State of the "union" in 2018?

There is no union. It's a big lie.

Are prisoners held in the same cage necessarily united? Do they share goals beyond getting out of the cage? Is that enough to make them a cohesive group? Not really.

The people of the formerly "united" states of the late America are no more united than those prisoners. In fact, they are probably less united because most former Americans have been brainwashed into not even considering escape as an option. They can't even conceive of liberty from bondage anymore.

If there ever was a union, it's been gone for some time now. Good riddance.

It's time to move on. To do what you have a right to do and to reject and shun those who want to molest you. It's time for liberty. For externally imposed government: Time's up. Get out of my life.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The nature of government

All governments are evil and corrupt. All of them. Every single one of them which has ever existed or ever will exist. It's the nature of the State and no amount of wishful thinking or justifications for its existence will ever change this harsh reality.

Pointing this out hurts people's feelings, especially those who work for government in some capacity but still want to believe they are a good person. And, for that, I'm sorry. But denial isn't healthy, and the truth is the truth and it needs to be acknowledged and accepted.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

OurobSoros

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
I could definitely use some donations or subscriptions right now.

Follow me on Steemit

Cage fight!

The wider an area you wall off, the less sense it makes if your goal is protection from your enemies.

I don't want to be trapped in an enclosure with the Clintons, the Bushes, Obama, Chuck Schumer, Joe Arpaio, or any other large-scale archator.

In fact, there are very few people I would want to be kept in the same box with.

House walls are a positive thing because it is fairly easy to be sure you're not trapped inside with people you hate, and you can effectively keep those types of people out. If they get in you can throw them out or leave pretty easily.

The same goes for fences around private property. Fence off your yard, and control who you let in.

Walls around cities are less optimal, even if you ignore property rights, because you are going to be inside with some people it makes no sense to share a controlled space with, but it would be doable to move to a different city if you found yourself locked in with your enemies.

But walls around a country? It's absurd! Most of the people inside with you want to violate you, as do those who build and control the wall. You are trapping yourself with people who are just as bad as those you want to be protected from. Often, even worse.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Government still dividing America

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 27, 2017)

As the year 2017 draws to a close, it is disappointing to see America more divided than at any time since the 1860s. The main cause being government. Almost everyone complains about government, at least sometimes. It's a natural thing to do.

The reason is, with political governance, one side only wins at the expense of the other side. This leads to a fracturing of society, where the winners and losers-- the Right and the Left-- hate each other. It really is that bad.

Government is collectivism at its worst, so everyone is going to be unhappy over many of its actions, even if they like some things it does.

As a libertarian, I am constantly amused by people who complain about the inevitable results of politicized government, while thinking they can have the parts they like without the parts they don't like. Sorry, but that's not the way it's set up to work. But it could be.

Even if you got exactly the type of governing you want, just about everyone else would be unhappy. If the tables turn so someone else gets exactly the sort of governing they want, you would be the unhappy one. It's a disastrous system. This is what happens with one-size-fits-all schemes. The one mandated size actually fits almost no one. Square pegs are hammered into round holes, or round pegs get wedged into square holes; either way, no one is pleased with the result.

This is the result of pretending there can be a right to govern people other than yourself.

There is a reasonable solution: replace violence-based political governance with consumer-controlled governance. This way you, individually, choose whether you want a service, choose whether it is worth the price, choose who to get it from, and if they don't meet your expectations, you can unilaterally fire them and try something else. Without being told to move to Somalia.

No one else is bound to your choices; they make their own. Your choice in services never denies others the parts for which you have no use. They are perfectly free to choose them. You don't have to partake in everything, you just have no right to impose your choices on anyone else. It's the civilized way to live among others.

Maybe the coming year will see more people decide to give liberty a try by rejecting the obsolete system which is tearing America apart, right down the middle. I will always hope.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Long month, short money

The money ran out before the month did, and if anyone can (and wants to) donate or subscribe so I can have some gas money, it would be greatly appreciated.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Take me where I cannot stand..."

I've always thought that if I had my own spaceship or space station-- at least until or unless artificial gravity is invented-- I would prefer (all else being equal) to hire crew who had no legs.

In such an environment legs seem like trouble. They just fly around knocking into things and taking up space. Sure, you can use legs/feet to anchor a person in place by strapping them in, but there are space-saving ways to anchor a person in place when you don't have to take those useless (in microgravity, at least) appendages into account.

I think all the government space-access prevention agencies, like NASA, have missed a great opportunity by not encouraging the legless to apply. Just think of the public relations coup (assuming no "flight anomaly" resulting in crew loss).

It's a blind spot I hope liberated market spaceflight will notice and fix.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The Trump wall

No, not that one.

Trump is like a high wall with a narrow walkway along the top. On one side of the wall is irrational Trump worship, and on the other side is irrational Trump hate. You only stay rational by not falling off on either side.

It must be hard to walk along that path without falling off on one side or the other, even for liberty lovers, because so few manage it in this time of Trump. It makes me appreciate those who stay sane.

Trump has probably done good things, and he has done bad things. No one should be president, ever, but a president Trump isn't an excuse to join the borderist insanity on one side OR the antifa/SJW madness on the other. Keep your head, stop acting like an idiot, and stay on the narrow path of reality on the top. And stop letting politicians occupy your brain so much.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Women shouldn't be allowed to v*te

And neither should immigrants, or felons, or government employees, or men, or Bonobos, or any other living thing. Robots, either.

There is very, very little that is legitimately up for a v*te, and liberty and rights are never among them.

If you want to v*te on pizza toppings, while not being forced to chip in for a pizza you won't eat, go ahead.

If you want to v*te on how much of your neighbor's money will be stolen, or what people will be allowed to do with their own property, or whether self-defense tools will be criminalized, or how to punish those who ingest things you don't approve of-- sorry, but that's not within your rights. No matter who or what you are. No one has the right to v*te to archate against others. Not ever. The "right to v*te" doesn't exist and can't be created.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Good cops" and other imaginary beasts

"Police officer" or "cop" are words used to describe people who commit specific acts. Just like "rapist", "child molester", or "mugger" are words to describe people who commit specific acts. It's not really about the person, but about the acts the person chooses to commit.

Objecting to those acts being committed or to those who commit them isn't at all similar to racism or sexism, because it is based only on actions and the individual person who commits them. Nothing else.

To say "not all police officers are bad" is a nonsense statement. You are denying the description and the definition.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "sheep" is defined as "a white, hoofed mammal with wool". In that case, a black sheep wouldn't fit the definition of "sheep"; you'd need to make up a new word to use for it. And, a tuna clearly wouldn't be a sheep.

Well, a "cop"/"police officer" is a person who enforces laws-- both the unnecessary and the harmful-- and violates property rights while claiming to be protecting them, with violence or threats of violence, on behalf of a government. That isn't a good person, by definition.

To pretend there is something you would call a "cop"/"police officer" who doesn't do the above is to describe someone who doesn't fit the definition of a cop or police officer. You are talking about a completely different set of acts the person commits-- as in the case of a free market "police" analog. You are calling a bald, black unicorn a sheep.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Fixing government?

Here's a truth which seems to be agonizingly painful for a lot of people: You can't "fix" government by electing principled people.
That's like arguing that you can make child molestation "better" by only having principled molesters.

If the person has principles that are worth anything, they won't commit the act at all. If they will commit the act, then how are things "better"?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Misdirection by anti-liberty bigots

It doesn't matter if "gun control" [sic] actually prevents murder. That's the wrong question, because no one has the "right" to forbid others from owning and carrying guns. That "right" can't exist and can't be created.

This bothers a lot of anti-liberty bigots. So they keep focusing on the wrong question-- and I suspect lying about the data in order to get others to come to agree with their conclusions. But, either way, it really doesn't matter.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Christmas good holiday for outlaws

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 20, 2017)

Christmas is a good holiday for outlaws.

No, not for criminals. For outlaws. What? You don't know the difference?

Let me explain why outlaws are not your enemy and why Christmas is a great outlaw holiday.

The difference between an outlaw and a criminal is that the outlaw breaks bad laws, never throwing the first punch and never taking or damaging anyone else's property. Everything is through mutual consent. Criminals, on the other hand, attack the innocent and steal, vandalize, and trespass.

Who is an outlaw? The public school principal who has the assembly stand to be led in prayer at an official school function is an outlaw. So is the neighborhood drug dealer who peacefully ignores prohibition. The preacher who feeds the homeless is an outlaw in many parts of America. As is the activist who educates jurors about their responsibilities-- against the wishes of the court.

I would argue that Jesus was an outlaw, although those who desperately want to legitimize government might claim he only pushed the envelope-- going as far as he could without technically breaking any laws. Which is a very "outlaw" thing to do.

In the classic Rankin/Bass Christmas special "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town", Kris Kringle is an outlaw who violates the Burgermeister's toy prohibition.

Christmas is a wonderful excuse for "strawman purchases", where you buy something government wants to track, then give it to someone government didn't scrutinize and approve as worthy to own it.

People get sneaky around Christmas; hiding gifts, being "secret Santas", snooping under the tree.

It isn't mandatory to celebrate the holiday any specific way, or to celebrate at all. It's anarchy! That's what makes it fun, and what makes it work.

As mentioned above, some people use the holiday season as an excuse to feed the less fortunate-- without a food preparation permit or a restaurant license. And somehow, no mass poisoning occurs. Sometimes, arrests do result, though. Such arrests are an example of a much greater wrongdoing.

Author and founder of The On Line Freedom Academy (tolfa.us), Jim Davies, refers to government employees who impose and enforce these harmful laws as "kriminals". They are a special kind of criminal. Their harm may be legal, but it's neither right nor ethical.

In various times and places, even Christmas itself has been outlawed, which seems to mean only outlaws would have been the ones celebrating it.

This Christmas, if you feel so inclined, be a good outlaw, not a criminal or a kriminal. Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Collective ownership

There is legitimate collective ownership, and there is illegitimate "collective ownership".

The difference is consent. Not "implied consent", which isn't a real thing, but actual consent.

If I join together with some people and we all chip in to buy a plot of land, and understand explicitly how the land will be used (or choose to not be involved in that decision), then the land is collectively owned. Great! There is Unanimous Consent; this makes this collective ownership legitimate.

However...
If I am told that because I live in a certain place, being born there, I have a share in the collective ownership of the whole region, including other people's private property, but that no one can opt out of the rules imposed on the land without moving away, this is not legitimate collective ownership. If someone I don't like, don't trust, or don't respect claims to have the "authority" to administer the land on my behalf, against my wishes, this is illegitimate. Nothing can make it legitimate without Unanimous Consent. This is a violation of property rights, not a way to express them.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Delusions of godhood

What should be the qualities of water?
How should DNA be built?
How should snowflakes be designed?
Who should be in charge of flocks of birds or schools of fish?
How should ecosystems be run?
How should the market be controlled?
How should society be run?

All the above is meaningless drivel.

Yet, a majority of people seriously consider the last two and debate them. Society and the market are emergent systems. They can't be "run", designed, or controlled, and trying to do so harms individuals, which damages the health of society and destroys the market.

Only the pathologically evil would keep trying.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Turning your back on your supporters

I admired Bradley Manning's bravery in exposing U.S. war crimes.

I opposed Manning's unjust imprisonment for exposing the evil crimes of others.

I supported Bradley's choice to become Chelsea.

I cheered Chelsea's release from prison.

But I can't support Manning's entrance into politics-- for more than one reason. First of all, she is advocating "universal basic income". I asked her whether the money to be distributed will be stolen through "taxation" or be counterfeited and she didn't respond. (I did get one response from a guy who posted that I was "too stupid to understand taxation".)

But, anyway, it appears Manning is just another statist. Happy to use the state to violate individual rights, as long as she doesn't feel it is her rights being violated at the moment.

Nope. My support ends here. Sorry, Chelsea, you've stabbed an awful lot of your supporters in the back with this move.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

I'm offensive; not offended

I recently attended a social event. I know-- I can hardly believe it myself. But I had a lot of fun.

One of the activities was a game of Cards Against Humanity. Before the game started, someone was concerned about me, asking if I'm easily offended. A guy there laughed and said "Have you ever read his newspaper columns?" Then another guy piped up and said "He's the one who does the offending".

Ah, yes. They have me figured out. And, no, I wasn't offended in the slightest, but thought the whole thing was hilarious and great fun. I hope we can do it again.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

#NotMe

What do I mean by #NotMe?

I mean that I am neither a victim nor a victimizer.

Have I been victimized? Of course. Sometimes, badly. But I moved on. I don't dwell on it, and I absolutely refuse to get any part of my identity from it. To want to revel in past victimization is a serious weakness of character, if you ask me! It looks to me as though you are saying you are too weak to stand up and keep walking. That you can't stop reaching back to touch the terrible events in your past.

Even though I have been victimized in the past, I am not a victim.
Even though I have had broken bones, I am not broken.
I've had Rat Bite Fever, but I'm not sick.
I have scars, but I am not injured.
I've cried tears of emotional agony, but I'm not sad.

#NotMe

If you are being victimized now, you have an absolute human right to defend yourself with whatever amount of force it takes to stop the violator. You have every right to expose your victimizers and to refuse to associate with them ever again. They owe you restitution.

But to become an eternally broken victim just for the purpose of being a victim? That's just sad-- you have decided to violate yourself perpetually just because someone else violated you in the past. It's like you have decided to stay bogged in the mud, just because some archator once shoved you into a mud pit.

And, if I victimize you, shoot me. Do whatever it takes to stop me. It is your right. I'll probably fight back, but everyone has the right to do so, even the most vile monster. It's part of being alive.

Your past makes you what you are. You can decide to stagnate there, or to let that past make you better and stronger. Yes, it is YOUR decision. I want you to make the choice that builds you up, rather than the popular choice that holds you down.

If you don't feel you can do this, for whatever reason, I feel sorry for you.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Triggered into statism

I hope there's never an issue that is able to trigger me to the point that I start believing it's OK to archate-- freelance or through government. If it were to happen, I believe it would be a strike against me, not a real justification for initiating force or violating property.

I see so many people who develop a big "but" after years of seemingly advocating liberty-- until one thing comes up. For some it is some sort of sex; for some it's "borders"; others find a different trigger.

I try to understand. I really do. But I can't help but wonder why it was so easy for them to abandon liberty. And I want to make sure I am never in that same boat.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Avoid outrage fatigue this season

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 13, 2017)

To get the most out of this holiday season, and to finish out 2017 on a high note, I recommend avoiding outrage fatigue. What is outrage fatigue? It's the exhaustion, cynicism, apathy, and hopelessness which comes from exposure to too many outrageous crises at once.

Whether your outrage is over your belief that President Trump has been caught plotting with Russians, yet faces no consequences, or from your belief that the politically motivated investigators probing him are simply grasping at shadows of straws in a desperate attempt to destroy someone they despise. It depends on your perspective, but either view can make you crazy.

And what of all the recent accusations of sexual misconduct among the political and entertainment elite? True or not, it can be overwhelming to try to keep up.

The world can look like a terrible place if that's what you focus on.

How many of those problems are new? None of them; they're just recycled crises with interchangeable actors, getting people worked up when noticed.

I'm not saying you shouldn't pay attention to world events, or that some aren't horrible, I'm suggesting you notice whether they impact you, personally. And if they do, how much? If you hadn't heard about it on the news or on social media, would it affect your life in any way? If not, maybe it's not as important as you believe. Certainly not important enough for you to make yourself unhappy over.

There are more important things closer to you. Things like friends, family, and community. Your pets probably have a bigger impact on your life than happenings in Washington D.C. or Hollywood. And certainly bigger than people or events in Great Britain, Syria, or Iraq.

Yes, those things matter to those who are personally impacted, and I empathize with them. But if you spend all your energy getting upset over those things, what do you have left for those who are around you every day? For the people and things your attitude affects?

If you waste your time and energy being outraged, even over outrageous things, when will you find time or energy to enjoy the good things in your life?

Yes, bad things happen. Politics can't solve them, but only magnifies them. Humans shouldn't rule others, and should never be in positions of imagined authority over anyone but themselves. When people are put into the foolish position of political authority, bad things are inevitable. It's not selfish or "isolationist" to focus on your personal sphere; it's being responsible.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Them furriners

Those who focus on, or obsess over, "immigrants" without making the distinction between people who archate and those who don't, regardless of where they were born, are harming liberty. Badly!

And there are those who keep beating that drum and getting angry at those who don't fall for it.

Breaking a counterfeit "law" isn't wrong. "Immigration law" is counterfeit "law".

Initiating force or violating property rights is wrong (in that no one has the right to do so) no matter who does it, and regardless of where the guilty party comes from. It is not better to have a Red, White, And Blue redneck neighbor violating you than some guy who came from Somalia violating you. The violation is the problem; anything else is a distraction. You have the human right to defend yourself from any archator, and no "law" can change that (although "laws" can punish you for doing so).

If you can't get these points through your head, you just look like a bigot. You are helping the other anti-liberty bigots. You are making it impossible for others to reach out to educate those you hate (and yes, in spite of insincere words, it is hate). You are driving them into the arms of your enemy, and then pretending to be shocked at the results.

If you notice that socialistic handouts are a problem and you don't want foreign-born people using them, END THEM instead of enabling them. End them completely and totally, and replace them with charity to be given to whoever you choose. Voluntarily. Don't say "It can't be done"- it's no less likely than "closing the borders", and if you don't believe so, you are in denial.

If you love borders better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you and promise to protect you from "those people". May your chains and walls set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you once pretended to be our allies.*

-

*Apologies to Samuel Adams

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

What kind of hole?

Yes, there really are "s#!thole countries". Living under those conditions-- created almost exclusively by States-- can definitely have a negative effect on the ethics and intelligence of the population (but that has zero to do with the rights the people there have). Government has consequences.

Pointing this out is honest, but not very nice. And it isn't racism. Denying it is statism, though.

I'll have more to say about this in a few days. (Here)

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

In need of a fence

The house on one side of me has been vacant for years. It is in bad shape, and has probably been deteriorating since being vacant. It was for sale for a couple of years, but didn't get much attention.

I guess the owner has finally decided to fix it up a little so it will sell.

But, this has created a problem.

The person working on the house-- and I don't know if it is the owner or a hired man-- parked in our yard. Repeatedly. The house is almost against the property line, less than 10 feet from it, and he kept parking beside the house on my property.

Probably, I wouldn't have made much of an issue, but he also made a big pile of trash (boxes, plastic wrap, foam wrap, etc.) behind the house, and this is a windy area, and his trash keeps blowing into my yard (and all over the neighborhood). This actually made me more angry than the parking situation.

I've not had good experiences asking people to not drive through my yard in the past, so I just put up a "no trespassing" sign right where the guy kept parking. I also wrote a note asking him to "please stop parking in my yard" and to pick up his trash.

Yes, I need a fence. If I could afford one, and could afford the survey to see exactly where to put one.

Anyway, he didn't show up for a few days, but when he came back, he parked in his own driveway and picked up (most of) his trash. We shall see how this goes now.

And then I have the thrill of possibly getting a new neighbor, if the house sells. I'm hoping for a certain type of new neighbor.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Ignoring bad questions

Many times I see people ask questions which only demonstrate they have no clue what they are even talking about; they don't even understand well enough to know what to ask. Not only about liberty, but regarding science and other things I actually know a little about.

I used to try to answer the questions, or explain why the question didn't make sense and suggest a different approach.

Now I try to ignore them.

Part of me feels bad about that. No, it's not my job to "correct" everyone, and I have come to realize most people don't appreciate it anyway. But I also feel guilty when I understand what a person needs to know about a subject they obviously have an interest in, but don't understand well enough to even ask reasonable questions. But maybe I'm projecting too much of myself onto them.

I have also come to realize people often ask the wrong questions because that's the only way to come to the conclusion they have decided they want to come to.

Ignoring such questions still feels like shirking a responsibility. And it makes me uncomfortable, even while realizing it's probably the right thing to do in most cases.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The State- BAD "government"

"Government" has two aspects, one positive, the other negative.

The positive aspect is protection of the individual, through protection of their rights.

The negative aspect is the State.

Unfortunately, most people mistake the State, externally imposed government, for that which protects the individual, but it isn't. The State is completely negative and destructive; harmful and enslaving.

The government which protects the individual is totally separate from the State. Pretty much the opposite of the State. It is self-government; self-control. It is living within what you have a right to do. It is standing up for individual rights. It is living up to your responsibility to not violate others-- because that is your greatest responsibility. The State is a rejection of that grave responsibility.

When most people speak of "government", they mean The State. It's why that's how I usually use the word, too, when I am trying to communicate with them. Otherwise they simply don't understand and believe you are speaking of Texas or Colorado. But I do understand the difference.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Statists' intentions

I think that statism, while always wrong, is sometimes embraced with good intentions.

The statist truly wants to "help" and is clueless about how to do so, and they decide that theft and aggression (wielded in just the right way, by just the right people) are the way to help.

Yes, it's a ridiculous belief, but it is sincere.

But statism isn't always due to good intentions. Sometimes it is pure malevolence.

How much the statist supports punishment is probably a good indicator.

If the statist enjoys hearing about cops killing people who are breaking a counterfeit "law", they have no good intentions. If a statist hopes a person who has no individual victim will experience prison rape, there are no good intentions behind it. Most statists are very sick people who hunger to see others punished. Punishment addiction and statism are almost indistinguishable.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

It's not help if it's not wanted

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 6, 2017)

Most people enjoy helping others when they can, and when they see a deserving opportunity. It's one of the best things about human nature.

Yet it's easy to fool yourself into believing you are helping while doing the opposite.

It's not "helping" if it's unwanted.

For example, I don't want you to hire police to protect me from crime. I certainly don't want to be forced to pay for them, nor let them interfere in acts which have no individual victim.

If I see you stabbing yourself in the foot repeatedly, my intervention might not be wanted. Even if I suspect mental illness, how far should I go to stop you from doing what you want to do? As unpleasant as the reality is, you have the right to do whatever you want to your own body. I have no right to tackle you to prevent you from harming yourself, and if I do anyway, you may have a legitimate claim against me. Whether anyone would blame me is a different issue.

Often, when seeing someone who seems to need help, the most anyone has a right to do is to offer advice, then walk away if the advice is unwelcome. This is hard to do.

Giving advice falls under freedom of speech, yet no one is obligated to listen. If they refuse and you impose yourself on them, you have gone beyond what you have a right to do. You aren't helping.

You can't help by violating people's rights, nor are you helping when you assist those who do. This is the mistake which props up war and other forms of mob violence.

Contrary to popular belief, welfare isn't helping. It is not generous to force others to contribute, no matter how good you believe the cause to be. You've negated any help, only shifting the harm to someone else.

Plus, welfare creates dependency. Once in the system, it's hard to escape because of distorted incentives.

Charity is better for everyone. Voluntary acts always are. It's better for the giver because it isn't forced. If the recipient is discovered to have lied about his situation, the giver can immediately choose to keep his money in his own pocket; no need for a bureaucracy to rule on the case. Charity is also better for the recipient. It can be less intrusive and less demeaning. He can seek other sources if the charity comes with unreasonable strings attached.

I'm in favor of helping. When people help, everyone wins.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Being civilized isn't that hard

It's not that hard to not be at war. I'm not at war with people I've never met on the other side of the planet, and can't see any reason to be. Why can't others be as civilized? Is the mental disorder of Statism so powerful that it creates the desire for death and destruction on this monumental scale? Is it really that hard to resist?

If governing idiots would leave me alone, I wouldn't feel any need to fight back for my liberty, either. If we are at war, it is 100% their fault.

I don't seek to control others, why can't others be the same? It's not hard for me to stay out of other people's business and let them make their own decisions-- and their own mistakes. So why is this so hard for so many?

What is different about me? Sometimes I feel like I'm a separate species.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Once ignorance is cured, malevolence remains

I believe most people support archators out of ignorance. Most. Some people support archators out of malevolence.

Almost everyone is a fan of some archators, though, and this is strange.

Maybe some of those who support archators out of ignorance can be educated out of it. They have to be shown that those who initiate force and violate property are basically all the same. This is a very painful and difficult lesson for most of them-- they don't want to believe it. The archators they like, they want to see as doing something difficult and necessary, rather than seeing them as common thugs like the archators they don't like.

But, by initiating force and violating property, their "heroes" are doing what they don't have a right to do. They are acting as the bad guy, regardless of their justifications. They are not people to support.

If you support some archators, why not just support them all? You may as well. Especially once your mistake has been pointed out. If you continue to support archators at that point, you can't really claim ignorance anymore-- now it looks like malevolence to me.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Government's way or nothing!

Statists love false "either/or" scenarios. Either you agree to their beloved police state tactics, or obviously you just advocate chaos, death, and destruction. I actually have an example from a few days ago.

In response to my post against checkpoints (on G+), some Comrade Kapitalism guy actually claimed that since I was against checkpoints (which he claimed are not intrusive and are effective at protecting people from drunk drivers), then I was against ALL safety measures. Yes, ALL of them.

So I told him about a safety measure that could actually work without violating everyone's rights, and he said that (under the current situation) it's too expensive.

Government extremists want it both ways. If you don't go along with what they want, then you want "nothing" to be done. Just like if you don't want people robbed to finance libraries, you hate libraries. If you show that they are wrong, they'll just find another thing to whine about. They are nimble whiners.

Cowards, lazy non-thinkers, and ethical cripples. It's what makes a statist a statist.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Moving toward liberty

I am an absolutist and I'm also a gradualist.


Yes, really.

I know what liberty is, and nothing else will do.

But, as long as something is moving in that direction, I think it's sort of a good thing, even if it doesn't go far enough, fast enough.

But that doesn't mean I will ever take my eyes off the prize, or that I'm going to make excuses for the bits of slavery that are left. And I'm certainly never going to reject liberty as being "too extreme", in order to make people who fear it more comfortable. They are cowards or equivocators and they need to be ashamed.

For example, I am glad "concealed carry permits" are so popular, and have encouraged more people to be armed, but I'm not going to pretend concealed carry permits are a good thing, being a complete violation of the right to own and to carry weaponry without asking anyone's permission. "More armed people" is heading in the direction of liberty, but tying it to permits is unnecessary and harmful. So, will I advocate for more types of permits, or expanded permits? No. But will I scold people who have the permits? No.

I don't believe in Utopia. But I do believe in "better than what is", and that's where I want to go. There will still be problems. There will still be bad guys and people throwing their support behind bad guys. Not me, though.

People who are natural gradualists don't appreciate that I won't pretend a tiny improvement is enough. They'll never stop complaining that "the perfect is the enemy of the good" and settling for any tiny crumb-- or even moves in the wrong direction that feel right to them. Gradual is better than nothing, except when it is actually nothing.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Sick, sick people

A couple of days ago, I let the b$%*#rds "get to me". Not a shining moment.

No, I didn't really get nasty with them, but my face got hot with rage and I was shaking. I should have taken that as a clue to just walk away.

On a local FB page, someone had posted a meme begging people not to publicize upcoming police "checkpoints", saying something like "what if someone's child dies because you helped a drunk avoid the checkpoint?".

I stated that I would rather risk a few drunk drivers than armed highwaymen shaking down travelers for their "papers". You and I both know "drunk driving" is just the excuse used because the Blue Line Gang knows people are cowardly and will accept the molestation for "safety". The copsuckers (yes, and I use that word in the most negative way possible) on the page are apparently still ignorant of that fact.

I didn't appreciate the replies directed at me.

I censored myself when I replied, and let it be known I was censoring myself because I knew they were speaking from a position of ignorance over what I've been through. But I told them that you can justify any police state tactics with "what ifs" and "safety", and that, if they like having armed goons shaking down travelers for their "papers" so much, perhaps they'd be happier in North Korea, where I hear liberty isn't very popular, but at least the people are "safe".

And then I left the group.

There are some good people in the group, but the copsuckers make it not worth the trouble. Those people foul spacetime with what passes for thought in their tiny minds. I don't know why I am still amazed at what copsuckers will accept if their Blue Gods tell them it's for their own good, but I am. However, I need to cut the worst of them from my life, for my own health.

To be quite honest, I see zero ethical difference between defending and supporting cops and defending and supporting child molesters or actual, swastika-wearing Nazis. No, I'm not saying all cops are child molesters or Nazis, I am saying cops are as ethically indefensible as those groups. To me. That is what I see when I see a cop, and when I see people defending them, I see people trying to defend the indefensible. Siding with the bad guys.

I'll stick with the cat groups on FB. They are better for me.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

011111100010

I'm not making any resolutions that I know of. I don't really intend to change anything, but if I feel the need to change something, I will.
My plan-- if I have a plan-- is to keep on doing what I do. Hopefully improving as I go. Giving you the best I've got.
I hope you'll keep reading.

I'm still fighting cold symptoms. The flu was defeated fairly quickly, but seems to have left behind a boring old cold. Still better than the flu. But, I'm still running low on steam. Liberty matters, so I will exercise my liberty by not straining the brain. We'll see how tomorrow goes.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit