'Democratic' socialism no less evil

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 29, 2018)

Over the next few years you're going to be tested. Socialism-- the politics of envy, parasitism, and entitlement-- is growing in popularity again. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have recently been its elder cheerleaders. Now socialism is being given a fresh make-over. It has a new, young, and apparently articulate voice in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

It's being re-branded as "democratic socialism" as if adding mob rule (democracy) to socialism makes it less evil. No matter who's pushing it this time, expect more attempts to portray socialism as kind, fair, and generous. As "common decency" toward the "less fortunate".

Don't be fooled-- it's still the same old evil under shiny new paint.

It's not kind or generous to give away what isn't yours to give, whether you got the ill-gotten goods in a mugging or by collecting a tax. Theft is theft even when you call it something else. And spending stolen money on popular things doesn't make theft right.

Socialism isn't "sharing" because non-consensual "sharing" doesn't exist. Socialism tries to build a society on a foundation of theft.

At some point, the people you are robbing are going to give up. Why put in all the work only to have your effort stolen? Right now most of these people say they would never go on the dole and will keep working. But they haven't had all hope pulled out from under them yet.

When they see themselves working to support more and more who aren't putting in any effort, at some point they'll decide it's not worth it anymore. Then who will keep your system afloat?

Sure, maybe the money can be created out of thin air. But more dollars in circulation, backed by nothing but promises, means each one of those dollars is worth less every day. Eventually, no one will accept those worthless dollars for products or services-- even if you can find someone still producing or serving. At that point your choice will be barter or starve.

It doesn't matter how many times people come up with the bright idea of socialism. It doesn't matter if you claim "real socialism" has never been given a chance. Neither has real capitalism.

Maybe the democratic socialists are right and all the failures of socialism in the past hundred years or so were "not real socialism", but the closer you get to real socialism, the deader everyone gets, while the closer you get to real capitalism the wealthier everyone gets. Choose your future, choose your fate.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Economic realities and government "jobs"

I recently heard the claim that the economy is "going great". This doesn't match with the reality I'm experiencing, although I might not be representative. Nor is it what I'm seeing in some others I know. Some of them have even settled for government "jobs" because that's the only thing they could find.

I think it's a terrible shame when the economy is so bad that people are reduced to looking for, or accepting, government "jobs".

And I see this a lot. People can't find a job in the market, so they lower themselves and take a government "job".

They would deny this is lowering themselves.

But, to take a "job" financed with stolen money, which people don't get to opt out of funding-- or, in many cases, using, even if they don't want the "service"-- is low.

I know; you've got to make money. Food must be bought; bills must be paid. Believe me, I understand. Probably more than most. But there are certain "jobs" I just couldn't bring myself to do.

I couldn't live with myself if I had a government "job" which required me to impose the dictates of the State on people and violate their rights with violence. This means I couldn't be an armed government employee of any sort; I couldn't be a cop, or a forest ranger, or an IRS agent, or an employee of any other Alphabet Agency. I couldn't work for the DMV. Nor the military. I couldn't work for the TSA, nor any sort of "border security". I can't bring myself to use violence, or threats of violence against anyone on behalf of the State in exchange for money.

I also couldn't live with myself if I worked in a government "job" which violated people "nicely". I couldn't work in a government school, library, or other "helpful" service. The gun is still there, it's just hidden a little better.

Yes, this means that in this economy I am kind of screwed. I accept that reality. But I still won't violate you for money. Neither in a mugging, nor through a vulgar government "job".

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Picking nits

It's weird to me when someone pops up with "but that's the local government, not the feds" doing some evil thing or another. Or the other way around.

And I can't figure out why it matters. Maybe to "state's rights" [sic] people... but to anyone else?

Government is government. To distinguish between federal, state, and local is to miss the point. Yes, they can all hurt you in different ways, and sometimes you can pit them against each other to protect yourself a little. But to fall for the belief that one isn't bad, while the other is? Ridiculous! They are all bad, just in slightly different ways.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Siding with evildoers

Being in favor of illegal searches and seizures is kind of a rapey position. Isn't it?

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Orphan stew

No, this isn't advocating cannibalism, it's a bunch of little thoughts that have collected and never made it to blog or column status, but that I didn't just want to throw away.

You've been warned....

__


Alternate history:
Quill and Tattler-- Medieval jesters who make fun of the ruling elites while practicing sorcery. Tattler never tattles because he doesn't speak.

__

Liberty lovers need to come together, because the enemies of liberty are united against us. But liberty lovers fight over "borders" and American Sharia Law (including "vices") and the illusory "right vs left" nonsense, each insisting on each and every exception to rightful liberty that they want to have incorporated into the deal. It won't work.

__

I've never been one to give much credit to conspiracy theories. People are simply too tempted to show off to keep big secrets for long-- even under threat of death.

Government runs on conspiracy theories.

Some may be true, but you and I will probably never know. Roswell.  JFK.  FEMA camps... Fun, like horror movies, and just as credible.

Some are easily disprovable but remain popular with those who want to believe in them. Such as "Flat Earth" and "dinosaurs never existed".

Then there are the real conspiracies: Federal Reserve, the IRS/income tax, the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.

__

Libertarianism offers real solutions. But you won't see those solutions if you refuse to look outside the political sphere-- to see things that go against what you've always done.

If you would rather imagine what solutions you believe a hypothetical libertarian might suggest, based on your misunderstanding of libertarianism, then you'll just keep going in circles with yourself.

__

Natural disasters are a problem, one that no one can eliminate through education alone. But education still helps.  What can be done about natural disasters is to cause people to see that these things will happen, and that the best defense is being prepared. The only connection to government here is that government both encourages people to prepare, and grows increasingly suspicious of those who do.  Well, government also exacerbates natural disasters through incompetent response and by preventing voluntary, free market solutions from working. And by making people believe they don't need to be prepared, because government (or someone) will come and save them.

__

How can anyone believe it is right to use politics to control others?
Wouldn't it be better to find a way to work with other people without sticking a gun in their face?

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

(The?) Ten Good Suggestions

1. Do not use violence against the non-violent who are not taking or damaging your property.

2. Do not take or damage the property of any other person.

3. Do not seek to govern anyone but yourself, nor should you choose others to govern them on your behalf; do not enslave.

4. Mind your own business until or unless someone asks you for your help with their business.

5. Try to not unnecessarily offend others, but if you are offended, suck it up. You haven’t been harmed.

6. Tell the truth, unless you have to lie to keep someone from violating an innocent.

7. Keep your word, as long as you can do so without violating any of the above.

8. Defend others from those seeking to do the above to them.

9. Treat others as they wish to be treated.

10. Do not use wishes or beliefs as an excuse to violate these guidelines.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

A word from the author (UPDATED)

Posting may be sporadic until or unless I can come up with the money to get the internet turned back on. Just a heads up.
I'll try to schedule posts if I can get to a hotspot.

Update:
I'm back. For now. Things aren't going well, financially. That's not news. Donations and subscriptions are down to about half what they were just a few years ago. Either the economy is tanking, or my value is declining. It is what it is, and I'll keep looking for new sources of income-- so far, nothing has clicked.

Again, I'll beg: if you use Medium, PLEASE "clap" for my posts there. Just a few claps gets me enough money to help me out-- and each post can be clapped for, by each individual, 50 times. But no one claps. I got 2 cents from Medium last month. Yes, the site is wildly leftist. If my posts there would get a little notice, maybe that could shift a little. If not, at least it would help me out monetarily

.

Always on-duty

The theft-funded molesters of The Blue Line Gang are "special". They are expected to ignore all "no guns" signs because they "have to" remain armed while on duty. It is their job; their responsibility.

The thing is, that's not special at all.

It is YOUR duty and responsibility to remain armed at all times, too. In fact, your duty and responsibility are much more fundamental than theirs. Their "duty" only comes from a "job" and a paycheck; yours comes from the fact that you are a sovereign individual. The buck stops with YOU.

As long as you are on duty-- and it is your never-ending duty to defend life, liberty, and property-- it is your responsibility to be armed. You are never off-duty, and you can't escape your responsibility.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Looking in the mirror, I see...

I am conservative, but I am not a conservative.

I am liberal, but I am not a liberal.

I am a conservative in that I believe there are some things from the past-- some values-- which need to be conserved. Including such liberal values as true generosity and compassion.

I am liberal in that I value liberty for ALL and want it spread to everyone. That was once something liberals stood for.

Not so much since they re-branded as "progressives".

For that matter, I am progressive, but I am not a progressive.

I am progressive in that I believe in progress. I believe progress is necessary and good. I do not believe giving our enemy, the State, more power is progress. I think it is quite the opposite. I see those who want to give the State more power as backward throwbacks. As Proglodytes.

It's funny how words get stolen, perverted, and end up meaning the opposite of what they once meant. It's how we ended up with "conservatives" who want to trash things worth conserving, with tight-fisted, thieving "liberals", and with regressive "progressives".

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

You can solve problems or play politics

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 22, 2018)

When you imagine solving some problem, what kind of solution do you envision: permanent or political? Win-win or win-lose? How would you rather fix things? Permanently and where everyone wins, or politically where someone wins at the expense of others who are harmed?

If you choose the political option, those you harm will keep trying to turn the tables. They may claim to only want to stop the harm they are suffering, but when they get the chance they'll repay everything they suffered, with interest, and the problem will keep coming back.

This shows the difference between using the economic method to fix things or the political method to kick the can down the road a ways.

Sometimes you'll even run into someone who doesn't really want a solution. Often, as in the case of crime, they profit too much off the problem-- financially or politically-- to want it gone. This is behind much of the resistance to ending both drug prohibition and "gun control". A solved problem makes political power evaporate. Certain people fear this happening.

But why hand your destiny to sociopaths? Work around them. Ignore them. Shut them out of the conversation. Find solutions in spite of their stubbornness.

True solutions will never violate natural human rights nor stand in the way of exercising those rights; of living your liberty.

I can't respect those who believe your rights and liberty are subject to their opinions (which they'll call "laws"), and who back their opinions with threats of violence (known as "law enforcement"). I don't understand this type of thinking.

Your right to live in liberty doesn't scare me, because liberty is self-regulating. You can never have too much liberty since you never have the right to violate others. Your liberty to do anything you want stops where the other person's rights begin. No outside force, beyond self-defense, is needed.

You only get the liberty you respect in others. If you don't respect the rights of others, you seem to be giving others permission to ignore your rights, too.

If I invite you into my home or business I'm never going to ask you to leave your rights at the door. If I'm afraid of what you might do, why invite you in? It doesn't make sense.

Liberty can solve so many problems, but you have to want the problem solved before you'll consider it. How about you? Do you want to solve problems, or would you rather keep doing politics?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Defense against the Dark Arts (of Archators)

Those who are against you owning and carrying effective weapons, and using them to defend life, liberty, and property, like to pretend the bad guy is your ethical equal. That his death, as a consequence of his attack on you, is some sort of tragedy.

For an anti-gun bigot to say that using a gun in self-defense "costs a life" makes it sound as though you traded a random innocent life for your life. As if, one day for no apparent reason, you feel threatened so you go out, find some little kid who is minding her own business and kill her as she sits at her "unlicensed" lemonade stand so you can live. It's not like that at all. (That's more along the lines of how The Blue Line Gang operates.)

Instead, in such a case, someone has chosen to show you they don't value your life. I would say they also don't value their own life as much as they value their desire for attacking you or taking your stuff. They are trading their life for their desire to violate you. They decided on the "game", they know the rules, so the outcome is on them when it doesn't go how they'd like.

It's not that they "lose their right to self-defense" once they attack you. Rights can't be "lost". But their right to self-defense doesn't do away with your right to self-defense, your right to not be molested, and your right to not have your property rights damaged-- at their hands. In the current circumstance, chosen by the archator, you have the biggest stack of rights at stake. I hope when the smoke clears the archator is on the losing end. Every time. If fairness were a feature of reality, that's how it would be. Since it isn't, you need to do all you can to stack the deck in your favor.

The bad guys, including the anti-liberty bigots, aren't going to cut you any slack.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Let me see your ID first"

Cody Wilson's situation really bothers me. Aside from the ridiculously statist "age of consent" stuff which goes against biological and mental reality (not discounting the real age of consent which is going to vary among individuals, and probably isn't any of your business to determine for someone else).

One thought that keeps running through my mind is that believers in the State must expect everyone to swap "government-issued ID" when they meet (and be able to tell if it is "real"), just in case anything happens later on. Maybe they believe the State should issue "Approved for Sex" cards, with age restrictions on which partners you're allowed, of course. Otherwise you are going to have to rely on someone's word, and people lie (and believe lies) when they really want something. And you can't always rely on what your eyes tell you about someone's age.

Years ago, there was a mom and daughter who regularly came into the pet shop where I worked. Both of them flirted with me a lot, and I flirted back. It was all completely innocent, but I really did like them both and thought they were both very attractive. I think "hot" was the word which came to mind.

One day they were in the shop and the daughter told me it was her birthday. I told her "happy birthday!" and asked how old she was.

I had always figured she was 16 or 17; maybe a bit older. She certainly looked and acted like she was.

She said, "I'm 12".

I was totally shocked and didn't believe her, but her mom confirmed it. Maybe her mom was lying in order to play a joke on me, but if so, she never admitted it.

So, all the time we had been flirting, she had been 11 or younger? The other store employees gave me a lot of good-natured ribbing over that-- having overheard the whole thing. But they admitted they thought she was much older, too. I should be thankful the pair of them never offered me a threesome.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Pockets full of lint

I'm terribly low on funds. My side-hustle isn't exactly popping at the moment. Well, none of them are. It's not an emergency, but if you've never donated or subscribed but feel led to do so, or if you have once upon a time and would like to again, this would be a good time.

But if not, that's OK. Relevant links below and to the right.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Stupid Against-ocrats

Being against guns is as stupid as being against candles.

Both are tools.
Both are mostly used for good (in non-political hands).
Both are useful and can save lives.
Both can kill if misused.
But being "against" either one is stupid.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

When a "child" isn't a child

Cody Wilson, of 3D-printed gun fame, has been targeted by the State for "sexual assault on a child". This is a lie.

If it's consensual, it isn't "assault". If it's a business deal-- a trade-- it is mutually consensual. He is said to have paid her for sex; that makes it a trade.

But then we get to the part that trips up even supposed liberty-lovers: that she is claimed to be a child.

The girl in question is said to be 16 years old. Very few 16 year-olds are still a child. I doubt very strongly this girl is one of those rare exceptions.

Biologically, childhood ends at puberty; very few people are still biological children at 16 years of age. Mentally it ends somewhat later-- some people never mature-- but it would be a rare person who is still a mental child at 16.

That doesn't mean the person who is no longer a child is an adult.

To pretend a person is either a child or an adult is dishonest. No, adolescents are not adults, but neither are they children. They shouldn't be treated as children, nor considered children.

Biologically, adulthood is reached at about 25 years of age, when the wisdom teeth mature and the prefrontal cortex of the brain finishes developing. The brain development also indicates mental adulthood, and (hopefully) emotional and psychological adulthood. Thank goodness the puritans of the State haven't (generally) insisted on biological adulthood before considering a person to be an adult.

So, maybe the 16 year-old in question wasn't an adult, but she almost certainly wasn't a child, either.

It is said she was a prostitute, and like it or not, that's going to be the end of mental and emotional childhood no matter the biological reality. This is one reason child prostitution (and child sexual abuse of other kinds) is so horrific-- it forces the end of emotional childhood much too early.

I know people want a clear line in the sand, and this causes them to buy into the State's convenient lie that under 18 equals "child". That's no excuse; it is intellectual and ethical laziness.

If Cody Wilson did what he is accused of, it wasn't smart. But neither was it "assault" or "sex with a child", and it shouldn't be a crime.

This is purely a politically motivated charge, and was most likely a set-up from the beginning. Stop supporting Wilson if you feel you must, but don't turn on him like the true perverts of the State want you to.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Scared" yet?

I've been accused from time to time of using "scare quotes" around certain words; words which I feel are generally misused or are nonsense. Like "taxation", "good" cops, "immigration", or "common good".

But those quotation marks are not there to scare you; they are there to illustrate my sarcasm. They aren't "scare quotes", they are sarcastiquotes.

The very name "scare quotes" is dishonest and biased-- an attempt to shame writers into going easy with the truth. Not gonna happen. I'm going to continue to use sarcastiquotes to illustrate the dishonesty of others.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

You are being watched

Don't assume the cops don't know things about you just because you are quiet and peaceable.

About 19 years ago, around half-past dusk, in an average town in a nearby state, I was riding in the passenger seat while my wife-at-the-time drove. Pulling a particularly blatant act of poor driving in the middle of town, she made a left turn and cut off an approaching coproach. She seemed completely oblivious when I mentioned this error. Unsurprisingly, the gangster in question made a turn, followed, and stopped her.

As he did the "your papers, please" shakedown on her, he bent over to get a better look at her passenger-- me. He shined his flashlight in my face for a moment and uttered words that still echo in my mind to this day. He said "You're that guy with all the guns."

I am not certain now if he actually added something to the effect of "we better keep an eye on you" or if my memory has added that in the years since. I feel it was implied, if not stated. I never said a word during the encounter.

I seriously doubt I had more guns than the average person in the area. I did usually open-carry around town, and I dressed "uniquely", yet I had never been involved in any "incident" of any kind. I was quiet and reserved, and never really made waves. I did know people who were more outspoken, though. I didn't yet spend my time writing anything more than the rare letter to the editor (2 or 3 over the years) and didn't even have an email address, much less a computer. I hadn't bought any guns since I had moved to town (as far as anyone in government knew, anyway). I was still months away from being surrounded by the police due to a lack of communication at the elementary school. Yet, he recognized me as "that guy with all the guns".

Was he joking? Did he mistake me for someone else, as unlikely as that was? Did he know something about me that I still don't know how he knew? Either way, it was a moment of paranoia made real for me.

How would this event have turned out in today's "shoot first, ask questions if he survives" police state? Regardless of the intent behind the comment, it was just another brick in the wall that made me the delightful anarchist you see before you today.

(An edited re-run from September 2009)

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid. Or not...

Seeds on fertile soil

Sometimes... well, most of the time... advocating liberty seems like a losing battle.

Socialism, the politics of envy and theft, is getting more and more popular among the ignorami-- almost no one notices the lies told to promote it.
Hatred of migrants is over-the-top, and those who don't hate the migrants excuse horrible things done by a tiny few of them just because they feel that they can do no wrong since they are "victims" of one thing or another.
There are too many cops (one is too many) and they are growing more brutal, whiney, and entitled every day.
And the only "solution" people talk about for any of this is v*ting.

Some days it drains all my energy and makes me want to give up.

But, occasionally something turns that feeling around.

I've told a few select people about this already, but because of the personal nature of it I haven't spread it around too much; I don't want to violate anyone's privacy. A couple of months ago, out of the blue, I got a nice private message on one of those Evil Socialist Media Platforms.

The writer doubted I would remember him (but I did). We'd had an online conversation about 14 years ago (I remember where I lived at the time, and that was a time of great turmoil in my living arrangements), only for a couple of days. He was a Republican and a Constitutionalist. I pointed out that Republican politicians didn't obey the Constitution any better than the Democrat politicians, and that if that was what he really valued, he should probably be a Libertarian instead. Note that I don't remember ever saying I thought the Constitution was a good thing, or that I was a Libertarian Party supporter (although I was closer to both of those positions 14 years ago). I was just pointing out something I thought would better fit him, personally. And I always love to see people abandon the DemoCRAPublicans for any reason.

But he didn't seem to like it much. In fact, I felt like he really hated me. So I let it drop. I actually did think about him a few times over the years, feeling bad that he seemed to hate me. But I didn't expect to ever hear from him again. So to say his message surprised me would be an understatement.

Because in his message he admitted that back then he thought I was a wacko, but he no longer did. He said he becomes more libertarian every day, and so does his wife. He still has a ways to go, but that's one person I would have never dreamed would budge an inch.

So, you really never know who will hear you and let it fester in their mind until it sprouts and takes root. Keep scattering the seeds. Some WILL make a difference.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

It's time to free all speech again

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 15, 2018)

Last week some of the biggest social media corporations colluded to silence a voice they didn't like.

No matter how you feel about Alex Jones and his Infowars media brand, this wasn't good for free speech. It was the escalation of a war which has been building for some time, where voices running counter to the political biases of the dominant social media empires are being silenced.

If your argument is so weak you feel the need to silence the other side rather than respond with your own well-thought out points, then your opinions are probably wrong. Censorship is a loser's move.

It's not just voices from the political right which have been silenced. Libertarian activists are being targeted as well.

Private companies have the right to kick anyone off their platform for any reason. However, is a corporation, which has sought and received special privileges from government, still a "private company"? Corporations, through this special relationship with government called "crony capitalism", have become, in all but name, a branch of government. They use this relationship to encourage legislation which makes entering their field too expensive for most newcomers, thus stifling competition. In exchange, they sell your data to government.

Considering this special relationship, they should be held to the same standards the rest of government is supposed to be held to, which includes the responsibility to abide by the Bill of Rights even when they don't agree with it.

If they don't like the deal, they can remain private and stay out of government's bed.

Even if you still believe they have the right to censor those they don't like, in spite of this special relationship with government, it wasn't smart. If it becomes acceptable to silence voices you don't like while you are in power, you make it seem OK for others to do the same to you once the tables are turned.

What if they use liability as their justification? It's a valid concern, due to tyrannical government overreach. Government has already prosecuted a website owner for things others published on the platform, in the case of the Silk Road site, and has threatened to do the same to others. It's a dangerous, speech-stifling situation.

I'm never in favor of government regulating companies, even when they do things I don't agree with. Nor am I afraid of hearing dissenting voices. In fact, they often help me put my own thoughts in order. It's time to free all speech again.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

The day cops surrounded me

(This is a re-run from August, 2008)

I used to give a presentation on the mountainmen of the Rocky Mountain fur trade each year for fourth grade at the local elementary school. I went to the classroom in full mountainman gear and talked about the history and the tools. I gave a few demonstrations to the kids, such as showing how to set a steel trap, start a fire without matches (both with flint and steel and with a bow drill; the kids' favorite), and how to load a muzzleloading rifle.

For years, there was no problem. Then one year my wife-at-the-time needed to use the car during my presentation. "No problem", I thought. I was mistaken.

That day I finished my program and went to the parking lot to wait for my wife to arrive. I sat down upon my blanket-roll near the school sign; holding my rifle upright at my side. After a few minutes I saw a cop car drive past slowly, but the cop inside didn't look at me. I thought that was odd. He pulled into a driveway and turned around and parked. A minute or so later, another cop car pulled up a little ways from me and also parked along the street. He sat in his car for a minute before getting out and approaching me with his hand on his gun. Out of the corner of my eye I could see the other cop now approaching from behind. I don't appreciate being stalked.

The cop greeted me politely and asked what I was doing. I explained the situation while the other cop stood off and watched. Then the principal of the school made an appearance. We explained what was going on to him, mentioning the teacher who had arranged my program. He knew nothing about it. A passing motorist had reported an armed person at the elementary school. Had I had mayhem in mind, the event would have been over by the time the cops arrived.

The teacher later apologized to me for forgetting to inform the principal of my presence. As it turned out, that was the last year I did the program since I moved away several months later. Amazingly, I survived to tell my tale, but for months townspeople would tell me they saw me sitting there between the two cops, looking rather unhappy.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Encounters with bureaucRats, episode 2

The bureaucRatic mind-- if it exists at all-- is a small, rigid thing. It has no capacity to deal with things it doesn't already understand.

My first car was an electric car-- yes, I have always been an environmentalist. When I went to the DMV office to register the car, they had their standard questions about the vehicle. But the answers weren't standard.

The DMV-bot asked the make and model. She'd never heard of either the make or model, but she dutifully typed that into the form. Then came the really confusing (to her) parts.

She asked how many cylinders the car had. Well, it was electric, so it didn't have any cylinders. That's not how electric motors work. I said "Zero". The woman said she couldn't put that- it had to be 4, 6, or 8 cylinders. I told her again it doesn't have cylinders. She just looked skeptical and moved on.

Next question: What fuel, gasoline or diesel? I said-- for the third or fourth time at this point-- that it was electric. It didn't use gas or diesel; it had no fuel tank. Only batteries and a charger. I plug it into an extension cord. Its fuel is electricity. That's all.

I got blank stares from her. She typed, collected money, and when she handed me the registration I discovered I had probably the world's only 4 cylinder electric car that ran on gas. I just laughed and showed it to people to illustrate the stupidity of those people.

And people wonder why I consider the bureaucRatic mind to most likely be a myth.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Losers become cops

Just in case you ever wondered what kind of damaged person would ever want to become a cop, here is the answer in full color.

Pathetic "Jay Gee" is bullied (and not too terribly literate), so he (?) intends to grow up and turn the tables. How often do you think he'll fear for his safety, because he just wants to make it home at the end of his shift?

Cops are losers, and losers become cops.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Encounters with bureaucRats

I recently told you about the town "tax" collector's issues with me when I owned a shop. Here are a couple of earlier encounters which happened when I was only an employee.

This was at a pet store. Every year the State tried new ways to make it too hard to comply with all the rules in an attempt to shut down pet stores. One year the State decided that customers who bought certain critters, like parakeets and iguanas, needed to fill out a State form. We also had to give them a State-mandated sheet detailing all the ways the animal could infect them with horrible diseases. So I would hand the customer the sheet and tell them "This lists all the reasons the government doesn't want you to have this pet. They require me to give it to you as a warning. You can read it or throw it away." Then I'd pass them the State's record book and say "The State says you have to fill out this form. I won't know if you use your real name." Most customers just laughed. I sold several pets to Mickey Mouse over the years.

Another time an inspector from the state department of agriculture came visiting. The shop owner wasn't there at the time. I can't remember now what his issue was, but he was trying to make me do something I wasn't going to do, possibly because it wasn't my store. (I wish I could remember what it was!) I just kept saying "no, I won't". He didn't understand why I wasn't bending over backward to comply. He made the mistake of saying he just had to enforce the law, and I wasn't against laws, was I? That BalderdaSh didn't improve my desire to cooperate with him. He ended up fleeing to the front steps, to talk to his boss on the phone, trying to figure out what to do about someone who wasn't in awe of his "authority". He ended up driving 200 miles back to the state capital, empty-handed. I guess he should have waited for my boss to be there.

I'm not rude. But if you try to threaten or push me using "laws" as your justification, it may not go according to plan.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Happy" Blowback Day.

We were told they hated us for our freedoms (instead of for the US government's crimes). Now those freedoms are all but gone; attacked and shredded by the US government, continually, without a break for the past 17 years.

So, do they love us now? If not, that must not have been the real reason.

Government is the only terrorist organization capable of doing such society-encompassing harm. So why do "we" continue to negotiate with these terrorists? Why do we continue to comply as they criminalize more and more liberty? Why doesn't everyone see them as the true bad guys? They'll never stop until they are stopped. Why would they? They are getting just what they wanted.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Must be "opposite day"

I read a blog post where the act of v*ting was characterized as "prosocial" behavior.

Really?

When someone v*tes they seek to exert political power over others. Either to get a cut of other people's stolen property, to impose "laws" which violate the life, liberty, and property of other people, or to choose someone to rule over them. That certainly sounds like antisocial behavior to me.

So where does this idea that v*ting is "prosocial" come from?

Maybe it comes from the idea of "civic duty". Where you are expected to participate in, or at least endorse, society's worst behaviors so that no one else feels bad about the nasty things they do to others. Or, at least that's how I see it.

I know I absolutely don't see v*ting, or otherwise participating in politics, as "prosocial" in any way.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Just Believe? Even if you don't really?

In a list of things you can control, I saw "What you believe" listed.
I don't believe that's even slightly true.

I don't think belief is a choice.

If I truly believe something, to change that belief I'd need reasons. Reasons that change what I believe. Reasons showing why my belief is wrong. Not just reasons to believe differently. I could pretend to believe differently, but it would be a lie.

I can't believe I have a right to archate just because it would be convenient, or because I can't get what I want otherwise. I believe if I have no right to do something I shouldn't do it. Unless something changes my belief, that's what I believe. And the belief doesn't change just because I choose to change it. I would know I was only lying to myself.

It's like if I "decide" to believe rain is dragon urine falling from the clouds where the dragons live. I know that's not true, so I couldn't really believe it even if I tried to convince myself I do.

Same thing with the "(political) government is good" lie. I know it's a lie. I believe it's a lie. I can't believe what I don't believe, even if it would let me fit in better. My beliefs aren't arbitrary. Are yours?

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

3D printed guns might actually help

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 8, 2018)

Why all the uproar over 3D printed guns? It has always been fairly easy to make guns at home. Having the computer code available online won't change anything. People enjoy weeping, wailing, and gnashing their teeth over the silliest things.

For now, 3D printers are too expensive for common muggers to bother with; guns are cheaper to buy and easier to steal. Even if thieves start stealing 3D printers as well as guns, I doubt it will be much of a problem. Few burglars would be smart enough to figure out how to operate 3D printers-- stupidity, along with poor impulse control, being an almost universal trait of thieves.

3D printed guns will end up being occasionally used in crime. It's inevitable. Yet, this will usually be a case of the 3D printed gun being used instead of some other gun, not a crime which wouldn't have happened without 3D printed guns.

Those who believe they should control the content of our pockets are worried these guns, being made of plastic, might end up in places where they don't want us to have them. Even if plastic guns were undetectable (and they aren't), the ammunition isn't. Without ammo, any gun might as well be a brick.

I see this as evidence that 3D printed, non-metallic ammunition is the next essential innovation. At least until reliable electronic weapons, like those in science fiction, are perfected and available for common use.

Home-printed guns may have signaled the death of "gun control" as anything other than the tantrums of political control freaks. I can hope.

As long as government employees are armed, guns will be in the wrong hands; an angle which isn't even seen as an issue by those most adamant about disarming the rest of us. Tell that to the homeowner killed by the responding police officer in Aurora, Colorado last week. If he had survived the encounter he might disagree.

I doubt 3D printed guns will ever become anything more than an imaginary crisis for those who don't want you able to resist them doing things to you which you wouldn't permit if you were properly armed. Murder will still be illegal for most of us. As will theft. It will still be (unconstitutionally) illegal to sell printed guns without government approval. If laws could solve anything, there would be no crime. Since they can't, 3D printed guns aren't going to do any harm, and they might even help.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Upsetting thieves with truth

Unwanted

Years ago, long before I had a blog, I had a retail shop. I hated robbing my customers in the name of "sales tax", but if I didn't, armed goons would have come and murdered me. Insanity, I know!

But every time I wrote the check to the town's "tax" collector, on the memo line I wrote something like "sales 'tax' extortion for August". The "tax" collector called to question me about that-- or to whine-- a few different times. It drove her mad.

I wasn't rude to her, I simply said I didn't appreciate being recruited to rob my customers on her behalf-- that if she wanted to rob them she should go do it herself.

She would object, "but it isn't robbery, it's a tax!" Same thing, I'd tell her.

She would sputter, "but don't you want police and paved roads?" No, I really don't. There's nothing the stolen money buys that I want that bad. Can I stop robbing my customers now?

She actually showed up in person once, just to get me to stop writing that on the checks. Why did it even matter to her? I paid the extortion, but I never stopped editorializing on the memo line.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

If you're only decent when threatened...

Then you aren't really decent at all!

I can get along with others without going to war. Even when I don't agree with them. In the absence of government, I'll not change into a monster. And I believe I have a good chance of fending off those rare pathetic losers who do.

I'm not that different from others, am I?

So why does everyone seem to always assume war, murder, and aggression are the default if there's not someone acting as a Big Parent to make them behave?

I think it tells a lot about a person if they believe that without a big bully making them behave, they'll go all "Lord of the Flies" or Mad Max on everyone around them.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Why all the socialism?

If it seems I've been talking too much about socialism lately, there's a reason.

I've been listening to someone who deeply believes in government. Believes it has the best interest of the people at heart. Believes it has a place in society. Believes it is necessary and usually good, even if it sometimes messes up. It's painful for me. The mental gymnastics it takes to believe such nonsense staggers my mind.

It's disappointing because I usually enjoy listening to Scott Adams, but his recent socialism kick is extremely misguided and dishonest. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it, just like right is right, no matter who you're listening to.

He constantly talks about how it isn't helpful to call anyone a socialist, not even if they are loudly advocating socialism. (I consider most Republicans to be socialists, too, promoting their own vile socialist programs, so I'm not picking on Democrats. To me, they are all DemoCRAPublicans.) As I've pointed out, you can call me an anarchist and it doesn't bother me, because that's what I am, and I know it's the right way to live. There's no shame in being called what you are if you really know it's right.

But he also constantly conflates socialism with sharing. It's bound to be on purpose. "You're not against sharing, are you?" Every time some socialist idea comes up in his podcast, he'll call it "sharing", totally ignoring the coercive nature of the act. In a recent example he claimed Uber is sharing, just like socialism, so if you're opposed to socialism, you must be against Uber, or any sharing. No, it's not the same at all. Uber is mutually consensual and voluntary, and you won't be forced to pay for my Uber ride. If I decline to use Uber, an Uber driver won't come to my house and murder me for not participating.

And that's the difference between ethical behavior and socialism. And, yes, ethics matters. It's not only about being pragmatic or utilitarian.

I'm not even against socialist (or even communist) societies as long as they let anyone opt out. I believe they will collapse, but let them. People have to be free to make their own mistakes, even if they die as a result. Otherwise, they aren't free at all. Let the socialists try socialism as many times as they want, but keep your filthy government-- socialist or whatever-- OFF my life.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The truth is too harsh for some to handle

I have come to see that the truth is unwelcome.

Anymore it's "wrong" to call self-avowed socialists socialists. It's not "helpful" to call them something they are proud of being. And their actions and preferences which confirm the label don't matter either. All they are advocating is "sharing"... right? Who could object to that?

It's "wrong" to call clear and obvious theft theft. As long as the thief calls it "taxation", a "fine", "eminent domain", "asset forfeiture" or some other made-up name, calling it "theft" is just being mean to those who support the thieves and their acts of theft. How else do I expect the thieves to survive? (I'd actually rather they didn't.)

It's "wrong" to hurt the feelings of people who live as parasites, because without them... what? Other freelance parasites would replace them?

The truth is "unhelpful". It's not polite. Those who point out the truth are Big Ol' Meanies! They hurt the feewings of the people who are trying to molest people instead of doing honest trade. I have a long history of hurting these people's feelings. But it's their choice. They are free to stop molesting any time.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Voluntary or barbaric?

There are some terribly confused people out there. I've been hearing some ideas expressed lately that show just how bad this confusion is.

Here are some hints that could clear it up, if they'd listen:

If it's voluntary, it's not taxation. It's giving.

If it's voluntary, it's not socialism. It's sharing.

If it's voluntary, it's not political government (the State). It's cooperation.

Taxation, socialism, and political government are not voluntary but are barbaric offenses against humanity. You can't hide this truth by calling the coercive act by the voluntary act's name.

Why does this seem so hard for government supremacists to understand?

Because understanding these simple truths doesn't advance their agenda. It's so much easier for them to have their way with you if you don't understand, either. That allows them to pretend they have the high ground. It allows them to pretend to be the "adult" in the room, scolding you for being hysterical and unreasonable.

Yet, the reality is simply this: Being against the coerced version of something doesn't mean you are against the superior voluntary version. And that's the reality which will be ignored, minimized, and poo-poo'ed if you allow it. They'll demand you allow it in the name of being reasonable and civil. How do you like that? Barbaric behavior as "reason" and "civility". No thanks. I won't cooperate with that nonsense.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

XII

This blog is 12 years old today. Twelve years!

I can't even believe it.

There is a term I've seen repeatedly used to describe this blog: "under-appreciated".
Occasionally I've seen the phrase "undervalued" used instead.

It's nice to hear, but I'm not sure it is true. How can something be under-appreciated? Either it has value and people know it and appreciate it, or it doesn't. I'm not even sure how you could measure such a thing.

It is a nice sentiment, though. And I take it to mean I'm producing content (what a pretentious word!) that people believe is worth more than the recognition I get for it. That's a nice thing to hear.

So, thank you to those who have said that about my blog over the past 12 years. And thanks to all of you for reading and putting up with me.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

New tariffs nothing to cheer about

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 1, 2018)

Some American workers are cheering President Trump's new tariffs. They know not what they cheer. Tariffs are as bad for you and me-- economically-- as taxing corporations. It's a great plan-- if your goal is to economically cripple America.

No one who truly understands economics would ever try to make the case otherwise.

When you tax a corporation, it never pays a cent of the tax, but passes the expense along to the final consumers-- you and me.

A tariff is a hidden tax which makes everything you want to buy cost more. Yes, even the things made in America. When foreign goods are artificially inflated in price by tariffs the American producers have less incentive to keep their prices down. I can't afford higher prices, can you? If you can, why not volunteer to pay more on every purchase without raising prices for everyone else?

I realize the American workers may believe their jobs are being protected by tariffs, but if everything they try to buy with their subsidized paychecks costs more, and less of the things they produce are being bought by consumers who can't afford higher prices, how have they gained anything? It's a comforting suicide pact between the workers and the government. But the government won't keep its end of the bargain.

There is a way to help American jobs-- kill the taxes. All the taxes, by whatever name.

Some people would worry that this starves government of funds it needs to carry out its programs and its mission. I call this a feature, not a bug.

This one act would boost the economy to levels never before imagined. How much more money would you have if there were no taxes on your income, on your purchases, nor on the production of anything you buy? You can't even begin to imagine.

Yes, you would still end up paying for some services you are currently taxed for. So? You're already paying, and paying the most wasteful, unaccountable organization ever created. Wouldn't you prefer to choose between offers, pay someone who provides the service you want, at the price you find comfortable, without being forced to pay for things you wouldn't pay for if someone weren't forcing you? I'll take competition and free choice over a coercive monopoly I'm not allowed to opt out of any day.

Taxes, even when you call them a tariff, always cost the little guy. Support them if you feel you must, but don't expect my help.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

"What if?"

It shouldn't surprise me, but it does, how many people want to rob and enslave others based on "what if?".

Yet, that's what I see every day.

They believe in the DMV's "job" because, otherwise, "what if" someone doesn't know how to drive? Or steals a car? Or doesn't have insurance?

Gotta love those cops, because without them, "what if" some freelance bad guy steals a fraction of what is stolen to support the State? "What if" you tried to use your property in a way the town council decided you can't be allowed to? Or "what if" someone (who isn't a cop) physically attacks you? Or "what if" someone wasn't there to take pictures of your murdered corpse? "What if" you drove as "irresponsibly" as the police do? Who could force you to pay the government for this crime?

Prohibition, anti-gun "laws", speed limits and seat belt "laws", are all supported because "what if" someone got hurt because no one was there to force you, at gunpoint, to do things the State has decided you should do, or to stop you from doing things the State has decided you can be murdered for doing?

To me, it looks like ethical weakness and cowardice. In every case. It's all I see in "laws" or government.

I will never advocate robbing or enslaving you for a "what if". I'm not that pathetic.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Ignorance of "the law"

What's one of the most ignorant things a statist can say? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." That's just about the dumbest thing that can ever come out of someone's piehole.

It's completely wrong. It has zero truth. It has no merit whatsoever. It is a lie told to justify molestation.

Not only that, but police are always enforcing "laws" which only exist in their own minds. If that's not "ignorance of the law", then what is? And they seem to always get away with it, so it must be a very good excuse-- at least for the Blue Line Gang.

Instead, making up a "law" is no excuse. A "law" can never give anyone a real excuse to molest people.

It doesn't matter if it's "illegal" to not wear a seat belt. That "law" is no excuse to stop and rob someone for not wearing one.

It doesn't matter if a particular weapon is "illegal" somewhere, or that carrying it in a certain way is against the "law". The "law" is no excuse to violate the natural human right to own and to carry weapons.

It doesn't matter if it's "illegal" to ingest certain substances. No "law" can ever give someone the excuse to behave as though they own your body.

It doesn't matter if it's "illegal" to fight back against molestation by armed government employees. No "law" can ever abolish your natural human right to defend your life, liberty, or property.

Ignorance of the "law" is not only a great excuse, it's the only excuse needed when the "laws" are almost all counterfeit. Ignorance of ignorant legislation which violates natural law can never be a real crime. Anyone claiming otherwise is looking for an excuse to molest you while pretending to be the good guy. You are not obligated to allow yourself to be victimized by that person.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid. Or not...