Does Greta need better fake credentials?

Recently some government functionary told angry teen Greta that before she scolds Americans on what she believes we should be doing to "fix" AGCC (climate change), she needs to go study economics.

Well, sure... that might be helpful... unless she studies economics at a college or university where she'll be cheated out of learning economics, but will instead be trained in Keynesian "economics"; fake economics.

Fake credentials-- like degrees in Keynesian "economics" and "political science" [sic]-- are a big problem which seems to be getting bigger with time. It wouldn't be such a problem if people weren't trained to see credentials as automatically valid and "authoritative", even when they are in phony courses.

-

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

Report from Richmond

(One of my friends-- and a blog reader-- is a Virginia resident. He was there, on the ground, at Richmond, VA, for Lobby Day on January 20, 2020. Before the event, I invited him to write a guest post about the experience when he got the time. All that follows is his report. I hope you find it as interesting as I did.)

Richmond Experience:

I arrived in Richmond at about 10:15am, having passed a bunch of police cars sitting in several places along the highway into the city. I found no available parking on the northern side (all street-level parking was full, all public parking garages displayed "Lot Full" or "Closed" signs). I drove around to the eastern side, where I found a single parking space that another car was just pulling out of, so I took it. The VCU parking lot across the street was almost completely vacant besides a couple police cars and some "lot closed" signs with dire warnings about being towed.

After parking, I walked into the city, dressed in my suit and open carrying a 9mm handgun. It was bitter cold, and I probably should have worn another layer. I followed some small groups of people in the direction of the capitol grounds and struck up a friendly conversation with some of the people headed my way.

As I got closer to the grounds there were a few sparse groups wandering around, with a couple merchants selling Trump apparel. Walking down N 8th St, I was starting to get a little concerned that the turnout wasn't going to be as big as I hoped. However, once I turned the corner at E Franklin St, I saw that the whole street was packed with people, which was a huge relief.

I slowly made my way through the sea of orange "Guns Save Lives" stickers up to N 9th St. When I got there, the crowd thickened and there were times where I couldn't move in any direction. As I made my way past the people carrying all kinds of firearms, from little pistols to AR-15s, I noticed how polite everyone was. People made way when asked, made conversation with other armed strangers and called each other "sir" or "ma'am".

While the majority of people were white men, there were plenty of women, minorities, and even a few children.

I wandered around up N 9th St, then down to E Main St, past the Court of Appeals, then came back down Bank St. I recorded a few livestreams on my way, and then retraced my steps.

On my way out down N 10th St, I passed some LGBT and Women's groups (both with pro-gun signs and stickers).

As I walked back up N 9th St, I passed by the only person I saw at the event wearing anything anti-gun (a small pin with an AR-15 in one of those "No" circle things). They were treated just the same as anyone else, with people moving aside to allow them to pass by, many of them wearing AR-15s. I couldn't help but wonder why that person would put themselves into such a situation if they truly believed that AR-15s were so dangerous that they should be banned? I thought about trying to start a conversation, but I didn't have time to make a decision before they passed by and I figured it would be creepy for me to turn around and follow them.

I spent a little more time wandering around before getting hungry and deciding to head home.

As I was stopped checking my phone, a guy with a camera came up and asked if I would mind being interviewed. I said that would be fine, and spent a few minutes answering his questions. I'm not a good public speaker, but I think I did okay and I wanted to represent the community well. A soft-spoken guy in a nice suit with a small handgun is more likely to change minds than a guy in camo with an AR-15 strapped to his back.

At this point, it was about 12:30, and people were starting to clear out. I made it back to the car and probably left close to 12:45.

On my way home, I stopped at a Wendy's in southern VA for lunch, which was the first time in my life I'd ever open carried in public by myself. Lunch went very well, I don't think many people even noticed the dark handgun against my navy suit.

Afterwards, I sat down and calculated the square footage of the area we had occupied. Based on my observations 162,000 square feet of space was packed pretty tightly with people. An extremely generous calculation of 6 sq ft per person works out to 27,000 attendees. I'd estimate that we probably had somewhere between 27,000 and 40,000 people there.

