Moral thievery

I was listening to a podcast where one of the participants was talking about how "morally advanced" societies take care of people through "taxation" and government "welfare".

He claimed this showed "generosity" on their part.

It doesn't.

I do understand how people get confused, though. Especially if they are blinded by the popular (and evil) religion of Statism.

If government is your god, anything government does is moral, no matter how unethical. So theft is OK if you call it "taxation" and say you're using the booty to help people. Never mind the people you hurt by robbing them.

Charity is always superior to government "welfare" because it is voluntary. And it's better for the recipients, too. Charity doesn't harm society; government "welfare" always does. Even if your society doesn't realize it is being hurt.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Medicine hypocrisy

Photo by Rick Proctor on Unsplash

I was being told about someone who is suffering with cancer, and the nausea they are experiencing from the chemotherapy. I asked if the person had looked into using Cannabis-- I'm no expert, but I've heard it can help.

The response I got was that the person would never consider that because they are religious.

What?!

If you'll take the chemotherapy but not the Cannabis, you're a hypocrite. One is an actual poison, killing your body a little at a time-- hopefully the cancer dies before you do. The other is medicine-- and a plant.

In response to my reaction, I was asked if one of my own particularly religious relatives would use Cannabis if they were in the same situation. I said I believe she would, maybe not at first, but after I had shown her the senselessness of the "laws" against it, and the possibility it might help without adding bad side-effects. At least I hope I'd be able to convince her.

If your religious beliefs condemn the medicine but not the poison, you are in serious need of better religious beliefs.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

There's always something new to learn

I've been trying primitive (and less-than primitive) fire-starting methods all of my adult life-- actually, since around my mid-teens. I haven't succeeded with all of them-- the hand drill being my most frustrating failure-- but it has been years since I heard of a "new" method I'd never heard of before.

But a couple of weeks ago that's exactly what happened.

I was watching a video about fire-making and the guy used the fire roll. What? Never heard of that! But I've got to try it NOW!

So, I did.

And, unlike some other methods, I made fire the first time I tried it. And then, I made a fire with it more primitively using only yucca fibers from my yard, I've made fires (well, only embers usually) with the fire roll nearly every day since. In fact, during our unseasonably early winter storm last week, that's how I lit my fireplace.

Anyway, that's to say you never know so much about anything that there's nothing more to learn. It doesn't matter how many years you've been studying and pursuing something-- someone out there knows something you don't. The day you find them should be one of the highlights of your life. In every case. Don't let pride stop you from learning. You'd only be cheating yourself.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

There's no magic to make college free

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 25, 2019)

Libertarians have a saying, often represented by the acronym TANSTAAFL, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". This is a rule of reality as inflexible as any other law of physics, but politicians think they can fool people into believing it's negotiable. Sometimes it seems they are right; people can be fooled-- but reality won't be cheated.

Now New Mexico's politicians are telling the people they can magically make college free for everyone. They can't, and it probably wouldn't even be a good idea were it possible.

Nothing is free. Someone always has to pay. It costs to build and maintain a campus and purchase supplies. Professors, janitors, secretaries, and groundskeepers quite reasonably expect to be paid for their work. After all, they need money to trade for food, housing, and other necessities. Demanding they work without pay so you can have "free college" would be slavery.

Every time a politician says something will be "free" you need to understand you are being lied to. It's the same whether it's "free" college or "free" health care.

What they mean is you'll be taxed more and some percentage of your stolen money will go to pay for something for someone else without them having to pay directly. Politicians also expect you to ignore the cost-- the waste-- inevitable with the additional bureaucracy. You could get a little of your stolen money back if you choose to participate in the program. Isn't this known in legal circles as a kickback?

It's doubtful college is even good for everyone. Yes, if you want to be a doctor, a lawyer, or a quantum physicist you would probably benefit from a college education. But if your goal is something else you'd probably be better off going to a trade school or training as an apprentice.

Most degrees today, in made-up fields, are like a "participation trophy". They're not awarded for achieving something useful, but are sparkly trinkets to show off. Utterly meaningless except to make someone feel better about themselves without them having to actually contribute anything of value. When this "trophy" costs other people, it's a net negative to society.

Politics seems to require belief in magic, where someone can say special words and change the nature of reality. Hocus pocus, and theft isn't theft because they call it "taxation" and things become free, no matter how expensive they really are, just because they say so. Politics is a hollow religion.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Evil among us

When I was a teen, an IRS agent lived across the street from my family.

