownership, and for exactly the same reasons. Those caught and punished under those "laws" have usually caused exactly zero damage before they are "caught". And yet, he's in favor of this. And it's the exact same argument made by the anti-gun bigots about the potential for damage by guns.

Every act is potentially dangerous. If the danger rises to the level of a credible threat, then defensive action can be taken without you being guilty of archating. But in the vast majority of cases, what passes for "speeding" and "drunk driving" falls short, and "drunk driving" has been redefined into absurdity.

Yes, if you cause harm to life, liberty, or property, you owe restitution. If you pose a credible threat, you can be stopped before you cause harm, but you probably "owe" nothing in that case. And "pre-crime", the way the State conducts their war against "potential threats" as though they are actual harm, doesn't cut it. Not with cars or with guns.

This is why those on the side of liberty have to be extremely careful about supporting ANY government behavior, even on things they agree with. It can lead to the statist side so easily.

I realize people don't like to hear that. They want to believe "laws" help.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Hanging on

To be perfectly honest, I feel like I have been barely hanging on these past few weeks.

Today is the second anniversary of Cheyenne's death, and for some reason it is hitting me harder this year than it did last year.

Maybe it is because other bad events have happened in the past few months. Maybe it's other things.

Whatever the reason, I'm going to try to take the day off.

.

Copblocked

A week or so back I was trapped in a parking lot; blocked in a space by a cop car while the badge-scum who arrived in it molested some guy parked next to me.

The guy he was bothering may actually be a bad guy. Who knows. It's irrelevant. That is no excuse to park in such a way as to block people in and then stay there 10 (or more) minutes after the blocked in person gets to their car. Cop-guy had to perform the "cuff, hassle, release" dance, and then have his victim sign something, and that took a lot of time.

How would the tax addict have reacted if I had blocked him in? You don't even have to answer because we both know.

Cops are worthless vermin. I despise them. So do others.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Could I be wrong?

Yes, I could. How might I be wrong? This is a question everyone needs to ask of themselves now and then. And, it's a question which needs to be considered carefully enough that the answer makes itself known to you. Making sure you know how you might be wrong isn't self-absorption. It's self awareness and a recognition that you can be wrong. Anyone can.

So, take the things you know and make sure they hold up.

Considering my own knowledge, might I be wrong about some things I take for granted? Things I have tested and decided are true?

Could it actually be OK to take things which don't belong to me? Does my need come before your claim of ownership?
Could it be fine to attack people who are minding their own business, but are doing so in a way I don't like?
Might government actually be something other than a gang of thugs?
What if taxation really is voluntary, and is therefore not theft? What does voluntary mean?
What if cops really are the good guys, and they are only doing their job by enforcing the laws that my neighbors want them to enforce?
What if it really is everyone's business if a person chooses to do things to themselves that could cause harm? What if you don't actually own your body?
What if property really is theft?
What if guns are too dangerous for regular people to own or carry, and banning them would actually be OK and would work?

Of course, each time I examine these ideas, no matter how carefully I pick them apart and consider them, I decide I'm not wrong about them, no matter who disagrees. NO matter how strongly they disagree, or how angry they get at me over the disagreement.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

What am I for? What am I against?

It's important to know what you are for, and what you are against. Those are two sides of the same coin. Knowing what I am for should tell you (and me) what I'm against.

I am for rights. I am for responsibility.

I am against archation.

Specifics?

Well, those are just different ways of saying the same thing.

Does an act, rule, or policy violate someone else's equal and identical rights? Does it make it harder for them to exercise their Rightful Liberty? If so, I'm against it. Even if it might seem to "help" me in some way.

If it does none of the above, I'm either for it, or I don't care one way or the other because I understand it's none of my business.

It's really not a very complicated question for those with principles, even when they aren't perfect.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Try to make the world a better place

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 11, 2017)

People are always wanting to know the meaning of life. There is probably more than one, but a very good one is: Make your world a little better every day.

You don't have to think big. Start where you are, doing what you can. Begin with easy stuff, but push yourself beyond the edge of your comfort zone.

If you are hurting an innocent person, stop hurting them. Instead of staying silent while someone else is hurting an innocent person, get up, speak out, and don't let it continue. If you see someone being bullied, stand up for them. Even if the bully has power, or if the law is on his side. Especially if the bully is the law.

Confront the bullies with kindness at first, if possible. Don't make them feel bad unless they refuse to stop. If they won't stop, they need to feel bad. Otherwise they are lying to themselves.

If you see some litter, pick it up. If someone is kicking and stomping a toad, rescue it.

If you see someone on a path you believe will hurt them, warn them. If they won't listen, respect their choice. Yes, it's hard to do, but it's right.

Don't mistake errors in judgment for wrongdoing, nor moral shortcomings for crimes. Don't seek to punish people for mistakes. Justice is about honest restitution, not punishment.

Be good, be kind, have worthwhile principles and stick to them. Realize that "good" and "kind" aren't necessarily the same thing. Not all who are kind are good, and sometimes being good means you can't be kind. It's better to be good than to be kind. If your principles get in the way of being good, you need better principles.

After you get practice improving your personal sphere, you have a foundation from which you can spread out into the world, if you want.

If you do choose to expand your influence beyond your home turf, keep in mind C. S. Lewis' warning: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” That would be the opposite of making the world a better place.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Guns, criminals, and the mentally deranged

.

"We must find a way to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally deranged." ~ Lying cowardly loser

Who do you mean by "we", since I'll have no part in such a scheme? How do you propose "we" do what you suggest? Who do you give the imaginary power to carry this out? A gang of proven unethical criminals called "government"? Yeah, that always goes well. 

Who gets to define "criminal" and "mentally deranged"? Or even "weapons"? I know-- those same proven, unethical criminals of "government", right?

How would you implement this plan without violating some number of innocent people? Or do they even matter to you? Are they just "collateral damage" to be ignored and discarded for your Big Idea? That does seem to be the standard practice of your favored vile gang.

Are you personally willing to go door to door stealing guns from people and murdering those who resist? Or would you continue to be a sniveling coward and send other vile parasites to die on your behalf?

Do you take personal responsibility for those killed when denied (or fatally delayed while awaiting your approval) a weapon they needed for self defense? Because if you support this kind of thing, I will hold you personally accountable. Each and every time some innocent person is murdered in one of your "gun free zones", or even in a place where the "laws" and policies make it even slightly less likely that good people there will be adequately armed, I hold YOU responsible if you support anti-gun "laws" and policies. Yes, YOU. You are on the side of the murderers who need unarmed victims and slaughter zones to keep them trapped.

Yes, I grant that anti-gun "laws" may save some lives. They will also cost some lives, and this you carefully ignore. What makes you the god who gets to decide to roll the dice and let randomness choose who lives and who dies at the hands of your "laws"? What made you so cowardly that you either refuse to contribute to the defense of those around you, or fear those who do step up?

No one has the right (or the "authority") to make up rules banning or "regulating" weapons. Not you, not a president, not the BATFEces gang, not judges, not "community activists", not congressvermin, not cops, not mayors or governors. No one. That right doesn't exist and can't be created.

And, I even break away from some of my co-travelers in that I know rights can never be lost-- not even if you are a criminal or are mentally deranged. No one has a right to forbid you to own and to carry weapons, but they do have the right to shoot anyone who chooses to archate. That's just reality, and if it doesn't suit you, you are free to leave the realm of reality in hopes of a more suitable afterlife.

This "plan" will go nowhere, because it is both wrong and impossible. You are free to yap about it and pretend it's an option. You are probably able to make up "laws" and murder people who break them. I will not comply, not will I expect anyone else to comply. I will not report anyone I suspect of violating your made-up rules. I assume everyone is always armed, anyway, so why would I act otherwise? I will never cooperate in taking weapons from anyone who isn't archating, and then only when it is defense.

You are a disgusting coward for believing this plan of yours is an answer or a solution, rather than an escalation of the foundational problem. You are also an idiot for not seeming to realize that other nasty cowards and control freaks have made the same suggestion throughout the mists of time. There will always be lying cowardly losers like you, wanting to be "pragmatic" in violating others. You are nothing new. Get lost, worm.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Safe spaces" for nationalists

Borderism is just another manifestation of the toxic and whiny "safe space" movement. No different than the other forms seen on university campuses. Childishness mistaken for maturity.

Once seen in that light, you may never be able to unsee it. Or to take them seriously ever again.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Worse than the worst

I'm sure you've heard of the "knock out game", where some loser just punches a victim in the head without warning, intending to knock the person unconscious.

Yeah, it's a disgusting thing to do. Those people are the worst!

But, to me it would seem even worse to torture the person first by tying them down, taunting them a while, then punching them unconscious. There's the added factor of psychological torture.

And to me, this illustrates the tactic behind State "executions".

Yes, I actually think losers who play the standard "knock out game" are probably less ethically reprehensible than the losers who clinically murder people for the State. And that's a really law bar to begin with.

That's when I ignore the number of those on the death assembly line who have been discovered to be innocent, but railroaded by a corrupt "criminal justice system", "crime labs" that come up with whatever results the cops and prosecutors want them to come up with, and "judges" who have no business judging anyone but themselves. Murder carried out under clinical conditions is still murder-- or maybe it's murder plus.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"The law" is no excuse

Statists make the absurd claim "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", but that's obviously nonsense. If you aren't aware of some random, arbitrary rule made up by some ethically empty control freak, how can you be expected to act counter-intuitively and "obey" it?

