I'm not your opposition unless you choose to be mine

As long as you are not an archator-- especially a habitual archator-- I'm not going to actively oppose you.

You may or may not be exactly on my side.
You may or may not have valid opinions and good motives.
Yet, it could be worse.
You could feel it's right to be an archator, or you might just do so without caring about right or wrong. Those would both be worse.

If you do choose to archate I don't give you a pass due to your religion, your job, your need, or any other justifications. I will oppose you, and more.
Yes, I will be judging you, but if you feel you're in the right, what would you care about my judgment?

Nor will I really care what you think of me. The opinions of archators/statists are less important than a mouse's sneeze in a hurricane. Much less. By supporting statism and archation you've devalued your own opinions to the point there's nothing there. It wasn't my decision, it was your choice. You've done it to yourself. You have nothing to complain about and no one else to blame.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Statists are tired of hearing my opinions-- even when they don't

"Anarchy can't work. People need to be governed."

OK. Whatever you say.

Once someone expresses this religious belief there's no point in further conversation. They won't be swayed by reason, logic, evidence, or anything of value. No matter what you say, they'll have a laundry list of objections and clichés-- mostly the same few restated differently so they seem like new scholarly "observations".

It's why I'd rather talk to you.

They are tiresome. Whiney. Willfully blind or at least shortsighted. And they prefer it that way.

Yes, I sometimes learn things from listening to them, but mostly it involves realizing how much effort they put forth to stay inside their tiny bubble of ignorance. The mental contortions they put themselves through! And the really stupid notions they keep accepting and defending-- things they'd never accept about something they weren't so attached to.

I know it's not nice of me to say these things, but I'm tired. Mostly I just want them to stop ordering me around and robbing me. Stop trying to make me act as though they are reasonable or good. Just stay out of my way.

I'm irritated that it seems to be so profitable to lick boots; to be a part of the problem. And it makes one so popular and socially accepted. Sometimes, I admit, I almost wish I could lower myself to their level.

I'm tired of being expected to praise "laws", schools, troops, and cops, and hate "illegal immigrants", independent businesspeople, and drug users... and I'm tired of the eye rolls when I say even the mildest thing which goes against those popular opinions. I seriously don't talk about these things outside of my blog unless someone else brings it up first and expects a reply from me. And then, if I do say anything, I get told they are tired of hearing my anti-government opinions.

It happened again today, out of the blue, when I was sitting silently, wasn't even speaking and hadn't said anything about government (or other archators) all day. Probably just as a way to make sure I still knew I'm not acceptable, in case I had forgotten.

Well, stop praising aggression and theft and stop bringing it up in my presence and you'll never hear a word about it from me. It's honestly not something I often feel the need to discuss face-to-face. But, yes, I will have expressed these opinions at some point in the past, and you might be able to remember that I said something of the sort, even if you don't remember the point of what I actually said.

On the other hand, those around me speak negatively about cops and government way more than I do. But only when they feel these things will negatively affect them personally-- and they seem to feel the effects a lot. They feel that as long as someone else is being governed good and hard, it keeps government busy and off their own backs.

I think this is a self-centered way to think about it. I don't want you or anyone else targeted by these molesters; I don't only think about myself. But they don't want to hear me say it. So I usually don't.

You know, if I hated people I would be a statist. But I don't, in spite of their best efforts, so I'm not one.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Awareness often first step towards liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 27, 2019)

People are often their own worst enemies. They listen to those they should ignore or laugh at while they ignore (or laugh at) those they should listen to. It's always been the same.

Harriet Tubman, the 19th Century abolitionist, is quoted as saying, "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed more if only they knew they were slaves."

It's the libertarian's dilemma. People don't like to notice their chains even when that's about all it would take to break them. It's too painful to admit they aren't as free as they should be, so they don't.

No one can free you; it's up to you to free yourself. If someone takes the chains off of you, unless you make up your mind to be free you'll help put the chains back on the first time you get a little scared or hungry.

You'll enslave yourself because you fear immigrants you imagine taking jobs you don't have and don't want.

You'll enslave yourself to keep a neighbor from doing things they want to do but you don't want them to do. Even when they don't violate you in any way, you'll violate yourself just to control them.

If it makes you angry to be told you aren't nearly as free as you imagine; that your liberty is systematically violated every minute of your life by those who tell you how free you are, here's another quote you need to hear; this one from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Your body is yours; no one has a higher claim to it. If you can be prohibited from ingesting something-- whether it's sugar, Cannabis, or bacon-- you aren't free. If you can be forced to act against your interests when doing what you want wouldn't violate anyone, you aren't free.

The property you've gotten through mutually consensual arrangements with others is yours. If anyone else can claim your property-- through such government actions as taxation, licenses, eminent domain, or even property codes-- you aren't free.

If you won't work to be free-- to throw off your chains-- when it would be relatively safe and easy, what will you do when it becomes hard? Will you resign your children's children to an intrusive, controlling police state? If you go along to get along today, you've already answered the question. You've chosen chains over scary liberty.

Added: Here's the headline this same column was given in the print edition...

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Tortured "complexity"

When someone is about to start doing some mental contortionism in order to try to justify statism, they'll often make the statement, "it's a very complex issue". No, it really isn't. They're lying to try to appear deep and smart and to justify the unjustifiable.

"Gun control" isn't a complex issue. You have no right to forbid weapons of defense to anyone, and you can't delegate a right you don't have.

"Drug legalization" isn't a complex issue. You have no right to forbid the manufacture, possession, or sale, nor the ingestion, inhalation, or injection of substances. You can't magically acquire that right just because you think it's necessary. You have no right to have people do things you have no right to do without asking them to become bad guys. Prohibition is enforced by bad guys, only.

"Immigration" [sic] isn't a complex issue. You have the right to allow (or bar) anyone on (or from) your property. For any reason or no reason at all. You have the right to hire or trade with anyone. Your rights end at your property lines-- the only legitimate borders.

"Taxation" isn't a complex issue. It is theft-- specifically extortion. Nothing can make it something else.

Complex issues" look complex only when someone adds all sorts of twists and turns, bells and whistles, bows and ribbons, and flags and laws. At the base, there's probably a simple ethically right thing to do and hundreds of wrong things to do. They have to tell lies to justify the wrong things-- the statist things.

When someone lies and calls a simple issue a complex issue you can be certain they are looking for ways to justify doing wrong. I've run out of patience with the lies told to harm others.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

World's Dumbest Phrases

It seems an inordinate number of the World's Dumbest Phrases start with one particular word: "our".

"Our government", "our president", "our military", "our CIA", "our elections", "our police", "our borders", "our schools", or whatever. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

If that seems insulting, good. It's intended to be, and a person probably wouldn't be insulted if they didn't know it's true.

Now, "our" isn't always a dumb word to use. If you and I share real-world ownership in something, "our" is a valid word. Suppose we go in together and buy a sword, and we have an arrangement where we both get to use it. It is our sword.

Something doesn't become "ours" just because you want to impose it on me at my expense when I have no use for it. It's also not "ours" if you're trying to spread the guilt around; smearing me by claiming I share in your guilt. If you want it, and it is harmful, but I have opposed it from the beginning-- or even if I withdrew my support when I got smarter-- you don't get to pin it on me. I disavow your ethical and economic disasters. They are your responsibility. Suck it up.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid. And I sure would appreciate getting paid.

"You don't like cops"

The people around me know I don't put up with bullies, thieves, molesters, thugs, or any archators. Yet, they choose to characterize this as "You don't like cops". Really? That's what they get from that? That's what they focus on?

They're right. I don't like cops.

Not because they are cops, but because they are bullies and thieves and molesters and thugs and otherwise nothing but archators. Even if they very rarely do something helpful. There is no such thing as a "good cop"-- no good person can be a cop. Not because they are a cop, but because of what the "job" requires. In the exact same way that there can't be a good rapist.

I don't make exceptions to disliking bullies, thieves, molesters, thugs, or any other archators just because it's part of the "job" they choose to carry out.

To abbreviate this as "You don't like cops" is to miss the entire point.

The only reason I can see that this would be the focal point is that those around me make an exception for behavior they would otherwise recognize as bad, as long as it is carried out by a cop (or other government employee). Things they wouldn't tolerate anyone else doing, they justify when done by a goon wearing a badge. That's kinda pathetic.

-

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

Dumb ideas aren't "progress"

A few days ago I saw someone bringing up the 20th anniversary of the mass-murder by the evil losers at the Columbine kinderprison. They were moaning that 20 years have passed and "what progress have we made?"

They didn't exactly say, but I'll bet I know their idea of "progress", and I'll bet it is what I would consider going backward into deeper slavery.

Because I'm sure their "solution" is more anti-gun "laws" like the ones which not only failed to protect lives, but actually empowered the evil losers at Columbine (and elsewhere in the years since). "Laws" which made sure they could murder without interruption. "Laws" which made it less likely anyone would be able to fight back effectively. "Laws" which make cowering and dying official policy.

It's not the guns. It's never the guns. If you want to solve things like school shootings, but you think it's about the guns you're a moron. Anything you do will only make it worse.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"SPD"- Statist Personality Disorder

I'm seeing more and more evidence that statism is more than a quirk; it's a full-fledged mental disorder.

It will never be officially recognized as such, of course, because most of those who with the power to recognize it also suffer from it. And they aren't likely to recognize their own mental illness as a mental illness, or admit it is even if they realize it.

But that doesn't change the fact that it is one.

Statist Personality Disorder shares a lot of characteristics with Narcissistic Personality Disorder-- maybe it's a subcategory. There also seems to be a lot of neuroticism mixed in.

It's self-centered and self-important; scared and cruel.
It's the temperamental spoiled toddler and the overbearing parent.
Evil claiming to be goodness.
Greed pretending to be generosity.
Insanity posing as reasonableness.

I have no respect for those who exhibit signs of Statist Personality Disorder.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Windstorm reminder to be ready

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 20, 2019)

How much did you enjoy our recent "shingle apocalypse" brought on by the little wind storm? Probably about as much as I did.

I even went out and took a walk in it. I love the feel of gravel pelting the skin of my face, the grit in my teeth, and debris hitting my body. You just can't enjoy this kind of thing in lesser places like Paris, France.

On my walk, I staggered like I was intoxicated, but I told myself it was a good workout, and good practice if I'm ever on a cruise through a hurricane.

The only downside is that my shingles decided this was a good time to go sightseeing. They may be in Amarillo now; so far they haven't found their way home. I'll leave a light on in the window, but hope is fading.

The part I enjoyed most was the fifteen and a half hour power outage. It gave me a chance to light my kerosene lamps, check the function of my flashlights, and use the backup batteries for all the modern electronic essentials. I'm pleased to say they all passed the test with flying colors. It's fun to be a "prepper", especially when doomsday is postponed.

It's satisfying to weather these events without too much trouble just because you were prepared.

Yet, there was one area where I failed myself. I was almost out of firewood, and my gas furnace doesn't work without electricity. I never allow myself to get this low on firewood, but this year I decided to burn up all the old stuff before I got a new load. The coolness of the night caught me off guard. I was lucky this time-- the power came back on just after I lit a fire to warm the house the next morning. It could have been a problem and I have no one but myself to blame.

All in all, it wasn't much of an inconvenience and I enjoyed myself-- as I always do in such situations. I'm not happy about my shingles, though.

I suppose there's really no way to prepare to have the shingles violently blown off your house, other than having money for repairs. I was unprepared there, too.

I hope you were prepared and didn't suffer too much. Just remember: something else will come along. You won't know what or when, so make sure you're as ready as you can be, now. You'll be glad you prepared.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Statism = Nihilism = Statism

I am not a nihilist. I don't want to watch the world burn, and I certainly don't want to be the one to set it on fire.

Yes, I hate and oppose negative things like governments and other archators, but I don't hate and oppose everything. I don't want to destroy society (that's why I don't support political governments). I don't want to destroy most people. I don't want to break windows and loot and flip over cars. Well, at least not those owned by people rather than governments. I hate and oppose those things which are most destructive-- things which nihilists should love. It's why I can't be a statist.

However, I understand the frustration which drives some to a nihilistic world-view. I can't even really blame them for feeling that way, even if I would blame them if they carried it out.

I'm a personal pessimist, but a long-term optimist. My own life may never be what I wish, but in the long term-- maybe longer than several human lifespans-- I think things will keep getting better. I am sad when I think how much horror and tyranny will probably have to pass between now and then.

I do what I can to give people the chance to avoid it, but my voice is small and unimportant. I wish I could get through to people to save them the pain, but most people (including myself) don't learn without pain. It's bad enough when people cause themselves pain, but so much worse when their bad choices cause pain to others.

And make no mistake: statism is a bad, bad choice. No matter how many believe it is normal. No matter how few can see another path. It's a really dumb thing to cling to. Yet, cling they do. They will make the nihilists "happy" with the inevitable results of statism: death, destruction, poverty, slavery, and just about all other bad outcomes. Outcomes guaranteed by people claiming to want to help... by doing the opposite of the right thing.

And yet, even with all that, I'm not a nihilist and could never be one.

-

Writing is my job.

YOU get to decide if-- IF-- I get paid.

Pick a side, Dude!

I was in line behind this very confused inDUHvidual yesterday. I know you probably can't read much from that cell phone picture, but his back window and tailgate opinions almost made me laugh.

On his back window, he had a pro-guns sticker, but his tailgate demanded you support anti-gun bigot Trump (and Holy Pole Quilt) and the anti-liberty (against ALL liberty, including guns) Blue Line Gang. Or maybe he was demanding I support the anti-liberty/anti-gun bigots of the unconstitutional FBI (Federal Baby Incinerators) since his sign actually said: "Support Your American Police Force". There is no American police force (and if there were, it wouldn't be mine) but the FBI comes closest to being a U.S. police force. I don't support those liberty diddlers, either.

Then he had a couple of anti-Democrat signs. The top one called Democrats out by name (or is it by brand?) but the picture isn't clear enough to read and I don't remember exactly what it said. The other one said "Put the Swamp in Jail" with a cartoon donkey after it. Clear enough.

Silly man believes one side is pro-liberty. Against all evidence and reason. But he believes it.

Then he had a Bible sticker in his rear window, and a sign near the bottom of the tailgate warning he has road rage and to get off his a**. This on top of showing clear support for the competing religion, Statism. That boy needs to pick a side.

I'm surprised he didn't have a sign bemoaning the crudity of American culture while having a shiny new set of Made in China truck testicles dangling underneath. Plus he was still missing the obligatory "Support the Troops" magnet.

Yeah, he is one confused puppy. And I'm sure he v*tes, somehow believing he's doing his part to protect "freedom". People like him are more laughs than most sitcoms. But it obviously pays to be Statist; his pickup was a lot nicer than mine.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Assange, Trump, and Obama

Yes, president Trump is doing the wrong thing by not dropping all charges against Julian Assange immediately. Very wrong.

Yet, had Obama done the right thing-- and he had plenty of time and opportunity to do so-- this wouldn't even be up to Trump. He could have ended this years ago. He is every bit as much to blame. This isn't just another Trump crime, it's an Obama crime, too.

Presidents are cancer. Assange is a cure, as are all whistleblowers. Of course presidents are not going to be fans of his.

Coincidentally, and with amazing timing, Ammo.com just sent me a link to their newest: A Historical Guide to the Freedom of Information Act.

It's perverse that government believes they have a "right" to decide whether or not (usually not) to let you know what they are up to, and that your right to know what these parasites are up to needs an "act" to codify it and give them excuses to hide things. The very notion that anyone working for government has any "right to privacy" where their "job" is concerned is absurd. But this is the world of statists we live in.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Problems don't call for policies

Buy the book

The existence of a problem doesn't beg for a policy.

A policy will probably make more problems than it solves, especially if the policy is political in nature. Political "solutions" usually come in the form of legislation; a counterfeit "law". And even if it does somehow manage to solve the problem, it is unethical. Legislation always is.

The statist mind is always assuming every problem needs a policy to address it. When theft and coercion is in your tool kit, that's the lazy way to approach it. Statist "solutions" are a band-aid, not a permanent solution.

If, like me, you rule out those statist approaches automatically you'll need to find real voluntary solutions. Voluntary solutions will be more robust and longer-lasting, too. Partly this is because people are willingly embracing these solutions. No gun in the face is needed. With political "solutions", when the political winds shift the gun often ends up pointing the other direction. All political "solutions" are subject to change every time a new ruler is holding the gun. That's not a real solution. Not a long-term solution. You can do better.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Gear post: Possibles bag for modern life

Click to embiggen

Mountainmen of Old usually carried a bag filled with anything they might possibly need. Not their shooting bag, which carried support items for their firearms, but a separate bag for everything else. We call this the "possibles bag". I learned the benefit of having such a bag long ago, and have adapted this to the modern world. Some hurtful people have called the possibles bag a purse.

My mountainman possibles bag would actually be a nice thing to have in any difficult situation, but there are some modern problems it wouldn't be ideal for solving. So I took a bag which had belonged to an ex-wife, added some inner pockets, and made it my modern-life possibles bag. I have other bags and pouches I can carry in other situations, but they don't get carried regularly (other than the one I carry when I walk to the post office so I don't need to carry the mail in my hand and hang on to it in the wind).

The possibles bag is made of commercially tanned leather and measures 8.5" wide by 7" tall. It has a button made of buffalo horn (probably water buffalo) secured with a thong of braintain buckskin (for durability and strength). The strap is 2" wide and adjustable, but I haven't changed the length in a long time.
The contents are more variable than any other EDC I carry, and I don't actually always have it with me. Just if I go to the next town by car, or sometimes if I know I'm going to be out of the house for a while.

The picture reflects where in the bag the stuff is kept, separated by the specific pocket it is in. If you look hard, you can probably see how it fits in each pocket.

Top left: home-assembled magnifying glass-- USB cord-- Swiss mini-tool-- cheap folding knife-- Sharpie-- pencil.

Middle left: bullet mini-light-- P-38 can opener-- hair clip.

Bottom left shows how the inside of the bag looks currently.

Top right corner: paper clips-- short USB cord-- USB-C adapter in bag-- back-up battery-- notepad-- wet wipe-- 91% alcohol for hand cleaning and glasses cleaning.

Middle right: lighter-- hair ties-- lip balm.

Bottom right is the contents of the main compartment. Moving sort of from the left to the rightish: a bottle handle/strap made of paracord, and another little bit of paracord-- a rag made from a sweatshirt for cleaning glasses-- a bag containing earbuds-- some little emergency flashing lights-- dental floss-- USB car adapter-- more floss-- leather thong-- 2 types of gum-- medicine vial of coffee substitute-- Maglite (LED)-- prescription sunglasses in their case-- another rag made of cotton shirt. (I carry a lot of things for other people, since I can't seem to get them to be responsible for themselves.)

Now, this will probably be the last regular EDC post unless someone asks about something else. I'm not going to go into defensive tools I may or may not carry, nor a few other "tactical" things I may or may not have on my person at all times. Anything else would just be the clothes on my back or trinkets I wear. I hope you've enjoyed the tour.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The Notre Dame Ruins

From news.com.au

A landmark has joined-- probably at least for the rest of my lifespan-- the list of historic ruins around the world. Like the Coliseum in Rome, the Acropolis, and more.

I have no religious or nationalist (but I repeat myself) attachment to the Notre Dame Cathedral, but its destruction saddens me anyway.

I hate to see any historic landmark or artwork destroyed. Whether by accident or intentionally, by stupid politico-religionists. I like old stuff. Oftentimes more than I like new stuff.

I'm glad to see people volunteering their own money to fund the attempt to rebuild it.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Banning real progress

Begging government to ban vaping makes as much sense as begging government to ban car brakes.

No, vaping isn't totally safe. It's safer than smoking.
Your car having brakes won't make driving totally safe. But it's still safer than driving without brakes.

Banning, or heavily regulating, either one is going backward. Kind of like banning (or heavily regulating) suppressors.

That doesn't mean I want government to mandate vaping as an alternative to smoking-- it should be a personal choice. You do your life, I'll do mine.

As a tangent-- I'm always shocked at the amount of dishonesty involved in trying to fool people into joining the prohibitionists (or any statist cause, for that matter).

I saw a "public service" [sic] ad against the JUUL vapers recently, where the woman was horrified that the JUUL "contains as much nicotine as 20 cigarettes!" What is this, standard-capacity magazine hysteria aimed at a different tool?

I'm supposing you don't get all the nicotine the device contains in one inhalation. Even if you did get all the nicotine in one sitting, wouldn't it be just like chainsmoking 20 cigarettes? I've seen smokers do that (OK, I didn't count, but you know what I mean). How many cigarettes come in a pack? 20 or 25? Are you going to shove them all in your mouth at once and smoke them together? I guess you could, but I don't think there's a way to get the entire contents of nicotine from a JUUL in the amount of time it would take to smoke one cigarette-- unless you broke it open or something. But it sounds scarier to lie. Scared people are lemmings you can lead to cry for the privilege of being governed harder. So that's what prohibitionists do.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Theft Day

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

You can't have civil rights both ways

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 13, 2019)

It's interesting to me how many people want their own rights respected, while also wanting other people's rights to be violated.

People who want their rights as gun owners respected often advocate a massive government welfare program, carried out through taxation and land theft, in order to build a border wall which violates the right of association and the right of people to move about freely. They also demand a police state where you can be stopped and checked for your papers.

To justify these violations, they'll insist it's necessary because of other kinds of welfare and because of laws which all but criminalize self-defense and the uninterrupted possession of the proper tools with which to carry it out. To abolish any violations appears unthinkable.

On the other hand, those who oppose a rights-violating border wall want to continue to violate everyone by funding government handouts and usually want the rights of gun owners to be violated more than they already are.

Then you have those who seem happy to violate themselves. They'll demand their right to marry whoever they want to marry, but want government permission-- even licenses-- to do so. Or they want to have their right to use Cannabis respected while they beg for this right to be violated through taxation and regulation.

Did I say it's interesting? I meant disappointing.

It makes one thing perfectly clear: people either don't understand rights or they don't respect them.

People aren't good at consistency, especially when they don't realize that all rights are connected so thoroughly they might as well be one and the same. How can you expect your rights to be respected if you refuse to respect the rights of everyone else? How much do you really value your own rights if you'll let others treat them as privileges?

I want your rights respected, no matter who you are.

I don't want you robbed to fund things I believe are necessary. I don't want your real estate stolen for projects I want. I won't hire armed agents to impose things on you which violate your life, liberty, or property even if I suspect you are up to no good. I won't impose licensing on you.

If you violate me I have the natural human right to defend myself. Laws can't change this. It's one reason I will never compromise on gun rights. I'll stand up for all your rights, consistently. Your rights matter to me. Do they matter to you?.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Are you being played?

I suspect Scott Adams has been playing his listeners. I've suspected this for months, but have only discussed this with one person. Until now.

I'll go ahead and tell you now what I think has been going on.

I believe he is using the technique of "pacing and leading" to get his "conservative" listeners to change their minds on "climate change" (and a few other topics as well). He plays the neutral "voice of reason" with his audience who seems to mostly be Right Statist, but he is much more Left Statist than he lets on. (I so dislike using the terms "Left" and Right" in political discussions, since there's really only Statist or not. Yet sometimes it seems necessary to examine the interplay between these mirror images.)

Back when he first started discussing the topic, I got the distinct feeling this was what he was doing. In spite of his protests of "I'm just looking at the argument-- I don't know because I can't know. I'm not a climate scientist." it seemed to me he was going to take the alarmists' side when it was all said and done. He gave clues to that effect. Because he is a government supremacist, after all.

And this is the general arc of what I've watched happening.

He started off leaning slightly to the skeptical side. So as to agree with the listeners he was (apparently) wanting to influence. Pacing them. He has been slowly and carefully moving slightly more to the alarmist side since then. Two steps forward and one step back. Leading them to where he seems to want them to go.

He has straight out said he uses persuasion (and hypnosis) techniques in his writing and podcasting. He has described these techniques and pointed out examples when they are used by others. Then he uses the techniques on his listeners. He's doing it right in the open. I believe his intent is to influence his listeners to move away from Right Statism toward Left Statism-- maybe to bring them to a center position.

Can I prove it? No. He would say I'm mind reading and there is no written or stated evidence that this is what he wants to do. As I've said before, since I can't read minds I am left with reasoning out what someone is thinking by their actions. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The future will tell.

I still listen to Scott because I find him interesting and because I still find it informative to get insight into the workings of the statist mind. But I try to mentally vaccinate myself against his persuasion while doing so by knowing what he's doing. Who knows if I'm protected sufficiently.

Years ago, when I first started reading his Dilbert blog, he once claimed to be "libertarian, but without the crazy stuff". I pointed out that the "crazy stuff", as he defined it, is also called consistency. Consistency, based in principles. Things which get in the way of a full-on embrace of statism. Once you believe it's OK to govern others and use government violence to force others to do what you want and stop them from doing what you don't want them to do, there seems to be nothing that's too far to justify. This is the road he travels. He expects you to follow. And he may be tricking people into following him.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Statism is...

Statism-- the unhealthy obsession with what others are doing.

It needs to become much more unhealthy... for the statists.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Intellectual"

"Intellectual" is not a dirty word. It disturbs me how often it is used as one.

On the other hand, many of those who are called "intellectuals"-- particularly "public intellectuals"-- are really just government extremists and elitists. They may have degrees and positions, but their position on issues is anti-intellectual. They follow the religion of statism and worship the god of government.

It is not rational to be a statist. It is vulgar to believe people should be governed by others, and to use politics as a tool for this purpose. Any illiterate punk might believe the same thing, but without claiming the "authority" to force everyone to go along.

They believe they know better how to run your life than you do. And they are willing to use government violence to prove it.

These people may be clever. They may be smart in some ways. But their ignorance and emotionalism overwhelm their intellect. They betray their own intellectualism with their belief system. They've decided which is more important to them, personally. And it's a shame.

Think of all the good they could have otherwise done if they are really as "intellectual" as they are made out to be. The world is poorer for having lost their contributions. When you side with darkness and ignorance-- with statism-- your intellect, if any, becomes a net negative to society.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Is it theft?

I've been working on this flowchart to see if I can articulate what theft is, and why certain "legal" acts are not exempt.

If I've missed something or screwed up in some way, let me know.  (I already see that I forgot a "yes" leading to "It's not theft" from the "Would your wish violate anyone's life, liberty, or property?" Just put that one there in your mind.) If you need the picture enlarged to be able to read the boxes, try this.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Mired

I'm discouraged. It's not just finances, which you might suspect, although that's a part of it. It's just that it seems every day brings more difficulties before I have found a solution for the ones I'm already dealing with. And there's no end in sight.

I can handle things like power outages and short-term water shortages. But some things I don't have the skills to deal with very well.

I'm not trying to be a downer, but if I miss a day of blogging (or two) you'll understand the reason. And I'll try to not do that anyway. I'll keep pushing through.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

My provisional support for "borders"

The only legitimate justification for something like a "national border" would be to separate a free territory from any unfree territories around it. In order to protect the people in the free territory from the statists surrounding them.

This situation doesn't exist anywhere in the world because there are no free territories (other than small scale experiments, maybe). America hasn't been a free territory since America was replaced by "the United States" with the ratification of the U. S. Constitution. As long as there are "taxes" and other counterfeit "laws" and politicians in a territory, it is not free. Even though there are differences in degree, there are no differences in kind.

As it is, national borders are rather like the internal fences in a feedlot. They separate different groups of cattle from each other for the purposes of those who exploit them. It's not for the good of the cattle. It would be genius to brainwash the cattle into believing it is.

In our human situation, it's as if the cattle in one pen are getting angry at the cattle who hop the fence instead of focusing their anger at those who manage the feedlot. "We must remain 'King of the Dung Heap' in our little pen!"

Those humans who hop the fence may be hoping to avoid a looming appointment on the kill floor, or maybe they hope for more food on the other side. But if they are looking for liberty they are doing it wrong and looking in the wrong place. Still, I can't blame them for doing something in their desperation, even if it amounts to jumping out of the fire and into the smoldering kindling.

And, the ones who hop the fence and then demand to make this side similar to the side they were desperate to escape are being stupid and are committing evil.

To be clear: nothing excuses archation by fence hoppers. Nor by fence defenders.

Instead of abandoning principles over your "border", why not make this side of the fence free. Create a condition of liberty. That means zero "taxes", zero counterfeit "laws" of any kind, and zero politicians. This side of the fence cannot be a State.

Then, and only then, I'll help you secure the border from anyone who tries to bring a little bit of archation into this free territory-- while welcoming all others (because they couldn't be a problem). Anyone else should be free to cross this border in either direction with no delay or difficulty whatsoever.

Because it's always up to the believers to convince the skeptics, it's up to those who support the "borders" to make this a free territory and convince me to support their walls and fences. If they have a workable plan which doesn't involve me compromising food with poison or liberty with statism, I'll jump right in.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Gear post: Vest and its contents

Click to enlarge

For years I've worn a vest every day. It's my largest holder of EDC items.

My current vest is a Wyoming Traders "buffalo leather" vest. It has lasted far longer than the canvas vests I wore before this one. But unless I can find another on eBay for a good price (the way I stumbled on this one) I'll go back to the canvas vests when this one wears out.

I always like the 4-pocket vests. This one also has an inside pocket on the left side, plus I made a soft leather pocket for the inside right. I hated for that space to go to waste.

You can examine the picture to see what I actually carry inside. Any comments or questions are welcomed.

I swap stuff out fairly often and change the pockets each item is in as I do. I hesitate to do this because I like knowing which pocket to reach in to find what I need, but I have found that I go into the pockets often enough that it doesn't seem to take any time to know what is where.

Now, yes it is hot here in the summer. A vest might seem like a bad choice. Really, it isn't usually an issue. If I'm miserably hot with the vest, I'm not going to be any more comfortable without the vest. I do usually take it off for lawn work, though.

You can probably understand why a metal detector in a doorway represents-- to me-- just an absolute "no-go zone". It's not worth it and I'm naked before I can make it through. I'd say that has only enhanced my life, though.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Theft and coercion shouldn't be your default

I have a few things to add related to my recent post about Scott Adams' mistake about "climate change" not being a "power grab".

You and I know it is.

Scott would say this just shows you are pretending to read their minds. Plus you would be assuming they don't actually believe AGCC is the apocalyptic crisis they claim it is.

My counter to that is that since we can't actually read minds, what we have to do is infer what someone is thinking by their actions. Even if they actually believe AGCC is a life and death crisis, they are choosing the path which gives government more power.

There are paths to solving "climate change", if it needs to be solved, which don't give government additional power. Paths using economic means rather than political means. Why are they not promoting those paths?

You could imagine they don't know those other paths exist. Yet, they do exist and they aren't hard to find or come up with on your own unless you can't imagine solutions which don't involve government. Theft and coercion shouldn't be your default. If they are, there's something wrong with you. Probably what's wrong with you involves at least a bit of power lust, and hoping that the new system will put you a little higher in the power hierarchy.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

None obligated to obey bad laws

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 6, 2019)

While I appreciate when governments express support for natural human rights, I wonder if they really understand the rights they claim to support.

Roosevelt County was recently declared a "Second Amendment Sanctuary" by the county commission. How serious are they?

Are they only concerned with additional violations of the Second Amendment by the state? What about enforcement of all the violations on the books beginning in 1934 with the National Firearms Act?

Do they understand the only purpose of the Second Amendment was to make it a crime to pass or enforce any laws against weapons?
Do they understand that the Second Amendment recognizes and protects the right to own and to carry weapons however you see fit, everywhere you go, without asking permission?
Do they understand this right existed before the first government was established and will still exist unchanged long after the last government has been forgotten?

These are rhetorical questions because I know the answers. I also realize they call the resolution "not legally binding"; a symbolic nothing.

I wonder how seriously anyone would have taken politicians in the 1850s had they "symbolically" declared their region to be a sanctuary for escaped slaves, yet continued to allow slavery in their communities, and allowed slave catchers to brutally capture and return runaways to the individuals who claimed them as property.

You aren't a Second Amendment Sanctuary if you allow even the slightest anti-gun "law" to be enforced on your watch.

To posture over additional infringements if they are "unnecessary, duplicate, and possibly unconstitutional" is to miss the point of the Second Amendment. To try to weasel out of responsibility, claiming you "cannot determine the constitutionality of a law" is dishonest.

As pointed out in a previous column, the Supreme Court stole the power to be the final arbiter of constitutionality-- this power was not theirs to claim. Constitutionality is yours to judge. Would you wait to see if the Supreme Court says the Constitution permits the federal government to murder a peaceable neighbor over the church he attends before you know it's unconstitutional? The federal government will never allow unconstitutionality to stand in the way of established rules and bureaucracies.

No one needs to fight unconstitutional "laws" since even the Supreme Court has ruled that a law which violates the Constitution isn't a law at all, and no one is obligated to obey. All who enforce such non-laws are criminals.

Don't stop at symbolism. Respect human rights; all of them, completely without reservation or hesitation. It's the right thing to do.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Moccasins

I like feeing the texture of the ground under my feet, but I've never enjoyed being barefoot.

The only barefoot walking I ever did of my own free will was walking barefoot through the snow-- sometimes a quarter mile or so through the woods. The ice balls which form between the toes and get uncomfortable are the biggest downside. When my late daughter Cheyenne was small we had a ritual where she, my son, and I would go for a quick barefoot walk in the snow together at least once every winter. More often if she asked. She looked forward to the first substantial snowfall every year for just that reason.

Other than that, I've never been much of a barefooter.

But I love the feeling of walking in moccasins.

For a large part of my life, I wore moccasins almost all the time. Not the padded abominations with rubber soles that some call "moccasins", but moccasins with nothing but one layer of leather between the ground and you. I did always wear socks or wrap my feet in wool blanketing, though, so there was some padding.

I had a few pairs of moccasins in the closet which didn't fit well. I have been wanting a new pair of Navajo/Kaibab moccasins for years. Those seem to work best for me in civilization.

So several years ago when I had some "extra" money (haha!) I ordered a new pair. I ordered them early because we were heading to Colorado and I wanted moccasins to wear while wandering. And I waited and waited, and got excuse after excuse. A month or so after the trip I gave up and asked for my money back, and it was grudgingly refunded.

I just put the moccasins on hold after that. For almost 7 years. Then, a few weeks back, I did some closet cleaning and decided to sell my 3 pairs of old too-small moccasins. They all sold quickly and with that money I ordered (from a different place) a new pair of moccs. I've been wearing them a lot since then and relishing the feeling.

Why did I wait so long?

When you wear moccasins almost exclusively you learn a different, quieter, (and I suspect, more natural) way to walk, where you meet the ground first with the ball of your foot and then roll the rest of your foot to the ground. It's not as awkward as that makes it sound. The heel doesn't end up bearing much weight. In fact, it's also how I walk when in sock-feet, due to years of developing the habit. It's hard to walk this way in modern footwear because the shoe heel gets in the way, so then I usually revert to the clunky modern style of walking where the heel strikes the ground first, then you fall forward onto the rest of your foot. I can still walk relatively quietly this way (which is why so many people have threatened to put bells on me over the years), but it doesn't feel as right.

I had flat feet when I was a kid, inherited from my mother. My feet may still be flatter than normal, and shoes with "supportive" arches feel like there's a golf ball in the shoe, but my feet are not as flat as they were when I was in my early teens, before I started wearing moccasins. Could use have strengthened the muscles and ligaments of my feet over the years? My mother has only worn shoes with good arch support and her feet are as flat as it is possible for feet to be. I don't know if there's a correlation or not, but it's just data to ponder.

Footwear is a personal thing. I'm sure the preferences are completely subjective. I wear stove pipe boots when I'm going to town or I know I'll be walking on abrasive pavement. But for the sheer pleasure of having feet, I just really love moccasins.

Note: The picture shows my new Navajo moccasins on the left and my old mountainman moccasins, which I made from braintan buckskin, on the right. I don't wear the mountainman moccs in the modern world for multiple reasons.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Giving up on alchemy

A show I was watching on Netflix, showing an alchemist at work, gave me an idea.

I could be wrong, but I suspect alchemy gradually evolved into science because of alchemists keeping the stuff that worked and tossing out the stuff that didn't. The magic failed, but the occasional experiment succeeded, It was a process. No one intended to abandon alchemy; it just happened over time.

I can even imagine some people clinging to hope, still searching for the Elixir of Life, the philosopher's stone, or a way to (easily and cheaply) turn lead into gold, as others were pursuing the more realistic natural sciences.

In a parallel way, politics is alchemy; libertarianism is science.

I can see how politics slowly evolved into libertarianism over the centuries as smart people tossed out the stuff which didn't work and kept doing the stuff which did. Getting closer to anarchy with each winnowing. I believe the Tao Te Ching shows some early faltering steps in that direction from around 2600 years ago. It takes time to get things right.

Yet, there are still a lot of delusionally hopeful alchemists still searching for the best kind of government, the right people to run it, and the law which will solve a problem. The shocking thing is that anyone takes them seriously.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Ammo.com's Not-So-Wild West

It has been stated before, particularly in The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry Anderson and P.J. Hill (which is also referenced in the following piece), but the "Wild West" was more peaceful (and anarchic) than any modern region.

Ammo.com presents a good overview of the topic, as they often do.
Find it here:
The American Old West: How Hollywood Made It “Wild” to Make Money & Advance Gun Control

Personally, I think I'd rather live in the Hollywood version of the "Wild West" than in modern America. But that's just me.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Red flag laws"

The only reason it looks to anti-liberty bigots like "red flag laws" are needed is because of the "laws" which make it harder for individuals to defend themselves from evil losers.

Again, as in so many cases, too much government gives an "excuse" for even more government. At least, the dumb people see it as an excuse.

I see it as a reason to get rid of the "laws" which caused the problem in the first place.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Sorry, Scott. "Climate change" IS a power grab.

On a recent podcast, Scott Adams almost had a meltdown when confronted by the evidence that many of his listeners believe "climate change" hysteria is all about a power grab by those promoting it. He says this means people have been hypnotized by the media they get their news from.

There's a flaw in his belief: I don't partake of the "news", and the "news" I accidentally get exposed to is from all over the statist map. I also don't know whether AGCC is real, whether it is a net negative, or anything else about it-- other than the fact it doesn't justify violations of life, liberty, or property by any government.

Yet I do know he's wrong to deny "climate change" is about a power grab, and here's why.

He makes the mistake of insisting that someone show him the one person who is seeking to consolidate his or her power using the excuse of "climate change" through something like the "new green deal". That's looking for the wrong thing.

Every "law" increases government power. This means any new "law"-- no matter what it's about-- is a power grab for the whole collective known as "government". Any individual who has hitched their wagon to that coercive collective is going to gain power with each new "law". Of course, any individual connected to government, who lusts for power, is going to advocate for something which will increase government power and will, therefore, increase the individual government cog's power. Maybe not to the point of that one person being the King of Earth, but enough to cause that person to advocate for the new "law". In the hope of gaining power. That's a power grab.

It's neither mysterious nor a conspiracy theory. It's human nature and the nature of the political means.

Added:
He came back the next day and said that obviously, all government is about power, so calling "climate change" a power grab is the same as literally saying nothing.
Nice backtrack... not.

I enjoy his stuff when he's honest, but he's such a flaming statist he can't even see the statism he floats around in.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Gear post: My first EDC

How did I get into the habit of carrying "gear"? Well, let me tell you.

I've always carried a pocket knife, since first grade. Always. That's kind of the foundation to build upon. And I did.

Once I got to high school, I was reading a lot of books on wilderness survival. Most were full of fanciful advice and drawings that looked cool but didn't work in the real world. But they got me to thinking about having some items on my person at all times, "just in case" (...of being magically transported, without warning, into a primeval world?).

I was also spending a lot of time in the woods during this part of my life. A LOT of time, in all weather, at all times of day, even when I was supposed to be elsewhere. This is how I learned which things from the books wouldn't work in the real world: experience.

I began to want a survival kit on my belt. At least I attended kinderprison in an era when I could get away with carrying such things, even if I wasn't "officially supposed to".

I took a metal Band-Aid box (remember those?), sanded off the paint, cut some belt slots into the back so I could carry it on my belt, and filled it with items I had seen recommended in books and that I could imagine needing.

I packed in some plastic sheeting (for a solar still or other things), some cordage, a folding knife (besides the pocket knife I had in a pocket all the time) fishing line, and fishhooks. I put in a lighter, a candle stub, some cotton (for tinder), and other little odds and ends I had seen recommended in one place or another. The stuff was useful, for sure.

A lot of the items actually did come in handy out in the woods, although I soon realized skills were better than stuff. And the metal box was always getting dented and needing to be re-shaped so it would close again.

I've learned so much since then. But sometimes I am nostalgic for the simpler times when I felt I was ready for anything with my Band-Aid box full of "survival gear".

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Bad decisions

A couple of years ago, someone (a "Right" Statist) told me a young person I hadn't seen in years was going to become a cop. I didn't react as expected.

I was expected to be happy and supportive, but you know I wasn't.

I didn't say anything directly unpleasant, just expressed concern over someone I care about joining an aggressive gang of thugs. I was berated for my concern. I was told this person was looking to "make something" of herself-- doing something "for the good of society". All the normal statist selling points.

I said that even if a good person becomes a cop, they are no longer a good person once they put on that badge. They can't be. I said I cared about the person and her family too much to support such a tragic choice. I was scoffed at for saying it was a tragic choice.

And I haven't heard from the person who told me that since then. I don't even know if the young person went ahead with it or not. I don't want to know. The answer might make me sad.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.