No one said anything to him about it, but everyone looked at him as though he were in the mafia. Which is closer to the truth than I realized at the time. People were a bit suspicious and stand-offish around him. And he didn't really socialize much.

He acted guilty because he was.

Of course, I was just a teen. Perhaps the adults didn't think they were acting that way toward him. It's certainly the vibe I got, though.

This was back before concealed carry "laws" were spreading around the country, and he was the only person I knew of who routinely carried a gun. Honestly, I don't remember whether he open carried, but if he didn't I'm not sure how everyone knew.

I'm in favor of everyone other than government employees carrying weapons. I am not in favor of anyone working a "job" that allows them to do things which are unethical (theft/"taxation") or to do ethical things illegitimately forbidden to the rest of us (carrying weapons).

I knew at the time there was something not quite right about him and his "job". Now I know exactly what it was.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Oppression Day

From Ammo.com comes an article on the oppressive "USA PATRIOT Act".

As unconvinced as I am about the ethics of being a patriot, I know that legislative hydra is nothing but pure Big Government Evil. Kill it with fire, along with those who conjured it into existence.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Anti-liberty pro-gunners

I'm a member of a "gun owners' group" on Facebook. I rarely post anything there because the majority of the other members are statist clowns.

Generally, they embrace Right-Statist policies, no matter how anti-liberty those policies are.

Most hypocritically, they support police, even in the comments they make while posting links to stories about cops murdering innocent people. They seem to really believe cops would never enforce anti-gun "laws" even while seeing them enforcing those types of "laws" everywhere every day. It's insane!

When I point this out I get attacked.

Some legislation enforcement goon was puffing out his chest (in comment form), saying he would never participate in gun confiscation, but when I asked about other gang activities I suspect he participates in (prohibition, rules against full-auto weapons, seat belt enforcement, "speeding" tickets, etc.), people lost their minds. I was the bad guy.

They get all dreamy-eyed when a sheriff poses and says no gun confiscation (ala Bob'O O'Rourke) will be allowed to happen in this state (New Mexico). No recognition of the illegal "laws" those same sheriffs help enforce every single day-- including gun confiscations.

I'm surprised they haven't kicked me out of the group yet-- but, like I say, I rarely comment on anything, because of what invariably happens when I do.

Right-Statists are anti-gun, just like Left-Statists are. They just use different excuses and go after guns from a different angle. If you're a statist, you are anti-liberty at your core.

--

P.S.-- Ever feel like the Universe hates you? Well, that's what I'm going through right now. So I've been doing a lot of primitive skills practice over the past few days-- at least the stuff I can do where I live (which isn't much).

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

They don't want you to point out the lies

You've got to accept-- or at least not dispute-- a lot of untruths in order to be a fully-integrated member of society.

Which is why I'll probably never be as fully accepted by society as some other people I know. Even though those people archate against others without a second of thought.

That's a strange thing to think about-- the one who harms others on a regular basis being embraced by society. Why? Stockholm Syndrome is only part of it. The religion of Statism is probably the bigger part.

Anyway, it is what it is.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Law, legislation, or Unholy Writ

Related to, and expanding on, yesterday's ENMN column:

I have less than zero respect for what passes for "laws" these days-- in other words, for legislation.

Law was discovered; legislation is made up.

Law isn't subject to anyone's opinion.
Legislation is nothing but the foul opinions of perverted thugs.

Law doesn't change nor does it get added to.
Legislation changes all the time and continually grows like some sort of alien blob monster.

Law is about recognizing natural human rights-- and respecting them.
Legislation is about finding excuses to violate natural human rights.

If it protects rights, it is law.
If it violates life, liberty, or property, it is legislation.

Laws include: don't murder, don't rape, don't kidnap, don't steal, don't trespass, don't vandalize.
Legislation includes: pay this tax, don't smoke that, don't have consensual sex with that person, don't sell that, don't add on to your house, wear your seat belt, don't park your car on your own property, don't paint your house that color, don't drive faster than this arbitrary speed, don't open a business there, etc.

Legislation is counterfeit "law". It harms individuals and therefore it harms society.

I know law when I see it. I am clueless about most legislation details. That seems to suggest I could reasonably (but not "legally") call myself a "lawyer", but not an attorney. Maybe that's why so few attorneys call themselves "lawyers" anymore. If they are that self-aware...

Cops are "Legislation enforcement officers" who violate law in order to enforce legislation. That makes them bad guys, even when they sometimes do the right thing. They'll go right back to doing the wrong thing at the first opportunity.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Clashing values

Different people have different values. It's not that anyone's values are necessarily wrong for them, it's that when you impose a "win/lose" system someone is going to be on the losing side.

Just a couple of examples--
Compassion for refugees vs defense of "your culture".
Compassion for LGBTQ vs respecting the rights of those who aren't.
Compassion for rape victims vs compassion for the falsely accused.

Values clash. Or they can seem to if you think it has to be either/or.

But anytime they appear to clash, liberty is the solution. Respect for everyone's life, liberty, rights, and property. It's where the balance lies; how you respect both sides without enslaving either one to the other. Anything less is uncivilized.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Life and the other thing

I just got back from a funeral. No one I was particularly close to, but my mom was. There were four girl cousins born the same year, so they grew up close. And this was the only relative who has ever actually said she was proud of me for having the courage to write and speak my mind. So, there's that.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Scott can't weasel out of it

Scott Adams just can't stop saying positive things about anti-gun schemes, even as he says he's not advocating them. I've pointed this out before. It's like some sort of blind spot he suffers from... or maybe it's something else.

I've heard him do this repeatedly, even when it's just a casual mention unrelated to his topic. It's clear he thinks anti-gun "laws" are a good thing because of his approving attitude when he brings up the topic.

It's as if I kept getting excited and speaking as though I approve when I heard people talk about committing genocide, acting as though discussing it in a positive light is progress while pretending I don't actually advocate genocide. You shouldn't buy it in that case and you shouldn't buy it now.

Speaking as though something is desirable IS promoting or advocating that thing. No matter how you try to weasel* out of it.

*Apologies to all the non-human weasels out there.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Bullying's cure is fighting back

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 18, 2019)

It's as predictable as the equinox: school starts in the fall and bullying catches society's attention anew. It's not as though bullying stops over the summer break, but then it is usually left-over momentum from the previous school year. "Back to school" recharges it.

Schools decry bullying, often getting the community involved. It's a halfhearted effort at best. Schools can't eliminate bullying without undermining their own system since it's based on authoritarianism-- socially accepted bullying.

The dictionary says a bully is anyone who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate someone weaker, usually to force them to do what the bully wants.

Who, other than an insecure person with little self-worth, would behave this way? Whether it's the schoolyard bully, the authoritarian teacher or principal, the politician or the politicians' badged "muscle", if you choose to push others around-- literally or figuratively-- to force them to do what you want, you can't think very highly of yourself. I pity bullies, even as I hope their victims fight back hard enough to make the bully reconsider their poor life choices.

Fighting back is the only cure for bullying. The victims must fight back, and shouldn't be penalized for doing so. Yet this is the solution no one in an official capacity, who claims to oppose bullying, is willing to accept.

Forcing victims to rely on someone else to solve the problem for them is also bullying. It doesn't teach responsibility and won't build confident character for facing life's other struggles. Encourage the victim to stand firm. Back them up if you're concerned about their safety, but don't tolerate anyone who treats fighting back against a bully the same as bullying.

Some bullied kids have gone on to strike out in tragic, angry ways at those who didn't bully them-- themselves or other innocents. I suspect this is because healthy ways of fighting back were forbidden. The frustration must build to intolerable levels, finally snapping in the worst possible way. The victim, because of his lack of competence in dealing with bullies, becomes a bully. Or a mass-murderer. It's no excuse, but it is predictable. You can create a monster by being monstrous to someone. Forbidding self-defense or turning a blind eye to officially sanctioned forms of bullying is monstrous. Society ends up paying the price for official cowardice.

Bullying is a problem. It won't be solved by ignoring the solution or by making the social environment worse for its victims.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

The mainstream media's role in mass shootings

Ammo.com has a good piece about the role played by the mainstream media (and also "social media") in encouraging mass shootings. I recommend it.

You know whenever there's one highly publicized mass shooting, that another will be coming along soon. It happens time after time.

The face and name of the evil loser will be everywhere, his "story" spread far and wide, along with speculation as to why he did it. And some other loser with nothing to live for will see all this and decide he wants some recognition, too. So he'll choose an evil act to get what he feels he deserves.

And then, legislative evil losers will blame those of us who didn't do it, threaten to steal our guns, and lock us in cages. It's the same old song and dance. Refuse to be used by any of the bad guys.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Brexit is progress

It's interesting to me how Brexit is portrayed by the statist media as a step backwards. Like anyone who is intelligent should understand it's a disaster to pull out of a Big State, and only rubes would want such a thing. And, obviously, it's going to lead to starvation and chaos in the streets.

How ridiculous.

To me, it's secession. Something I'm always in favor of.

Yes, I understand it reeks of "nationalism", which I oppose. But I also oppose globalism when it means ever-bigger government. I'm in favor of "national" (territorial) societies and global societies, and I oppose political governments/states of any size because politics is antisocial.

No, the UK's government isn't better than the EU. It is irredeemably corrupt and evil-- just like any political government. But at least it's smaller than the EU's political government. And Brexit makes the EU a little weaker.

Just as Texit would make the US Empire a bit weaker. That's a good thing.

Break up all governments into smaller and smaller bits until you get to the individual-- the only legitimate government there can ever be.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Democracy-- the definition

Democracy, when applied to political government, is mob rule.
Democracy is "Might (through superior numbers) makes right".

It is not something to be praised, fetishized, or imposed on others. It is not a good thing. It is as unethical when used to govern others as any other form of political government. At its heart, democracy is no different from any other form of political government.

To say, as I have heard some claim, that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" is to lie.

All democracy becomes tyranny, and all republics soon devolve into democracy.

It mght be more honest to call democracy "horde-ocracy".

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

No such thing as an "illegal gun"

Don't you get tired of hearing anti-gun bigots cackling about "illegal guns"? I know I do.

And it's even worse when supposed gun rights advocates fall into the trap of using the same phrase.

Because it's an utterly meaningless phrase.

There's no such thing as an "illegal gun" because there's no such thing as a legitimate anti-gun "law". There is anti-gun legislation, so I suppose there are "illegislated" guns. And since ALL legislation is counterfeit "law", I don't give a crap.

There are exactly as many "illegal guns" as there are "good cops". Zero.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Wallet "bearing block socket"

I'm always looking to improve my EDC ("every day carry"), and I came up with this idea a couple of days ago.

When making a bow/drill fireset, the bearing block you hold in your hand-- containing the socket that lets the top of the spindle spin freely-- is the hardest part to come up with in a survival situation.

If you carry paracord (and you do, right?) you won't have any trouble with cordage. Plus, you can make cordage in a pinch... although it will slow you down a bit. The other parts are just simple wood pieces-- the fireboard, the spindle, and the bow. Leaving the bearing block as the hard part; a part you might want to carry with you. (Yes, you can make a bearing block/socket from wood, too, but I wouldn't except in an emergency for several reasons-- I know from experience.)

I've noticed recently several knives with a built-in socket/divot in the micarta handle to serve as a bearing block socket-- it seems other people are recognizing that it's the hard part to come up with. I would rather not use a knife handle in that way if I don't have to, thinking that's a bit dangerous.

In the past, I carried a small stone-- just big enough to fill the palm of my hand-- that I chipped and ground until I formed a socket in it (I have a few of these around). It worked great but was a bit bulky to carry. I wanted a better solution.

So, what I did was take a brass dog tag blank and put a deep dimple in it to serve as the socket. I made the dimple by laying the tag on a thick piece of leather, placing a ball bearing on it, and hammering the ball bearing until the dimple was deep enough to serve as a socket. Originally, I put this brass socket on a separate piece of leather several months ago. This wasn't ideal and it kept getting in the way.

My better idea was to drill an extra hole in the "bottom" of the tag and rivet it to the flatter side of my wallet. After it was riveted in place, I took some needle-nosed pliers and bent the corners to fit the natural curve of my wallet. You can look at the picture to see what I'm talking about.

The wallet is quite a bit larger than the bearing blocks I'm accustomed to using (it's really thick leather), but I went outside and tried it and it worked great. The brass piece doesn't get in the way of how I carry my wallet, and hardly adds any weight, but it will be there if I need it. This is the kind of solution I love.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Statism is the strongest witness against itself

Not only does it show the flaw in statists' beliefs when statists worry about who gets to v*te, but statism is full of contradictions that show the flaws in statism.

Property rights are the biggest, most obvious strike against any chance of logic in statism.

If you believe I should be forced-- at gunpoint-- to finance a gang you claim is needed to fight theft, you've made a fool of yourself.

If you believe it's necessary to violate private property rights in order to protect property rights-- through borders, "taxes", etc., then you've testified against yourself.

But there are more problems.

If you believe you need a State/government to "defend freedom" by violating individual liberty, you're not so brilliant. And if you buy A/Ru/dolph Giuliani's steaming load claiming "freedom is about authority" then you might as well just get on the next shrimp boat to North Korea.

If you buy into the statist lie that drugs can destroy your life, so we need to impose prohibition so we have an excuse to kick your door down in the middle of the night, and murder your family and-- if you survive-- throw you in a cage, make it so you can't get a job, and destroy your life, then you've admitted that you're an idiot.

Statism is incompatible with ethics; statism is incompatible with life, liberty, and property; statism is incompatible with humanity. You can tell this just by looking at the claims statism makes and where it leads.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Don't need law to dislike something

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 11, 2019)

We all have our own likes and dislikes. This means everyone likes some things other people dislike; sometimes the likes and dislikes are passionate and the disagreements get rather heated.

There's a secret trick I discovered which seems to be unseen by most people; one which seems nearly impossible for them to even consider. Here it is, presented for (maybe) the first time you've ever heard it: It's OK to dislike something without wanting a law to ban or control it. Seriously. It really is OK.

There are things I'm not a fan of; some things I dislike a lot. I don't dare list my dislikes since such a list would offend just about everyone in some way. I can almost guarantee there are things on my list you like. Don't worry. I have no wish to use laws to force you to change or stop doing what you like.

Most of the time I don't want to make someone feel bad for liking something I don't like. Even if they like something I think is ethically wrong there's usually no point making an issue unless they want to make an issue.

As long as you aren't violating anyone's life, liberty, or property what you do is none of my business, even if I don't like that you're doing it.

When I was a youngster and was exposed to something I didn't like, my first thought was along the lines of "They should make it illegal!" Such a childish mindset! I'm glad I've grown up in the years since then. I wish everyone would.

"For your own good" is not my style anymore. Nor is "but it's offensive!"

Now when there's something I don't like I just don't join in. If it's bad enough I consider it unethical, I try to stay far away. I may let others know why I think it's wrong and try to convince them to join me in avoiding it, but I'm probably not going to try to stop anyone from doing things I don't like on their personal property. Not unless they are violating the rights of others-- and I don't mean offending them-- by doing so.

Since there's no such thing as a right to not be offended, we can all keep our offended feelings in our pockets where they belong. Let people like what they like and suggest they extend the same courtesy to everyone else. It's the civilized thing to do.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

"Green" and angry

A few days ago I let slip that the face of the Swedish Climate Troll, Greta Whatsername, triggers in me a desire to punch it.

I then immediately-- in the same post-- included that I wouldn't, because I know I have no right to do so.

Still, she's got such an angry, nagging face.

I've never seen a face like hers which didn't bring me misery. It feels personal. And, the only clip I've ever seen of her speaking was one where she was screaming something like "How dare you ruin my childhood!" Not the best way to make me join your cause, Climate Troll Greta. Especially since the only one who ruined your childhood was you-- and those who terrorized you and are now using you as a tool to promote their agenda of fear and hysteria. But it wasn't me.

I'm not so stupid that I'd go out and burn a forest just to spite her, but she doesn't inspire me to lift a finger that I wasn't already planning to lift.

It's not that I don't care about the climate; it's that I'm not convinced of the political AGCC narrative. I don't have enough information to know the reality of the situation, but I know the solution isn't more government. It never is.

But, maybe I was wrong to admit the visceral reaction I have to seeing her nagging face.

One commenter called me some colorful names and characterized me as "wanting to punch a little girl bc [sic] they don't like her expressions".

First off, 16 years-old is not "a little girl". She may not be an adult, but she's no longer a little girl (yeah, there is an in-between stage; it's not either/or). Plus, if she's old enough to nag the world and advocate using government aggression against me, she's old enough to face the consequences of her choices. Yet, I still wouldn't punch her, even though her face seems to beg for it. I don't do that. Not even to Swedish Climate Trolls. Because I'm not a monster.

She would be perfectly safe if she were sitting with me to discuss the climate. Unless she attacked me, anyway. And, if she did, she's the monster. Come to think of it, advocating using government against me is an attack... but I wouldn't punch her for it. So I guess we see who the real monster is after all.

I suspect she sides with those who were recently advocating going into the streets, wearing masks, and punching anyone who disagreed with their "social justice" agenda-- or that they side with her.

Statists see what they want to see. They interpret everyone else according to their own shrunken world view. If you admit a human flaw they immediately assume you'd act on it in the same way they would if they had such a flaw-- using freelance or political aggression. If they were honest, they'd... never mind. They aren't.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Your right to weaponized defense

I believe you should be prepared and able to defend yourself from any violation, by anyone, anywhere, at any time. No exceptions.

That doesn't necessarily mean with a gun.

You should stay aware of all the objects around you which you can transform into weapons if you need to. And, stay aware of how those objects can be turned into weapons.

Obviously, a gun-- designed as a weapon-- is better than just about any improvised weapon. But some bad guys make up rules saying you can't have a gun-- and they'd all like to do so. In fact, they would rather you have no weapon at all, but that's just not an option for them in the real world, so they do as much as they believe they can get away with.

As it is, you always have access to weapons, whether you know it or not.

If someone violates you, you have the right to use those weapons to defend yourself. If you see someone else being violated you have the right to use those weapons to come to their defense.

The dangerous thing to admit is that this natural human right doesn't change if the attacker is a cop "enforcing the law" when the "law" is counterfeit. Yes, you have the right to defend yourself and others from all violators, and the cop or its gang will probably murder you for doing so. It's one of those hard choices where neither option is particularly good for you.

Even so, it may be good for society in the long run. Good for your descendants. If it makes the police state even a little harder to maintain and expand, it helps humanity.

It's sad that so many choose to side with the bad guys when it's still relatively safe to stand opposed to them. But I won't do that. Will you?

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Dumb questions"

It has been said there are no dumb questions. My guess is anyone who believes this hasn't spent much time on Quora.

I considered quoting a few of them-- questions that I'm not even sure what was being asked-- but I decided that would be rude. I don't mean to make fun of anyone or their questions.

I realize some of the questions are probably asked by people whose grasp of English isn't great. The questions probably turn out sounding bizarre just because the communication between the asker and me isn't happening as it should.

Plus, Quora rewards people for asking questions that haven't been asked before. This leads to some perfectly intelligent people asking completely insane-sounding questions. Why Quora pays for questions asked rather than questions answered is beyond me-- and yes, that question has already been asked. But I'm pretty sure that a lot of the dumb questions come from this dumb policy.

In real life, I don't run into anything I'd consider a dumb question nearly as often. And sometimes, when I think a question is dumb, it turns out I (or the other person) was confused about something and the misunderstanding led to a dumb-sounding question being asked or a good question sounding dumb because I didn't understand what was being asked.

Maybe the saying should be modified: Other than on Quora, there are no dumb questions.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Teaching lies

I have a problem with anyone who teaches children incorrect information. When it's intentional, that's worse.

Such as the lie that government is good or necessary. This is part of the reason I so strongly dislike "public" (government) schools. Not the only reason, obviously, but a big one.

I also hate the bullying, the religious indoctrination (here, they indoctrinate more than just Statism), the theft-financing, and the antisocializing the kids go through.

I also hate the trends the kids spread among themselves at those kinderprisons, but that I don't blame on the schools.

But teaching kids incorrect information-- when the "teachers" ought to know better because they've been exposed to the correct information-- is unforgivable.

Yes, I realize most of the "teachers" were also force-fed the same lies and they are just passing along what they were taught. But once someone points out why they are mistaken, and they dig their heels in, well, that's just wrong.

Of course, they want to keep that paycheck coming, and speaking the truth would end the gravy-train-- if they could live with themselves while holding such a "job".

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Left behind because I can't ride the bandwagon

The election of Donald Trump has been bad for me. It has hurt me, personally. No, that doesn't mean I would have preferred Hillary Clinton-- I wouldn't have-- I'm just making an observation.

How did Trump's election hurt me? It cost me readers and supporters-- my monthly income has been cut almost in half since the election.

I've stayed consistent (as far as I can tell) and didn't change my stance on anything that I know of, but lots of libertarians who were "following" my blog seem to have hopped to Trump's nationalist side-- some openly so. Leaving me behind. Because I can't go there.

Maybe I'm the one in the wrong. It's always possible and is something I'd want to correct if it were so. Or, maybe I'm not wrong, but no one wants to hear the truth. I'd rather be correct than popular, though. And consistent. Being consistent doesn't mean you're right-- you can be consistently wrong-- but being inconsistent means you are definitely wrong about something.

Or maybe I've lost my relevance in other ways or for other reasons that have nothing to do with Trump's election. Maybe it's a coincidence and nothing more. It's possible.

The election of Donald Trump didn't suddenly change unethical behavior into ethical behavior just because you like it. But pointing this out seems to have hurt me. Maybe the next president-- whenever and whoever-- will reverse the trend.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Glad to see space escape government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 4, 2019)

I admit it: I've always been a bit of a space geek. Or, would that be "space nerd"? Whatever the term, I love space flight, and am especially excited to see it beginning to escape the stagnant, innovation-crushing monopoly of government.

I've enjoyed watching the recent rocket launches and the tests of the experimental vehicles. I am pulling for humans to walk on Mars in my lifetime; thinking it's looking more likely all the time.

I resent government agencies pretending to have some political authority over space flight and the companies practicing it, but the nature of government is to get in the way. Government offices are filled with hordes of people unqualified to do anything but issue or deny permits, and they are going to keep asserting control-- fighting the future-- as long as they can get away with it.

I also realize when people move to another world-- whether a planet or a moon-- they'll probably pollute the place with some sort of government.

I wish they'd establish a society instead, but since most people mistakenly conflate society and government they'll probably make the wrong choice.

The most foolish thing they might do would be to accept an Earth government's attempt to govern a colony on another world. And you know they'll try. Gotta keep milking those "tax cows" and make sure the Earth laws are being enforced. Can't allow liberty to get a foot-hold anywhere, or it might give Earth inhabitants dangerous ideas.

I've thought for decades that unless a new, attainable frontier opens up soon, the human race is doomed. Some people are fine with being jammed together in a politically controlled environment, but some of us aren't. This is why humans have always journeyed over the horizon. The first church steeple or courthouse was enough to make some frontiersmen decide it was time to pack up and move to freer spaces. This option has been closed off for too long now, and it's having dangerous consequences.

I doubt I'd go to Mars or the Moon, even if I had the opportunity. Especially not for a one-way trip. I like uncultivated plants, wild animals and free air too much.

Will space, "the final frontier", open soon enough to salvage humanity? Will it be a place of liberty or oppression? I don't know for sure, but it's finally looking a little hopeful for the first time in decades. We aren't there yet, but we're going. It's just a matter of time.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Rattling the tin cup

I sure could use some donations or subscriptions.
Check out the options for supporting this blog (its author, his daughter, their cats, etc.) over on the right side, or at the link below.
Thanks.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Statist logic

We can't eliminate schools or no one would get educated.
We can't eliminate government or warlords would take over and rob and imprison and murder.
We can't eliminate taxation or there would be no one to protect your property from thieves.
We can't eliminate rape gangs or humans wouldn't procreate.
We can't eliminate arson or people would freeze to death in the winter.

And there is the statist argument in its usual form, along with a couple of its unethical, irrational clones.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

A hole in my "preps"

As a "prepper" I have a dark confession that puts my "prepper cred" in doubt: I don't have an emergency generator.

Not only that, I've never really felt the need for one. Yes, I think they are pretty cool and feel I should want one in case TSHTF. But I would rather learn to do without electricity than to lean on it so much that I end up with another motorized mouth thirsty for gasoline.

So, I try to have non-electric alternatives or methods on hand (or in mind) rather than being dependent on electricity. I have kerosene lanterns and candles, wind up flashlights, and even a wind-up Victrola-type record player for "entertainment". I can make an evaporative cooler for refrigerated items, and could even bury frozen stuff for a little while. I could cook over a fire until my wood ran out (then scavenge from the park, perhaps).

Not sure how well that would all go in the long term.

I would miss A/C in the summer.

The one concession I made to electrical prepping is that I have a lot of rechargeable batteries (AA and AAA and C and D adapters) and a couple of battery chargers that work with my solar cell USB chargers. And I even feel a little silly about those, prepper-wise.

Of course, without electricity, the town's wells won't work-- I don't know if they have back-up generators, but I wouldn't count on it. So, since there is an utter lack of surface water in this region-- except during and immediately after rare rains (I say this as we've been having heavy rains and flash flood warnings all week!) this area is not a long-term good survival environment without electricity.

So, a generator might not even help me that much, since a reliable water supply is the real hole in my preps.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Competing political gangs and their territories

I took a walk recently, just to the bank. It turns out that's 1.1 miles, one way. On this walk, I crossed a state border. Twice.

Strange. I felt no difference when I crossed, but suddenly a whole new collection of crimes was possible, while other activities suddenly became non-crimes. Just from crossing that imaginary line. Going both ways.

On one side I could have legally been carrying a bowie knife, a sword, or a switchblade. On the other side I'm fairly sure a switchblade would have been punishable-- less sure about the Bowie knife. (The political gangs probably frown on me not knowing or caring much about their opinions.)

On one side of the line Cannabis is legal for medicinal use-- and may be legal for recreational use before long. On the other side, the state and local political bullies are digging in their heels to keep from being dragged into the 21st Century.

The state line corresponds to a county line (obviously) and a line between towns. On one side of the line, in one town, people can keep chickens and other livestock. On the side of the line, where my house is, the political bullies forbid such responsible behavior.

Arbitrary rules based on nothing more than on which side of an imaginary line I happen to be standing, even though I can easily cross back and forth. Absurdity.

Political borders and the "laws" which go with them are total hogwash.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Patriot"

I've wondered before whether I am a "patriot". A cute statist girl called me one several years ago and I wasn't sure whether I should feel insulted. (She later decided she hated me because I don't support "the troops" or the Blue Line Gang, both of which she adored.)

I decided to figure out what makes a person a patriot, but I discovered that the rabbit hole is deeper than I had expected.

Dictionary.com defines "patriot" as:

1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

It also says the word is from Greek, patriṓtēs -- fellow-countryman.

I'll get back to #1 in a second.

I guess I fit #2 somewhat. I'm more of an educator and advocate than a defender. And I oppose interference the violation of individual rights by anyone; federal, local, freelance, or whatever. It's the violation that matters, not who commits it or why.

But what about #1? This raises the question, what is a "country"? According to the dictionary it is a state or nation. I unequivocally reject the state, but what is a "nation"? Back to dictionary.com...

1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own
2. the territory or country itself

I'm fine with people and territories, but the people are only a country if they want a government "of their own"? No thanks on the shared government. That's just antisocial. I guess this is why I'm not a nationalist; I am not a statist and it seems you can't be one without being the other.

Since I don't support any country's government or its government's "interests", I can't support a country.

So, no, I'm probably not what most people would call a "patriot", and I'm fine with that.

And whatever else they may be, DemoCRAPublicans are partiots-- loyal to their party, their chosen branch of the political cult. If that loyalty supports or defends the country, they are OK with that. But they are also fine with it if it hurts the country. Or if it harms and kills individuals. The Party is what matters to them. I find that disgusting.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Liberty is for everyone

Is liberty "adult content"?

Friday Patreon notified me that my blog had been flagged as "adult content". Readers were forced to affirm they were over 18 to access it there.

In other words, apparently, some statist troll got offended and reported me.

It makes me angry that a troll can flag my blog, Patreon automatically sets it to "adult content" without apparently even checking to see if the flagging was honest, and then was up to me to file a complaint and try to get the error fixed.

Fortunately, after I contacted them, Patreon did re-evaluate my blog and took off the "adult content" flag. I thank them for that!

I have never posted anything on my blog that I would be ashamed to have a kid see or read. In fact, I wish they would. But, obviously, some would rather keep them ignorant.

Soon liberty will be flagged as "hate speech" and "child pornography", too. Whatever it takes to get it banned. It may have no place on the internet.

Some of this is undoubtedly due to governmental pressure-- I wish for a separation of internet and State-- but most of it is just due to anti-liberty bigotry from run-of-the-mill statists. Statists who must suspect deep-down that they are wrong, so they use sneak attacks to silence those who prickle their conscience (if they have one). They have no argument for their position, so they cheat.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.