Only an idiot would expect that.

Ignorance of the "law" is normal, natural, ubiquitous (even by those who worship and enforce "laws"), and it is most definitely the best excuse.

I would turn the statist's claim around.

"The law" is no excuse to molest, kidnap, rob, and murder people. The "law" is never justification to archate. And anyone who believes it is is a nasty goon.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Same language, different thoughts, no communication

I'm talking about when a discussion gets bogged down because of the different ways people use words, and different definitions... and it results in no communication taking place. No fun!

And I really do try. Normal dictionaries are no help. You can always find a definition somewhere that fits your thinking, and is contrary to the other definitions. Probably under the same entry.

So when this happens I tell them what a word means to me. I link to the "dictionary post" entry. I try to explain what I mean by the word, contrasted against what they mean by the word. Just as a way to get us talking about the same concept, even if we use different words. Deaf ears. They invariably refuse to listen.

For example, to me a right is anything you can do without violating another person, therefore you need no permission to do it. Anything. There are lots of ways to expand that thought, of course, but that's the basic point.

And then I attract attention from people who want to argue over privileges while calling them "rights". Or they want to change rights into privileges by allowing government (or some other gang) to hand out licenses for engaging in that behavior. Ugh.

Yeah, I realize almost no one out there "gets" rights. Too much conditioning, I suppose. Too much belief in "authority".

Sorry, but if it can be lost or taken away, it isn't a right. A right can be violated, though, but that's not the sticking point they usually want to focus on. They simply can't get over their point debating how and when rights can be lost or removed, to justify violating people's rights in one way or another. Because that's where it always leads.

And this same tactic goes on over many other concepts as well. It is frustrating.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Who's responsible?

A while back I saw someone who wanted to make the NRA pay for the medical and funeral expenses of the Las Vegas evil loser's victims. I'm sure he feels the same about yesterday's victims of the evil loser in the Texas church-- or will as soon as he thinks of it.

I guess he's one of those "special" folk who believes the NRA is actually pro-gun rights. LOL!!

But, wait... what is he demanding?

The NRA doesn't manufacture or sell guns. It doesn't encourage evil losers to go out and murder people-- in fact it does quite the opposite as long as you're not a cop or a troop (and yes, it makes exceptions for them, because it loves and worships them with all its shriveled little heart and its fat bank account). The NRA's gun safety programs used to be the big selling point for membership, and safety necessarily includes not shooting innocent people.

The NRA has as much to do with actual guns as Facebook does with breeding cats.

But, if the guy had faced this reality, I'm sure he would have just switched to wanting to force gun manufacturers and sellers to pay the expenses. Or, forcing their insurance companies to pay, if that fails.

And that's just as stupid.

Using a car analogy, as he was doing before running away... If you sell a car and some time later the guy you sold it to (or someone he sold it to) uses that car to plow into a group of kindergarteners, injuring hundreds and killing a bunch of them, should you or your insurance cover the medical and funeral expenses? Or is the evil loser driver responsible for his actions, and should he be held responsible-- or should his insurance  company (if he has any) be financially responsible, according to the contract they have with him?

If, after all this, there's simply not a pocket deep enough to cover all the expenses, either get charity to help, or suck it up. Robbing people to pay for something they didn't do is evil. And so is "regulating" guns.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Liberty an unappreciated necessity

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 4, 2017)

It's a human tragedy that most of us lack real appreciation for life's necessities.

We don't appreciate things until it's too late.

Water is overlooked until you have to scrounge for every drop. I've been thirsty enough to sip water from a rotten stump's hollow, filtering it through a bandanna against my mouth to avoid swallowing mosquito larvae and globs of algae. I've been thirsty enough to drink water, peppered with rabbit pellets, from holes in rocks.

Yet, even I can take for granted that when I turn on the faucet, good water will come out. Occasionally I remember the times water was scarce, and feel appreciative.

You won't appreciate heat, light, or cooked food until you don't have the option of flipping a switch. The appreciation for those modern conveniences grows stronger when you've made every fire by rubbing sticks together.

Do this a few thousand times over several years and it will help you feel gratitude for technology-- even lighters.

In the same way, you'll never value liberty until you've had it and lost it. Almost no American appreciates liberty because they've never actually experienced it. They've been taught to believe Americans are free, and questioning the truth of this statement is labeled "ingratitude".

It's not. It's recognizing reality and demanding better.

Until you are free to live as you see fit, as long as you're not harming anyone else, your liberty is being violated. Until you are free to travel, trade, and protect your person and property without seeking permission from anyone to do those things, liberty is imaginary. If you are required to get licenses and permits to go about your life and business, you aren't free.

No one has the right to require the licensing of driving, carried guns, or businesses. No one has the right to take your money, using the excuse of taxation or fines. No one has the right to prohibit or regulate any part of your life until you tread on the equal and identical rights of others. It is your unrefusable* responsibility to not violate people by restricting their rights, and nothing can change that.

Those who support the violations and celebrate them as "freedom" are lying to you.

Yes, it could be worse.

I'm grateful for the liberties still allowed. I crave the return of those which have been criminalized through the error of allowing government to grow.

If you are grateful too, show it by defending liberty even when everyone around you would rather you didn't.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

A moment of silence-- owed by you and me, anyway

It's time for a moment of silence after an evil loser murdered a bunch of people in a Texas church.

Of course, this silence only applies to you and me. The anti-liberty bigots have decreed that only they are permitted to squeal loudly for anti-gun "laws" in the immediate aftermath.

But sane people must show our "respect" for the victims by keeping our mouths shut, no matter the lies spouted by the anti-liberty bigots. Lies which will inevitably result in more innocent victims.

The same old same old.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Borderists don't understand property rights, part infinity

Borderism in bloom.

"In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will. And 'public property' has borders as well. It is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners. And while it is true that the State is a criminal organization and that to entrust it with the task of border control will inevitably result in numerous injustices to both domestic residents and foreigners, it is also true that the State does something also when it decides not to do anything about border control and that, under the present circumstances, doing nothing at all in this regard will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry." - Bionic Mosquito

First off, "immigration" is a lie used to justify bigger, more powerful government. Government to be aimed at those the borderists want to aim it at, but bigger, more powerful government, regardless.

What was that main theme again? "In a fully privatized libertarian order ... 'public property' ... is the property of domestic tax-payers..."

Ummm. No. Sorry.

In a "fully privatized libertarian order" there would be no "taxes" to be paid by anyone, "domestic" or "foreign". If there were "public property", it would be owned by a group which VOLUNTARILY agrees to pay for its purchase and upkeep and allows the public to use the property at its whim. Not financed through theft. Not really "public".

And this has absolutely no bearing on the borderist argument, no matter how badly they wish it did. Borderism is anti-property rights, because they believe the State's spurious claim on my property trumps mine.

The last 3/5 of the paragraph wobbles between admitting government "border control" is a bad deal for the slaves (and others), and seeking to justify it anyway.

This is just one example of where the borderists go wrong; the examples are seemingly endless. And frustrating. All calculated to reach the conclusion that "feels" pragmatic and cozy, while avoiding the truth.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Mean Ol' Truth!

The truth is the truth. After you have noticed the truth, or had it explained to you, that should be the end of it.

You can complain about the truth, or wish it were otherwise, but the truth doesn't change to make you comfortable.

And this is something anti-liberty bigots really don't like hearing. They either don't believe there is a truth, or they believe their feelings can alter it. It just doesn't work that way.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Letting government control you

If I want to do something, I don't stop just because government decides to mandate it.

For example, I want to wear a seat belt when in a vehicle. I did so long before it became "the law". I didn't stop wearing one when government made it a "crime" to neglect to wear one.

I understand physics. I want to reduce my chances of injury in case of a wreck. I am not under any delusion that a seat belt guarantees anything-- Cheyenne was wearing a seat belt and it didn't help.

But, I know the risks both ways, and that's my choice. I wouldn't dream of forcing my choice on you (but if you are riding in my vehicle, I will ask you to put on the seat belt, and I may choose to not drive you if you won't).

I don't support using "laws" against you if you make a different choice, and I understand that cops who make "traffic stops" based on seat belt use are nothing but bullies and thieves. Maybe worse.

In other cases I haven't stopped doing some things just because government decided to forbid them. And I haven't started doing things just because government forbids them, either. There are a few things I have chosen to do after government made them mandatory, just to avoid being murdered, not because I agree. I wish I didn't think this is necessary, but in a few cases, I do.

Mandatory or forbidden, government's opinion on matters is generally irrelevant to me.

If you change your behavior just because of government or its "laws", you are letting them control you no matter which way you go. If that's your choice, at least recognize it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Paint and corners and statists

In Facebook discussions I sometimes find it amusing to let statists paint themselves into corners.

It's easy for them to do, because statism is internally inconsistent and stupid. All I have to do is keep them talking, and that corner, surrounded by the paint they applied, with no way out, is where they'll end up.

I just keep asking questions about their position, and leading them where they are already heading. I try to avoid saying anything too shocking, or anything that will scare them off.

OK, so maybe it's not so much that I let them paint themselves into a corner, as I help them. I give them the paint and brush if necessary.

What is sad is how often they realize what is happening and go silent right at the end. Right before the fun part. I feel robbed because I don't get to use my ultimate point when that happens. Such is life.

Yes, I have a mean streak. The ZAP helps keep it under control.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit