I'll be back

I thought I had made it through the squeeze but I was wrong.

I'm going to be without internet for the foreseeable future unless unexpected donations or subscriptions-- above and beyond-- come in. Thank the fireworks stand for the problem.

I had posts scheduled for last week so no days would be skipped. But those have run out and I'm writing this on my phone. I don't have a good way to crosspost from the phone so this won't show up anywhere else other than, maybe, Facebook.

So if you miss my posts for a while you'll know why.
I'll be back.

BALTIMORE IS INFESTED! AND THE GARLIC FESTIVAL'S EVIL LOSER PROBLEM

I guess there's no way to embed a BitChute video, so here's the link.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I've gained one supporter and lost two in the past month.
That's going the wrong direction.
Can you help?

"Eric Garner had it coming"

I've been mulling a recent interaction with a copsucker ever since it happened, and I'm still bewildered by his delusion.

The guy was talking about the proper way to do a chokehold, which made me think of-- and bring up-- Eric Garner.

According to this guy, Eric didn't die from being choked. He died from a heart attack he started having before he was choked.

I have to wonder (if it's even true he technically died of a heart attack) whether he would have had a heart attack if the Blue Line Gangster hadn't been in the process of accosting him. Any encounter with an aggressive, armed gangster is going to be stressful. It can trigger a heart attack-- this much should be obvious to anyone. I mean, I don't know of anyone who would deny that a violent home invasion or mugging could trigger a heart attack in the victim. Why would an attack by the Blue Line Gang be an exception?

The copsucker objected to me referring to the cops as a gang because no "gang" of cops showed up until after Eric began resisting-- before that it was just one cop doing his "job", even if I don't agree with the law he was violenting imposing. And of course, the cop "had to" call backup, because Eric was trying to prevent his own kidnapping... I mean "resisting arrest".

The copsucker claimed it was all Eric's fault because he was a known "criminal" (even though the guy admitted the law he supposedly continually broke was trivial-- selling individual cigarettes without giving the government a piece of the action).

According to this guy, none of it could be the cop's fault anyway because once a cop says you're under arrest he has no choice but to complete the arrest. Even if it kills you. That's how they are trained, so you just go along and sue later if you believe they were wrong. If you survive, that is.

I was reminded of this apologist when I heard Scott Adams say he would have been fine with it if the NYC Blue Line gangsters who had water dumped on them had shot some of the bucket bearers.

Support for cops is like a mental illness. Maybe it is one.

They-- the cops and copsuckers-- are painting themselves into a corner they aren't going to enjoy.

-

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

Government is irrational

Government-- specifically, statism-- is irrational. Let's look at what "rational" means:


adjective:
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible:
a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:
a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid:
The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason:
rational beings. 
5. of, relating to, or constituting reasoning powers:
the rational faculty.

I already see a flaw. "a rational plan for economic development". If it's a plan which involves anti-economics-- politics-- it isn't rational. And you know that's the kind of "plan" they are referring to. This is why I'll check dictionary definitions, but don't automatically trust them. They have a lot of biases included.

But, back to the irrationality of government.

Government, specifically statism, is not "agreeable to reason". If it were, there would be no statists. Instead, it is based on a superstition; a "just so" story written to explain something in a fictional manner to simpletons who are assumed to be too stupid to understand reality.

You can't disprove it with reason because it isn't based on reason. It is based on feelings and wishes. This is why the perfectly logical, reasonable, sensible, ethical statement "taxation is theft" sways so few statists. They are not agreeable to reason.

And the rest of the definition hinges on that first one. Government fails the first one so it, therefore, fails them all.

Government is irrational.

-

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

Illegitimate laws poison society

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 26, 2019)

One way you can tell laws are not legitimate, ethically or morally, is in the way they vary from place to place. Those of us who live near an arbitrary political line-- a state line or a national border-- have the opportunity to notice this more easily than others might.

Something which is legal on one side of the line becomes illegal once you cross it. Without otherwise changing your behavior in the slightest you can go from law-abiding to criminal, by law, simply by pacing back and forth across this imaginary line.

Laws against actual wrongs like murder are less variable. You can't take someone on a road trip to find a place where killing them for a reason other than self-defense is legal. These types of laws are legitimate... and unnecessary. A law forbidding murder doesn't need to exist before you to have the natural human right to fight back and stop someone from committing murder.

A good illustration of the arbitrary nature of laws are the various laws concerning guns.

There is no such thing as an illegal gun or a legitimate anti-gun law according to the clear language of the U. S. Constitution. You'd never know this by looking at the thousands of laws which have been passed and are being enforced by the national, state, and local political class. These illegitimate gun laws create an arbitrary patchwork for travelers to navigate in a fruitless attempt to try to stay legal as they travel.

Laws concerning the substances commonly called "drugs" are the same way. Depending on which side of a line you find yourself, you might be law-abiding or you might be a criminal.

Even kids' lemonade stands are subjected to laws. They remain legal, without permits, in only fifteen states. This is so ridiculous that one thoughtful lemonade mix company has set up a program to help kids pay fines and license fees.

Yet some people still seem to believe if something is illegal it's automatically wrong. This has never been true.

While most laws are illegitimate, you can't safely ignore them. Every law, no matter how seemingly trivial, is a threat to kill you if you are caught ignoring it. This threat isn't usually carried out immediately; those enforcing the law must normally escalate their enforcement attempts a few times before that happens. Yet it does happen.

Do you see the problem? Illegitimate laws poison society. They get in the way of telling right from wrong.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Fireworks stand update.

Well, that turned out even worse than I feared. We lost money on the fireworks stand.

I realize I have a near-magical ability to cause money to flee from my presence, but this is ridiculous. We were told we would "make so much money" from running a stand, by someone who has been running one for 30 years. All the qualifiers cropped up after we were committed.

I had been afraid we would end up not making much, but now that my dad (who was actually running the stand) has gotten the check from the fireworks company, we discover that they didn't pay us 15% of what we sold, but 15% of their profits on what we sold-- a big difference. One which we have no way of verifying and which wasn't made clear in the paperwork, if it was mentioned at all.

I've already written about the troubles we had. But I was still believing we would end up with a little money out of the two week's work. Nope. It cost us more to run the stand than we got in the end, which was $298 split two ways after some of the operating expenses were subtracted. And those operating expenses didn't include things like the gasoline for running back and forth between home and the stand. Plus they required us to buy other supplies-- some of which we didn't actually need. Almost every issue we had we were told "that's YOUR responsibility".

Well, screw them.

Needless to say, I am not very impressed with Mr. W Fireworks right now. Not impressed at all.

Their lack of support was appalling. Their lack of communication was almost as bad. I don't feel they were honest dealers. If you ever decide to run a fireworks stand, avoid that company. And if I buy fireworks in the future, it won't be from one of their stands.

Update to the update--
We looked over the records we kept and discovered they were claiming we turned in a lot less money than we did. So we contacted them and provided all the evidence they demanded. They finally "discovered" that they hadn't counted our largest deposit, so they sent another check. But, suddenly they decided we had turned in a lot less unsold inventory than we should have, so they deducted that amount from the new check- which ended up being most of what we should have gotten in that check. So we came closer to breaking even, but not a lot. Mr. W Fireworks is NOT an honest company-- either that or they are completely incompetent (or both). Avoid them!

-

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

Homeschooling, ideology, and the "culture war"

Homeschooling, as characterized by someone who prefers "public" [sic] schools: "it's all about ideology first; creating soldiers for the culture war".

Sure. In some tragic cases, that is what is going on.

And how exactly is that different from government schools? What does he think government schools are doing?

Yes, some people use home education to teach their kids harmful lies while insulating them from competing ideas (truth, reality, and ethics). That's bad. They should not do this to vulnerable children.

Yet, government schools do the exact same thing-- even teaching some of the same harmful lies the worst of the homeschoolers are teaching.

If you are teaching your kids to pledge allegiance to a flag, to honor political "authority", that government is good or necessary, you are teaching a toxic ideology to kids too young to know any better-- whether they are being taught at home or in a theft-funded kinderprison.

If you expect these kids to go out and become "good citizens" while promoting your favorite flavor of statism, you've done nothing but indoctrinate these trusting children into your death cult religion. The religion of Statism. You are training them to be soldiers in the culture war, fighting for the side of statism.

It's kind of pathetic to criticize someone for doing the same thing your preferred cult is doing-- even if the details differ a little.

-

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

Europe is better for some

The question was In what ways is living in Europe better than living in America?

I'm not delusional. I am sure there are things about living in Europe that are better-- or that I would consider better-- than living in America. But my subjective list wouldn't be the same as that guy's subjective list. Because much of his list is based on statist lies.

• you get six weeks paid holidays; 

(The cost of which is going to come from somewhere, and it's not out of the employer's pocket. That's just the economic reality. Yes, it is "paid", and you are paying for it one way or another. Sorry to burst your bubble.)

• you get universal healthcare; 

(TANSTAAFL. He means "health care" paid for through theft, and rationed as bureaucrats see fit.)

• you get a proper pension plan; 

("Proper" in whose eyes? Paid for by whom? Where is the trade-off... or does he deny there is one? Yes, a nice pension would be... nice. And maybe if the U.S. government in America hadn't imposed "Social Security" they might be more widely available here.)

• you can live in romantic, old cities that are 2.000 [sic] years old, in houses that are 500 years old, with modern conveniences; 

(That sounds nice. Living far from any city sounds even better.)

• weekend trips offer abundant, historical and romantic destinations at an amazing density; you could live somewhere for ten years and go somewhere new and interesting every weekend under an hour away; 

(That has some appeal.)

• no guns; 

(He means a government monopoly on gun possession-- a police state; not "no guns".)

• free schools; 

(Theft-funded schools instead of education. Just like in America.)

• free universities; 

(Theft-funded universities.)

• life and attitudes generally seem more gentle; 

(Sheep usually do seem that way. As do the wolves-- good and bad-- who want to blend in with the sheep until they strike. Don't confuse outward demeanor for a lack of inner fire.)

• the variety is amazing - drive an hour, and you can be in a place with a different language, architecture, cuisine, and culture entirely. 

(I'm guessing he didn't travel around America very much before he moved to Europe.)

I guess if you want socialism and a police state where only the government is properly armed, Europe (excepting some of the more enlightened places) might be "better" for you. The whole world seems to be going down the socialism sewage pipe. If that's your thing, go for it.

-

Just so you know, the internet will be shut off at my house until I can pay the bill.
Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Guess who got another jury summons

In case you can't read it, it says: "Proper Clothing Required: All persons entering the courtroom should be dressed in clothing reasonably befitting the dignity and solemnity of the court proceedings."

So, a clown costume, then. 😆

Really, I don't think I have any clothing frivolous enough to properly befit "the dignity and solemnity of the court proceedings".

So, if I actually have to show up I'll go the opposite direction and wear my Old West, Man in Black outfit-- minus the duster (too hot in August for that). It's very dignified and solemn, much more so than the court deserves.

This is just a thought exercise. It's not going to come to that. It didn't last time.

They'll either scare the accused into a plea deal before August 14, or they'll toss me out of the jury pool at the earliest opportunity. Which is a shame since I'd like the chance to save someone from the State and its counterfeit "laws".

-

Just so you know, the internet will be shut off at my house until I can pay the bill.
Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Serving" and "Fighting for freedom"

From Pixabay

How did the word "serve" become shorthand for "being an armed tool of oppressive political thugs"? I prefer people who serve those they serve, voluntarily and with unanimous consent using the economic means, rather than being a "tax" junkie who endangers me and those I love and care about. Cashiers, waiters, repairmen/women, and people like that serve. Military members, not so much. The word "serve" has become one of the most popular lies statists love to tell.

You can't "fight for freedom" by fighting people who are not threatening your freedom.
You can't "fight for freedom" by fighting for those who enslaved you to fight on their behalf.

Your freedom doesn't depend on defeating some tribal thug on the other side of the planet who doesn't pose a credible threat to anyone in America; it depends on defeating the people who are actually a credible threat to your freedom, here and now.

You are not "fighting for freedom" when you join with the greatest actual threat to your freedom and go around the world provoking others on their behalf. You're endangering my freedom, and everyone else's, too.

Yes, freedom means doing whatever you want to do. So, if your "want to" includes doing those things, you are free to do them. But you are hurting everyone else. You are an enemy of something much greater than freedom: liberty. You are free to do that, but you have no right to do so. You are part of the problem. A big part.

-

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

Am I Rong?

Well, no.

I'm sometimes wrong, but I'm not Rong.

When I saw an ad for this book over at Garry Reed's blog, I admit I wondered if the author was poking at me, personally. I mean, "Kent B. Rong"? It really seemed personal-- while being hilarious. Especially considering the nature of the book (read the description!).

I know that it's highly unlikely the author ever heard of me, and is probably just a funny coincidence. Still, I'm going to have to get this book, just for fun, as soon as I have a few spare dollars.

Good job, Kent B. Rong, whoever you are. I love this! (I hope you make million$)

-

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

Is "Kick 'em out" preferable to "You can't leave"?

Some answers don't come easy. Even after days of thought. This is one of those. And I still might be way off-base.

I don't remember hearing about the Soviet Union kicking out-- or "inviting to leave"-- the people who didn't like the Soviet Union. People who would have been happy to leave. Instead, they didn't let anyone leave.

I don't remember hearing about Nazi Germany kicking out all the Jews and other "undesirables" instead of putting them in concentration camps or summarily murdering them. I'll bet at that point these people would have left if allowed, no "kicking out" required. But, nope. They didn't let them leave.

They forced those they didn't like to stay. In concentration camps, in mass graves, or in hiding. But the borders were closed to their egress.

Isn't that the way of all the worst states?

It's never good to round up and cage people who aren't violating others.

No, I'm not saying it's good to kick out people who want to stay and who aren't violating anyone-- it's still a rights violation. But I'd probably prefer to be kicked out than to be caged or murdered.

There are those who richly deserve to be kicked out: those who archate. But who would you curse by sending them all the murderers, rapists, Congressvermin, Supreme Courtjesters, police, bureaucrats, muggers, presidents, burglars, arsonists, etc. you're kicking out? That kind of person isn't welcome in my sphere; how could I burden anyone else with them? (Anyone for building Botany Bay 2 on the far side of the moon? Oh, wait... )

Don't worry-- I'm not going to violate anyone by forcibly kicking them off property I don't own. It would be civilized of them to reciprocate, but you know they won't.

As long as a state is kicking people out instead of forcing them to stay as prisoners (or corpses) it's not as bad as it could be, even though it's not good.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid-- and I'm pretty desperate right now.

Market regulated just right amount

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 19, 2019)

I love watching the market work. I don't call it "the free market" because if it's not free it's not a market. Under government rules and regulations what survives is a pale shadow of a market; the more rules, the dimmer the shadow.

Fortunately even this shadow of a market is enough to make life better for everyone; much better than the more regulated alternative. I appreciate this.

Under the unfree conditions which exist in America and other "civilized" places, the market manages to survive in the nooks, crannies, and loopholes. In some cases as the "black market", where "prohibited items" are traded, and in others, as the "gray market", where legal items are traded without government permission, or without giving government the piece of the action it feels entitled to skim from every transaction. They call this skimming "taxation" and "fees".

The most visible examples of the market in action are yard sales and people selling goods and services online. Even in these cases, government rules try to prevent a market from existing; it's to our benefit that they mostly fail.

The market scares some people. They have been told that without government controlling trade, food will be poison, products will be faulty, and fraud will be rampant. I've never quite understood how-- if this is how people naturally behave toward one another-- putting some people in charge will magically change their human nature. Unless you imagine they are not human, but angelic beings, uncorrupted by the human flaws plaguing the rest of us. Sounds like superstition to me.

Fear of the market is founded upon the mistaken assumption that the market is unregulated.

The market is regulated; just the right amount. Regulated by the cumulative choices and actions of people, not by the misinformed opinions of politicians. If you are afraid of what the market would do freed from the opinions of the worst among us, you're not paying attention.

Would you buy food from a business whose customers keep getting sick with food poisoning? Would you buy a car model known to have frequent brake failures? Would you keep such information to yourself or spread the word?

If you would protect bad businesses, you're to blame, not the market. If you stop expecting someone else to do your job and hold bad guys accountable when you run into them, you'll help regulate the market in the best way possible. It's always been your responsibility, no matter what you've been told.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Society's lies

Just go along with the covey

I've never been good at pretending lies are truth.
Not even when it makes people angry.

This has gotten me in trouble in school, in business, online, and in other social realms.

It's why I can't pretend cops and the military are heroes, why I don't buy into "transgender" stuff, why I don't confuse schooling for education, and why I am skeptical of AGCC dictates.

This is why I can't go along with the claim that government is necessary, and why I don't fetishize democracy or consider politics anything other than bullying.

It's why I don't fall for the claim that "taxation" is somehow not theft because someone made up a "law".

It's why I can't pretend rights depend on who you are, what you do, where you were born, historical documents, or the opinions of some government gang. All humans have equal and identical rights; any other claim is a lie.

I realize people may have their reasons for preferring a lie to the truth. I get that. Lies can be comforting and they often feel safe. They can make you feel better about yourself or your loved ones. They can make you fit in better with the crowd.

But I won't lie and say I agree just to make someone feel better or to be one of the "cool kids". Even knowing that this has a cost. The best I can do is to stay silent when confronted by a supporter of one of the popular lies-- there's no argument against delusion. I can't always manage even that, but I'm getting better at it.

-

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

Government is antisocial and is killing America

Ammo.com recently posted an article about how Washington DC has destroyed social life in America. They make a good point, and it's really sad, but the goons from the District of Criminals aren't the only governmental culprits.

Many of you know how much I enjoyed karaoke during my brief time in Pennsylvania.

I was in an unfamiliar place, abandoned and separated from anything I had enjoyed doing. I met someone at work who talked me into showing up at a little rural bar for their karaoke night-- and I was hooked.

Before that, I was more of a hermit. Never very sociable, and didn't need that. But karaoke changed me.

I left there years ago, but here in this place (which should be where my roots are-- if I had roots), I find myself in a very similar situation.

The problem is the local cops (across the state line, actually) harass drivers so badly after dark that there is only one bar left in operation-- the others which were here when I moved to the area shut down due to the police-state harassment of their patrons. I guess people stopped showing up in numbers sufficient to keep the places open. It was just too dangerous to encounter the cops (we have murderous cops in the area, too).

I'm not a drinker, but I am not enthusiastic to run the checkpoint gauntlet at night regardless, so I've never even been to the one remaining bar on one of their karaoke nights.

I've been searching for a social outlet for over 10 years and have yet to find anything. A good karaoke bar-- without a swarm of cops buzzing around-- would sure be nice.

Yes, government, at the local, county, state, and federal levels, is antisocial. I'd toss them all in the volcano to end their reign of destruction.

-

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

Government supremacy

Here's the government supremacist position, in two parts:

• If government isn't doing something, nothing is being done.
• If you don't want government to do something, you don't care.

That right there is a special kind of stupid.

-

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

Boring old statist justifications

I love to be made to think. Or, maybe, led to think. I don't do well with being forced to do anything, even things I enjoy.

This is why I don't mind hearing people who disagree with me-- in some way I haven't yet considered-- laying out their thinking. It always makes me think-- sometimes for weeks. I may not come to agree with their point of view, but at least I'll have spent time considering something I hadn't considered before. How is that not fun?

But that's what's so disappointing about most statist arguments.

They are old, tired retreads. Reruns that weren't that entertaining the first time around, and are excruciatingly dreary now.

They don't make me think because they are things I thought through (and dismissed) long ago. There's nothing new there to make me think. No new points; no new twists. They don't make the effort to present something new, probably because there's nothing new to present.

The statist arguments haven't changed since the first lazy looters settled down to loot a population under the lie of "government". Statists still make the same claims that were made the first time some thug came up with the idea which we now call political "authority". It was wrong then; it's wrong and boring now.

-

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

Don't fall for the borderists' dishonest trap

I recently encountered a question asked by a borderist. He wants to trick you into falling for his trap. I'll spare him the embarrassment of mentioning his name.

Here's the dishonest setup followed by the dishonest question:

"The question that no open-borders advocate has ever answered is, How many illegals should be allowed into the United States?"

He's a liar.

The question is phrased dishonestly so as to manipulate his audience.

I have answered a similar question. Many times. I've seen several people answer such a question in excellent ways. It's just that the correct and honest answer to a more honest version of the question doesn't serve his agenda so he'll never acknowledge it, no matter who answers.

But I'll answer the "question" again.

I'm not an "open borders advocate", I'm simply against government "borders" and for property rights. Those two things are completely at odds with one another, and the borderists should know it. They just pretend they can have it both ways. All I know is I'm opposed to his position of maximum statism. But call my position "open borders" if it makes you happy.

Second, there can be no such thing as an "illegal" if you are referring to people deemed so because they ignored unconstitutional and unethical statist "laws" against crossing an imaginary line. Just like there's no such thing as an "illegal gun" regardless of the unethical and unconstitutional "laws" the anti-gun bigots have made up. Counterfeit "laws" are without foundation no matter what they pretend to address. Again, he's using a lie to trap you into answering the wrong question.

Third, "should be allowed"? "Should" in this context is a word calculated to trip you up. No one "should" be dictating numbers of visitors to other people's property. And government "borders"? Who has the "authority" to "allow" or forbid people to cross these imaginary lines? The criminal gang known as government? Make another joke. The only ones with the right to allow or forbid entry onto their private property are the property owners making this decision for their own property. Period. Government doesn't qualify.

This is why I can't take borderists seriously. Not even when they are reasonably principled on other issues. They can't even ask an honest question where government "borders" are concerned but have to pile lies on top of lies to get the narrative they hunger for. Borderists simply aren't credible, and they've done it to themselves.

-

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

BitChute and donations

I've mirrored a lot of my videos on BitChute. I had tried another video service which went under a while back, so I'm trying again.

I want a backup in case YouTube gets more censory than they already are. I pretty much lost my will to make new videos when they demonetized me (due to not enough views) and made it clear I wasn't really welcome there.

This is the same reason I mirror these posts on Wordpress. I don't trust Google to not "be evil", but they also seem to still get the most views. I feel better with a backup plan anyway.

On another topic, I sure could use an infusion of money. I've been trying to not mention it, but not mentioning it isn't really working very well for me. I got a new subscriber a couple of months ago-- Yay!-- and then last month I lost a longtime supporter, which canceled out the gain. So, if you want to, and you can, please consider making a one-time donation or signing on for monthly support.

Please follow/subscribe to me on BitChute and I may start making new videos again.

Thank you.

-

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

Masks

In a world with facial recognition technology, masks are necessary.

Government has no right to forbid them, because government can have no rights, and "authority" is a demented superstition.

Also, cops are allowed to cover their faces while committing acts of enforcement, so those they target must be allowed the same freedom in order to avoid falling victim to those acts of enforcement.

-

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

Let people find their own solutions

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 12, 2019)

It amazes me how often people create worse problems while trying to solve problems.

Most problems can be solved; some probably can't. Don't give up trying to solve the hard problems, though. You never know if the Elixir of Life is waiting for you to discover just around the next bend.

The best approach is to let people find their own solutions. Most of their ideas will fail; some will be spectacular failures, but as long as no one's solution is forced on everyone else, people can keep trying different things. The more ideas which get tried, the more problems will be solved.

Often you won't know if an idea is good until you let people try it for a while. Then, if it turns out badly the people need to be free to drop it.

Even some of the bad ideas might have the seed of a real solution, just needing a little tweak to work. It's only when you set a bad idea in stone-- or in law-- that it becomes hard to reverse.

When you force a one-size-fits-all "solution" on everyone a bad idea can do lasting damage.

Most proposals for solving Anthropogenic Global Climate Change-- "Global warming"-- are like this. Whether the crisis is real or not matters little. Let people try the ideas they believe will help, but don't let them impose those solutions on anyone. This would limit what others can try and is almost guaranteed to prevent a real, lasting solution from being discovered. If one is needed.

The most tragic examples are when someone causes more of the social problems they imagine their ideas would address. Things like poverty and crime come to mind.

If your anti-poverty program hasn't resulted in a measurable easing of poverty it's time to drop it and try something else. Many times, doing nothing would be better than what is being done.

Crime is another topic where this applies. Of course, I'm referring to real crime-- violations of life, liberty, and property-- not acts which harm no one other than the feelings of politicians. I believe, from personal experience and observation, that universal voluntary gun possession would prevent most crime. Others believe a total gun ban (exempting government employees) would be the fix. Only one of those doesn't rely on forcing a rights-violating, one-size-fits-all approach on every individual in society, so only one is ethical.

If your idea isn't ethical, I'll pass, no matter how well it works. With this one limit, find your best ideas.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Statists want you to believe you're stupid

Statists want you to believe you aren't smart enough to know how to solve problems. They say you have to trust the president or congress or the city council to do what's necessary because you can't possibly understand the issues. You don't see "The Big Picture"* and don't understand "how these things work".

How convenient for them.

Erich Fromm had something to say about this vulgar lie:

"One kind of smokescreen is that the problems are too complicated for the average individual to grasp. On the contrary it would seem that many of the basic issues of individual and social life are very simple, so simple. in fact, that everyone should be expected to understand them. To let them appear to be so enormously complicated that only a "specialist" can understand them, and he only in his limited field, actually-- and often intentionally-- tends to discourage people from trusting their own capacity to think about those problems that really matter. The individual feels hopelessly caught in a chaotic mass of data and with pathetic patience waits until the specialists have found out what to do and where to go." -- Escape from Freedom

I see statists use this tactic all the time.

• You can't understand why it's not a good idea to get rid of all anti-gun "laws" because you don't have the wisdom and experience of the police unions, the BATFEces, the FBI, or federal judges. It's simplistic to believe you can be responsible for yourself and that an armed populace would deter archation.

• You can't understand the nuances of "border security" because you aren't an expert. You can't just respect all property rights (including ending all welfare) and respect the right of defense-- it would be chaos.
  
• You're not a scientist so you can't understand the data pointing to Climate Change. Trust the experts to tell you what you'll have to do to avoid this disaster they say is coming.

Statists need to make you believe the world is too complicated for individuals to understand. Otherwise, you might realize you don't need their god to save you. So they constantly order you to "leave it to the professionals who know best". They constantly insult you and your intelligence. They get paternalistic and condescending as they assure you "government knows best".

Don't be so uppity as to notice that their "professionals" and "experts" are always on the side of violating YOUR natural human rights and imposing more control over YOUR life.

Yeah, the world is complex. But if the average human can't understand it, clumping sub-average humans together in a gang you call "government" isn't going to magically give them superhuman abilities. Quite the opposite. I'll trust the spontaneous order arising from the self-interested actions of free individuals before I trust the "wisdom" of monopolistic government being imposed on everyone.

__

*I once worked for a business that I saw doing really dumb, self-destructive things on orders from the manager. Being a good employee who wanted to see the business thrive, I told this manager what I thought and his standard response was that I didn't see "The Big Picture" that only he could see.
I swear I didn't say "I told you so" every time the things I warned him of came to pass.
But I sure did think it a lot.

-

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

Statists defend their god

The storm threatening New Orleans led to a discussion of 2005's Hurricane Katrina wherein I pointed out how much worse government (and foolish reliance on government) made the disaster.

A statist in the conversation tried to paint government employees as good-intentioned but crippled by the bad behavior of the storm's victims.

• If the people had evacuated when told to, government gangs wouldn't have been "forced" to go around kicking in their doors, beating them up, stealing their guns, and kidnapping them to be imprisoned in the Superdome.
  
• This was a noble thing to do, and the only reason the Superdome turned into a nightmare is that there weren't enough cops there to control the inmates who were forced inside and trapped. Disarming the good guys so as to leave them vulnerable to the bad guys was the right thing to do, under the circumstances, to keep things from getting "worse".
  
• It was OK to forcibly prevent people (who probably had bad intentions) from crossing that bridge to leave because maybe no one on the other side of the bridge wanted them or could "handle" the numbers of them. Obviously, the people on the bridge were the bad guys. (This is the borderist argument, too.)

No matter what I brought up, the government goons were excused because it was the fault of someone else. If the state and local government (governor, mayor, police) did something bad, it was the fault of the disobedient population (and maybe the feds). If the feds did something bad it was the fault of the disobedient population (and maybe the state and local government). I tested my hypothesis on how the justifications would go from different angles. It was always the same. Government good; people bad.

Because government is staffed by Angels, doncha know. They are better than us disobedient people.

I didn't even get into how the charitable shipments of drinking water and other necessities were turned away by government heroes and other abominable acts of that nature.

Statists will defend their god 'til the bitter end. It can't ever be wrong, and if it looks like it is wrong, it's because of someone else.

This person I was talking with is deeply infected with the superstition of "authority" anyway. I was discovering just how deep it goes. And it's scary.

These are the people who don't believe you have a right to defend yourself from anyone with a badge or a government position, no matter what is being done to you.
These are the people who say "If you don't want a police officer to shoot you, obey immediately. You can take him to court later if you think he's wrong".
These are the people who will report you to the cops for doing something they don't like.
These people are a huge part of the problem in society.
They are "why we can't have nice things"-- at least until we cut them out of the equation and see them for the silly superstitious people they are.

-

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

Archating, sub-human scum

My mom's 95-year-old uncle has been victimized yet again. Last year he got burglarized (bottom of that post); Tuesday night (July 9th) some nasty sub-human vermin smashed in all his doors and windows, broke holes in his floors, and poured gasoline around his house and tried to burn it down.

He built this home himself over half a century ago.

Fortunately, he was at his daughter's house rather than at home when the archation occurred.

An observant neighbor noticed suspicious activity and called the Blue Line Gang to investigate, and surprisingly, one of them got there soon enough to catch one of the worthless vermin moseying down the road-- eager to confess. Two of the three scum responsible still managed to elude capture, but the one now sitting in a cage will probably sing like a canary (it seems he is already doing so).

The stupid parasite who burglarized his house last year is still sitting in a cage awaiting trial or sentencing or something. His lawyer has been trying to delay this forever, but I guess time is running out and something is scheduled to happen soon. This makes me suspicious that Tuesday's disgusting vandals have some connection to the burglar. Maybe revenge for their worthless "friend" facing the burglary charges. But that's just speculation on my part and I might be completely wrong.

I really hate people who intentionally violate others. I have no pity for them no matter what happens-- feeling that death is a satisfactory outcome. I wouldn't lift a finger to save a vandal's life even if I had to go out of my way to avoid saving him. No, I wouldn't involve the Blue Line Gang if it were up to me, and I wouldn't go for revenge/punishment. But I would find a way to make them regret their life choices.

I simply can't comprehend what makes a person decide to be so utterly worthless as to vandalize the house of an old man who never did anything to them. Maybe they were just raised in a degraded "culture" [sic] of archation (as many people are) and vandalism sounded like a fun time.

At 95 years old, a shock like this could easily cause my great-uncle to have a heart attack and die. If he died from the stress these parasites caused him I would consider them murderers.

I'm really angry right now. I even waited an extra day to say anything about it to keep from saying anything I wouldn't want in writing. But I am still just as angry.

This is the guy who confessed and was arrested. Click to enlarge.

-

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

The census and "the citizenship question"

I realize the census is authorized, or required, by the Constitution. I also recognize why it is-- to apportion "taxation" and "representation", two things I have zero use for.

I didn't respond to the census last time; I plan to ignore it again next time.

The census is "allowed" by the Constitution to ask one question: "How many people live here?" That's it. Period.

It isn't allowed to ask anything else, including whether those who are responding are slaves to the US State... I mean, "citizens of the US".

It doesn't matter who wants to ask additional questions. It doesn't matter how the additional questions are excused or justified.

If you value the Constitution you know the questions aren't permitted. If, like me, you know the Constitution is only good for showing how far America has fallen, you probably feel no obligation to answer the census anyway.

The "citizenship question" is a red herring.

-

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

"Intersectionality"

Intersectionality-
Loitering at the intersection of Victim Avenue and Entitlement Boulevard in downtown Loserville.

But, stupidity doesn't affect the rights a person has. It only affects the respect they'll receive from me.

Is that harsh? Maybe. But I'm tired of being scolded because I won't treat mental illness as wisdom.

-

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

See what you can build on your own

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 5, 2019)

There's a sense of personal accomplishment, of self-worth, when you make something with your own hands through your own efforts. Even if you seek guidance from someone with experience, you've learned more than you knew before. You'll probably value the results more than if you had no part in making it.

If, after you do the work yourself, you decide you'd rather pay someone to do it for you next time, at least you now know what's involved. You will probably have a better sense of whether someone is doing a good job or not. You might be able to tell if they are trying to scam you or overcharge for their services.

To prevent someone from making things on their own is bad in two ways. You show you don't trust them to be competent, and you keep them from becoming competent; from learning how to do things they'll value. If you never allow someone to succeed or fail on their own, always doing everything for them, they'll never really grow up. They'll never learn responsibility.

Self-government is the same way. Until you try to govern yourself, without any laws or representatives to fall back on, you're not a fully competent human being. You may even surprise yourself when you discover you don't need those things, nor do you want them imposed on others. I have more respect for myself than to look for someone to govern others-- even my enemies-- on my behalf.

To me, insisting that others must be governed for my benefit is a sign of weakness and immaturity.

People tend to live up or down to your expectations.

So how do you govern yourself with your own two hands? Be responsible. Don't pawn your responsibilities onto others. Don't expect others to take care of you, or to protect you from threats you should be dealing with on your own. Mind your own business and expect others to mind theirs. If someone violates you, deal with it yourself. Only seek help if absolutely unavoidable, and then only from truly voluntary sources. You aren't entitled to other people's time or money, so don't act as though you are. Governing yourself isn't achieved through voting or expecting representatives to fix anything. If you want to do that anyway, don't stop there and think you've accomplished something.

See what you can build with the effort of your own mind and hands. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

"Never again!" The fireworks stand

I spent the past couple of weeks working a fireworks stand. It was hot, dusty, boring work-- except on the 3rd and 4th when it was frequently crazy.

And it wasn't hot, dusty, or boring the two times it rained and the leaky fireworks stand threatened to drown all the fireworks. Only by great effort did I save all but a couple from the water.

The stand wasn't in the best shape. The electrical wiring was all wrong and tried to electrocute my dad during the first rain. The lights wouldn't all work and even after an electrician came and put it all in order, there still wasn't enough power to run my parents' RV A/Cs. This meant some of the less hardy individuals working the stand demanded the RV generator be run during the day, costing a lot of gas.

The phone line for the credit card machine had been ripped out since it was last used. The phone company had assigned the stand's phone number to someone else, and the credit card machine was messed up and wouldn't work even after the phone situation got solved-- until after a 2-hour phone call got it cleared and ready to go.

The stand was inside the city limits by about 20 feet (the other side of the street directly behind the stand) so we couldn't sell anything which would launch or explode. This lost us about half our potential customers-- they were looking for bottle rockets, Roman candles, firecrackers, "ladybugs", and artillery shells, none of which we were allowed to sell.

Since we were in a different state than most of the company's stands, there was confusion over "permits" and such. My dad had to go wait for hours to get a couple of permits the company was supposed to have already taken care of for us. Have I mentioned how stupid permits and licenses are?

The fireworks market was also saturated-- there were at least 7 fireworks stands within a quarter mile of us. And I think this isn't counting the small independent stand in a family's front yard.

The first week there I stayed awake all night watching the stand. Unfortunately, I could only manage to sleep 3 or 4 hours during the day, so I would go ahead and sit in the stand the rest of the time. The second week I had a baby monitor inside the stand with the other end in the RV so I could nap at night, and sit in the stand during the day. That was better.

We had a 160-mile round trip to get the opening inventory, then we had a 110-mile round trip to turn in the unsold inventory.

Sadly, it was "the worst year for fireworks sales in 30 years" according to the people who convinced us to sell fireworks. If I clear $5 per day I'll be shocked. It might be a lot less... if I end up getting anything.

I have already put my foot down and said "Never again!" to a family fireworks stand. It was probably unnecessary since no one seems inclined to do it again next year.

But, I guess some people pay hundreds of dollars to go to camps which provide hardship experiences to "build character" and this at least didn't cost me anything. I feel it didn't work; my character may have eroded a little due to the experience.

Most of the customers were great, though. They were fun. My daughter got chummy with some of them and their bikes. I'm grateful she didn't decide to run away with them. The temptation would have crossed my mind.

We only had one customer who was bad; he cheated us out of some money. A cop. He paid, went out and sat in his car, and then came back and told the person who waited on him that she had made a mistake. He had bought a whole box of smoke bombs (oops-- "smoke balls", can't say "bombs" I guess) and claimed they were supposed to be "buy one, get one free". They weren't, but the intimidated cashier refunded half the price anyway. I wish she'd called me over during the "discussion". But, it was a cop; what else would you expect?

There was no wifi at the site, so I had to get things ready to post during my quick daily run home (14 miles one way) for a shower. I'm so far behind on everything, including my writing, it feels like I'll never get caught up. Please be patient while I try.

So that's what I've been up to. I'm exhausted.

Here is the update, including an update to the update.

Since the fireworks stand didn't pay off...

I have little choice but to ask... donate or subscribe?

Maybe not quite "elementary"

Some people just don't do the Sherlock Holmes thing very well.

A few days ago, during a little stroll, someone found a piece of scrap plexiglass, near an old run-down workshop, that was vaguely knife shaped. He brought it to me and told me his insight into it.

He had decided it had been intentionally made knife-like, to be used as a weapon He was convinced some little thug/gangster had carried it as a weapon.

Well, maybe. I saw no evidence of this. No attempt had been made to sharpen it, or even to peel off the protectant layer. Yeah, it had a (bent) point on one end, and a concave shape to the other end that could be used as a handle. But to reach the conclusions he had reached-- and actually seemed to have convinced himself of-- seemed quite a stretch.

It's just interesting to me to sometimes see how other minds work.
That's why I listen to statists.

-

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

When your idol is too big for your god

A family member (during our long hours trapped at a fireworks stand that must be the firework equivalent of Charlie Brown's pathetic Christmas tree) told me about a news story involving a business called Camping World, a giant Holy Pole Quilt, and an appropriately named town's government. It also concerns fines and a threat of kidnapping followed by caging (as long as the victim doesn't resist "too much").

A statist being fought by statists is always amusing to me. How do you like your "laws" now that they are being used against you?

Still, the flag waver is in the right, and the "laws" he is breaking are counterfeit "laws". If a giant Pole Quilt some distance away from the interstate will dangerously distract people, then so will a smaller Pole Quilt right at the side of the road. Or a tiny one on a car's antenna right beside you.

My opinion: The U.S. (not "American") Holy Pole Quilt disgusts me. But if it's not on my property, it's not my concern. Fly a Nazi flag over your home or business for all I care. Yes, I'll view your flag, of whatever design, as an indication of your character, and if your flag advocates archation I'm not going to trust you too much in other circumstances, but still it's your problem, not mine.

History will eventually view the U.S. flag the same way it views the Nazi flag today. (Some of us already view it that way.) But your property, your business. If you want to tattoo "I'm an idiot" on your face, feel free to advertise this message as loudly as you want. You're probably doing the rest of us a favor.

Happy Secession Day.

-

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

Theft

Theft isn't just one thing, It is a broad category of archation. It includes-- mugging, fraud, extortion, taxation, fines, fees, eminent domain, licensing, counterfeiting, burglary, etc.

There's not an OK type of theft.

Some forms of theft are less deadly in practice than others. Sometimes only because of the likelihood of the victim's cooperation in the face of overwhelming force and numbers.

Some kinds of theft are more "honest" than others. Any theft where the thief tries to pretend he's not a thief is the most dishonest kind of theft.

Theft is always wrong, no matter how you try to justify it and no matter what you say you'll spend some of the plunder on.

-

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

Time to roast the Peacock

Years ago I seem to have signed up for email "news alerts" from one of the original old "mainstream news" corporations. I don't remember why. I've never bothered to unsubscribe because until the past couple of years I didn't get that many alerts, but when I did, they were about actual events; news. Things like earthquakes, mass murders, hurricanes, plane crashes, and stuff of that sort. That has changed during the Trump years.

Now I get a few "alerts" every day, and the majority of them are designed to do one thing only: to disparage Trump. Why bother? I don't care one way or the other.

I hate that I have to say this again, but if I don't I will be misinterpreted (I probably will be anyway): I don't like or support Trump or any other president, past, present, or future. I do not respect the office, nor do I believe it is even slightly legitimate.

But what amazes me is the amount of effort this "news organization" is putting towards trashing Trump. The contrast with the way they treated Obama makes this even more obvious. And disgusting. I get it: the mainstream media hates Trump. OK. It doesn't mean you have to stretch to find people who hate Trump to quote. Or report on things you think Trump might have been thinking, or whatever. That's not newsworthy, it's just desperate. It makes you look as bad as you are hoping it makes Trump look. Some days, even worse.

I'm occasionally interested in news. I'm not interested in the "news'" opinions on Trump. Or on the "Democratic candidates" either. Politics isn't automatically news; in fact, it rarely is.

This has finally inspired me to do what I should have done many years ago. I have unsubscribed from their "news alerts". It was past time.

-

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