Signed,
   Anon1

-

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

"Abuse of power"

A lot of people are throwing around the phrase "abuse of power" these days. Is it happening? Is it not? Who is guilty of it and who isn't?

Before you can figure out whether power is being abused, you need to figure out what a legitimate use of power would be. How power can be used without being abused.

Fortunately, that's simple.

A legitimate use of power would be using power in any way which doesn't violate the life, liberty, or property-- the rights-- of any other person. There is no other way to use power without abusing it.

All political government is an abuse of power, because it operates outside of what any legitimate use of power would be.

I know. If you're a political person you don't want to hear this. You want to find exceptions and justifications and you'll search for Phantom Menaces and "what ifs" with which to scare the women and children.

But it's true. It's accurate.

If you have any power and use it to violate anyone's natural rights you are abusing power. You have no right to do so. If you use the political means, and you have the power to cause any effect with it, you are guilty of abuse of power. All politicans are guilty of abuse of power. All bureaucrats are guilty of abuse of power. All State employees are guilty of abuse of power. And all those who support them are feeding the problem-- propping up the power abusers.

I oppose all abuse of power and all those who abuse power.

(Yes, I know what the picture kind of looks like. I decided it's hilarious and that I'd leave it.)

-

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

Scientific consensus

Why is anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) about the only scientific topic where the "consensus of scientists" is still supposed to be the final word, shutting down any further discussion? You don't hear many other scientific topics described in that way.

Why is that?

I think it may relate to the worshipful way most people think of democracy. If "everyone" goes along with one way, it must be the right way.

But does that make sense?

"Ninety-seven percent of doctors agree: This medicine/treatment is all you need, there is nothing more to discuss on the matter! The science is settled!" How many times in the past has this been the case, only to be dismantled by those who didn't consider it settled?

"Ninety-seven percent of physicists agree that physics is done. No need to study or look for any more forces or particles. We know all we can know. The science is settled." And, again, how many times has this been claimed, only to be overturned by some maverick who wouldn't go along with the consensus of the crowd?

How often did the general population just accept the "scientific consensus" at face value-- to their detriment-- until the consensus was disrupted?

So, if "all scientists" agree that the climate is changing, the change is due to human activity, it will be a net negative, it can be fixed, and that governments are the only thing which can "save the world", then gullible people jump on that bandwagon. "All scientists" agree, so it must be true! Right?

Strange how this problem and their proposed solution gives power and money to those who are largely "funding" the research. If some other science issue could give this much power and money to States, how quickly do you think they'd discover some crisis that only governments could exploit... I mean, "solve"? Maybe if the climate change hysteria dies down, they will find another issue to exploit. Unless political government evaporates before then.

-

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

Citicar "review"

I just had to share this video.

My Citicar was baby blue, had no fan blowing across the motor, and had no aluminum gutters. I did make my own rubber gutters to keep rain from dripping on my electrical contacts (which would make them melt and spark).

I stashed the windows behind the seats when I drove with them out-- at least until I installed zippers in them. I didn't have trouble getting the doors to latch like he did.

I repurposed that pointless "defrost" switch as a stealth "on switch". If no one was around and I didn't feel like using my key I could just flip the switch and go.
I did install door locks.
I tried not to use the "first position" power much as the resister coil would burn out easily. Once I got the hang of accelerating quickly, it was smooth and the first position was very quickly moved through. There was not much clunking after I learned to handle it. I don't remember mine being so noisy, but I usually had the radio on.

I notice, that even with all his misgivings, he enjoyed the car. I get that.

-

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

Now what, Virginia?

So, Virginia... now what?

I've read reports of the legislative molestation the Virginia political gangsters have gone ahead and set in motion against your rights. Against YOU.

So, what will you do in response?

You've seen that v*ting doesn't work. Protesting peacefully doesn't work. Telling the legislation enforcing gangsters "thank you for your service" doesn't work. So, now what?

You're either going to have to try something else, move to another tax farm, or get ready to give up your guns. How much will you take before Time's Up? How many anti-gun "laws" will you tolerate? How many anti-gun bigots laughing in your face will you remain polite toward?

I'm not proposing anything.
I'm not telling you to do anything.
I don't even know what would work.
But the way you-- and all politically active gun rights supporters in America-- have been trying to get political trash to respect your rights doesn't work. Isn't that obvious now? So what's next?

-

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

Hope for peaceful liberty on Earth

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

Peace on Earth. While it sounds like a wonderful ambition-- and under the right conditions, it would be nice-- not all peace is good.

A cemetery is peaceful. No one is more peaceful than the dead.
People who have given up are peaceful. Why fight against something which has already defeated you.

I'm no pacifist. I don't support unnecessary violence like the kind governments depend on, but I know defensive violence can be necessary.

When I first heard the story of the First World War's "Christmas Truce" between British and German troops, I was touched by the humanity it illustrated. Later in life, I stopped enjoying the tale because I realized the soldiers soon went back to doing the bidding of the politicians. The story has become one of almost unbearable tragedy to me.

Those soldiers experienced peace. They knew it was possible; that to kill and maim each other on behalf of political thugs directing them from afar wasn't necessary. If only they had understood that the war they were fighting would directly cause another world war in a generation or so, with unimaginable horrors and consequences we are still suffering, maybe they would have refused to pick up the fight where they left off.

I'm not saying it's always wrong to fight, but that it is wrong to fight for politicians. If politicians have a problem with politicians in other countries, let them fight it out in person. Leave the rest of us out of it. War is the health of the state and lies are its vitamins.

Governments can create a sort of peace. It's an unhealthy, false peace like the peace of a corpse. Peace enforced at the barrel of guns-- even though the guns are usually hidden and only come into view if you're not the kind of peaceful they like.

Peace is fine as long as it is voluntarily chosen and comes with the liberty to raise a ruckus when necessary.

Liberty is more valuable than peace. Liberty on Earth leads to the right kind of peace. The productive, voluntary kind. Peace which has room for just enough defensive violence to protect liberty and allow peace to flourish again, but no room for aggressive violence.

A few politicians may be fine with peace as long as it doesn't lead to the inconveniences of liberty, but most hunger for aggression and will say anything to get you to want it, too.

Peaceful liberty on Earth; good will to all who keep their hands-- and legislation-- to themselves. Merry Christmas!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

More fake credentials

I recently pointed out the fake credentials some people flaunt.

The Freedom Feens have pointed out that Keynesians and other central planners are experts in things that are wrong. How right they are.

And there's more.

You may have a degree in education, but if you were taught to believe education is tied in any way to government's coercive and compulsory dayprisons for kids, your degree is worthless. Any credentials you may have are fake.

What other fake credentials can you think of? There are lots of them in Statism.

-

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

Violators-- whoever they may be

It doesn't matter if you call it government, a corporation, a gang, or an individual. The label doesn't matter. If it violates life, liberty, or property it is my enemy. Not by my choice, but by the violator's choice.

The problem is archation, not government. Government is simply a problem because it relies on archation for its existence. As do other illegitimate gangs and individuals.

This is the case for more and more "corporations" these days.

Whether you believe getting in bed with the State makes them subject to the limits imposed by the Bill of Rights or not, they are archating and they are a threat to your life, liberty, and property.

Ammo.com has a recent article about these corporate liberty violators. And, just to be clear: anyone who makes it hard to exercise your rights-- or effectively impossible to do so in so many cases today-- IS violating your rights. They are in the wrong.

-

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

What's in YOUR holster?

One of the most ridiculous things I hear from time to time is when a gun-rights supporter says "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".

Yeah... no.

That's like saying I eat food because plutonium is too expensive.

Even if gravity were not an issue, I wouldn't carry a cop. I don't want to have a cop around. Ever.

His self-interests are not going to align with my own. Even if he were one of those mythical "good cops" he's still going to be more concerned with his own survival than with mine. Even if he somehow weren't, he's not going to value my survival to the same extent that I would. He's not going to see what I see. He isn't going to act or react as I would. He wouldn't be me.

I carry a gun because only I can be trusted to always have my own best interests at heart. I may make mistakes but I still trust myself over someone "protecting" me for pay. Someone who could be bought off, could change loyalties, or might have his own issues and distractions.

Even if I could carry a cop, I wouldn't. Who would really choose that ridiculous option?

-

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

Kissing some gang hiney

I've pointed out the people who need an "a**hole parking" sticker so they are allowed to park on the yellow stripes. Well, recently a new "a**hole parking" space has been reserved right beside the yellow stripes "for our law enforcement partners". And this one has a notice posted. With a light on top! (Does the light work?)

Gag!

And yet, even with the store passionately kissing legislation enforcement gang hiney, these vermin still park on the sidewalk in front of the store. A parking space front and center isn't convenient enough for them. They can't be bothered to use an actual parking space, but I'll bet they'd ticket you or me for using their "reserved" space.

What pathetic losers.

-

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

Statist priorities

I've pointed out that when the religion of Statism conflicts with other religions, people generally defer to Statism, allowing other religious beliefs to be given the scraps; to be pushed down the stack of priorities.

This photo, which I took at a nearby church, illustrates this perfectly. Oddly, for this area, the wind was calm so the flags aren't as visible as I wish. But that's a US federal flag-- Holy Pole Quilt-- placed on a pole above the Christian flag.

That's right, they give Holy Pole Quilt a position of superiority over their other beliefs. They are honoring Statism over Christianity.

Yes, I realize the old (and retired) "US flag codes" require this placement. So?

Why are they even flying Holy Pole Quilt at a church at all? What does that have to do with their primary mission?

When I was a kid I heard people talk about the brave Christians in the USSR and China who risked death by putting Christianity above the wishes and opinions ("laws") of the State. Yet Americans can't bother to do the same in a minor way when the US feral government is highly unlikely to murder them for doing so? If you won't stand up when it's easy, how can you believe you will when the stakes are high?

They need to get their priorities straight and choose who or what they are going to worship. Or, just give up.

-

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

Fake credentials

You might have a medical degree and be a doctor. You might be an expert in your field. People might come to you for medical advice and help. Some patients might even get better while you are "caring" for them.

But if you were trained to believe in (and treat) the four humors or that evil spirits cause disease, you aren't credible as a doctor. Your degree is worthless in the real world of medicine. You're a fake doctor.

You might have a degree in economics and call yourself an economist. You might be an expert in your field. People might seek your advice on economic matters, and you might have a newspaper column or write scholarly books on the topic. You might even sometimes get an economic prediction right, and you might be rich.

But if you operate on the flawed foundation of Keynesian economics you are basically an expert in humors and evil spirits, not on real-world economics. Your degree or expertise is worthless as a way to understand real-world economics. You're a fake economist-- just like John Maynard Keynes was.

ADDED: Education and "political science" [sic] are other opportunities to get fake credentials.

-

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

Banish politics for the holidays

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

The Holiday Season is the main time of year when traditions come alive. Everywhere you look, someone's tradition will be on display; from house decorations, to clothing, to food and music. These are the ones visible to the world-- many more traditions are practiced at home among family and friends. Almost everyone has some sort of holiday tradition they've passed down through the generations.

Holiday traditions can be a lot of fun. They provide a common thread running from the past to the present and into the future and they give people something familiar to anticipate. Even kids who complain that a tradition is silly might be secretly disappointed if it were skipped.

My family looks forward to our old traditions, and we've gained a few new ones over the years, too. I miss the traditions which have died out during my lifetime, but some were so tied to family members who are no longer with us that there's no way to revive them.

Traditions don't have to be the same for everyone. If you enjoy it, keep it up.

Holiday traditions remain a positive experience because they are voluntary. Even if you don't particularly enjoy one or two specific practices, no one in your family is likely to hold you at gunpoint to make you participate. They may use guilt, but you can always opt out and deal with any fallout later. It's still your choice.

And if it isn't your choice, maybe you need less controlling family members.

One thing I find sad is when people mistake stagnation for tradition. "This is how it has always been done", so there's no reason to look for a different or better way.

Political traditions are of this sort. Not only are they stagnant, but those who follow them want to use force to make everyone else follow them, too. Sometimes this force is in the form of legislation; other times it skips that step and goes straight to physical force to encourage compliance. Imagine a tradition so weak it can't survive without being forced on people. I have no use for this kind of thing.

If you want to follow coercive political traditions, at least go into them with your eyes open. And respect those who don't wish to participate.

I hope you are able to banish politics from your holiday season... and from the rest of your life. It could be the start of a worthwhile tradition.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Hey, Northam: Sic semper tyrannis!

Have you been paying any attention to the gun-owner revolt in Virginia? They are calling it a "Lobby Day". I mostly avoid political news, but this has been forcing its way into my consciousness, partly because I worry about some of those who are affected.

Governizer Northam-- the little Hitler in the Virginia governor's mansion-- along with his co-conspirators in the state legislature, has imposed a bunch of anti-gun legislation on the people of "his" tax farm. The people aren't happy about this slap in the face and insult to natural human rights. They plan to complain to the political parasites Monday, as they have every right to do.

So, the political parasites decided to declare a "state of emergency" and "ban" guns from the capitol grounds during the protest (or lobbying?) triggered by his archation. He's going to try to protect his worthless skin with metal detectors and searches.

I would like to see the people of Virginia ignore this little Hitler's proclamations and use their "banned" weapons to remove him from the governor's office and to prevent someone else from filling that office once he's gone.

That's the whole reason the right to own and carry weapons matters-- for situations (and tyrants) just like this: threats to life, liberty, and property. The Virginia government is posing a credible threat to all three. There need to be consequences for tyranny-- it needs to be too dangerous to be a tyrant.

If Holy Documents matter to you, it's obvious he's violating both the US Constitution and the Virginia constitution... and just being a run-of-the-mill dictator... with the collusion of the legislature. If the people of Virginia want to show the world they won't tolerate a Hitler-lite, this is their time to act. Otherwise, it's just empty complaints (for those who are politically active, I mean) and they might as well roll over and comply with whatever he demands from now on.

Now it appears the US feral government is taking sides against the people of Virginia by having the FAA declare a "national defense zone" over Richmond, Virginia. during Lobby Day. I'm not going to research exactly what that means, but I don't need to. You and I both know it means more power to government and less to the people. Every time.

I worry for the people of Virginia. I don't know what I'd do in their situation. I wouldn't comply with the edicts, but I probably wouldn't bother to go to Mordor, Virginia to protest, either. My rights don't depend on government's opinions or its threats of violence.

When I lived in Colorado, no one I knew cared about or obeyed the legislation coming out of Denver concerning weapons. We did what we wanted. I realize that's probably a different situation-- a much bigger state with a much lower population density. It was safer for us to ignore Denver, which was 200 miles or so away, across the Continental Divide. Denver was pretty irrelevant to life.

That's sort of the situation in this part of Texas, too. Austin is so far away, it's not even the same world, really. What New Mexico does affects my life more, but Santa Fe isn't close, either. We do, however, have anti-liberty legislation enforcement goons hereabouts, so they are probably happy to violently inflict Austin's (and Santa Fe's) opinions on us.

But eastern states are different-- generally worse in that department. I get that. I don't know what the solution might be, but it won't be pretty for someone. I know which side I want to see score a decisive win.

If you go to Richmond, Virginia for Lobby Day, I wish you success. Take care and get it done. Sic semper tyrannis!

-

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

Don't contaminate yourself

A good person, immersed in a bad institution or system, can't remain undamaged.

It doesn't matter if that situation-- that institution or system-- is a "public" school, a gang, congress, or whatever. A good person will be harmed by being in a bad situation. Especially one they chose to be in.

I don't want to see good people harmed, so I never encourage a good person to become involved in such things.

-

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

Democracy: Holy Mob Rule

Holy Pole Quilt isn't the only vulgar thing considered holy by "American" government supremacists.

Many have joined the international cult of democracy worshippers.

They worship Holy Mob Aggression.
The Holy Hive Mind or the Holy Mindless Mob. However you want to describe it.

Some try to hide this uncomfortable truth by claiming America is a "constitutional representative republic", not a democracy. This is evidence that many worship the Holy Slave Documents as well.

It's also a denial of the fact that all republics will devolve into democracies-- given time and politics.

But in practice-- Right boot, left boot, crushing the throat... what difference is there?

I don't need to be ruled, nor do I need you to be ruled on "my behalf". Not by a dictator nor by a dictating mob.

-

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

Grow up and out of it

Photo by Omar Flores on Unsplash

If you aren't at least a little bit Statist when you're very young, you may have no tribal instincts.
If you're still a Statist when you're mature, you either have no functioning mind or you have no ethical foundation.

-

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

"Listen to my voice-- you are getting sleepy..."

While most hallucinations are additive-- the hallucinating person sees something which isn't there-- I wonder whether hypnosis can do the opposite: cause people to not see what's right in front of them. To make something invisible to the subject.

I couldn't find the answer online, so I've asked Quora. So far, every hypnotist who has answered has said yes, you can be hypnotized into not seeing what is there.

That doesn't make it true, but it does make it more plausible. If it doesn't/can't work that way, oh well. It was a thought. But if it can have that effect, as hypnotists on Quora say it can, it would explain some things.

If indoctrination into the religion of Statism is a form of hypnosis, which it seems reasonable to think it probably is, it would explain why those who have been hypnotized by this government indoctrination (largely through "public schools") can't see the police state happening right under their noses. Why they can't see what's clearly there, right in front of them.

-

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

Offering you the gift of liberty

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

There's one Christmas gift I'd love to give you: the gift of liberty. The freedom to do everything you have a right to do. It's a gift bigger than you can imagine.

Alas, it's not possible to give anyone liberty. In order for you to have liberty, you've got to make it for yourself, with your own hands, and put it to daily use.

Plus, even if I could give you liberty, it would most likely be illegal.

The best I can do under the limitations of reality is get you to recognize your own liberty and encourage you to use it every day, everywhere you go, regardless of who tries to scare you out of it.

I will also refuse to violate your liberty in any way; including not seeking legislation to fence you in nor to take your property for my pet projects.

What would you like your box of liberty to contain? As long as it doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights, it's in there. It has to be in there-- you made it yourself and placed what you wanted inside. It's waiting for you to take it out of the box and use it. How great is that?

Recently an online commenter, who was trying to sell me on the wonders of socialism, was saying I'm a crook for having a house while there are homeless people in the world. She scolded me, saying I only care about myself, no matter how many people I hurt. She couldn't admit that in her ideal world there would be no reason for anyone to build houses. Why struggle and sweat if someone is forced to hand you everything you need?

The gift she was offering had shiny wrapping paper and a sparkly bow, but inside was the stench of harsh reality. A reality she refused to smell as she heaped on the personal insults because I couldn't tell her who, specifically, had been robbed of the property my house sits on over the past 13,000 years since "Clovis Man" dropped a few stone tools in Blackwater Draw. Actually, she only cared about the last few centuries for some arbitrary reason. I guess those who came before that don't matter to her.

You are free to take the gift she and her political comrades are offering, or you can take my suggestion and give yourself the gift of liberty. Which one do you think you deserve? I believe you deserve the very best.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Mind-reading? No, Behavior-reading

You and I may not be able to read minds, but it doesn't matter. You can usually tell what someone is thinking by what they are doing-- their inner thoughts and beliefs become outward acts.

Even in those cases where their behavior conflicts with what they think, you're better off responding to how they act rather than wondering what they might be thinking. How someone acts is more important than what's in their mind.

It comes down to this simple truth:
I don't care what someone believes as long as they act like an anarchist.
Which most people do, most of the time. As long as they don't try to control, rule, rob, attack, etc. others-- including me-- that's what really matters.

And really, isn't that what everyone-- even every statist-- wants from others?

I don't see people behaving as though they like being bullied and robbed, even when that's what they advocate, politically. That's because politics is self-contradictory and internally inconsistent. It fails everywhere it is tried, and always has.

-

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

Defending the castle

My first house was eight-hundred and twenty square feet, in a "working class" neighborhood beyond the city limits at the edge of hundreds of acres of woods.

I was home alone one day. My days off were Thursday and Sunday, so this would have been a Thursday afternoon.

My (at-the-time) wife had the car with her (the other one must have been in the shop) so it looked like no one was home.

I was back in the bedroom and heard the front door open and someone come in. I glanced out the window but the car wasn’t there so it wasn’t my wife getting home early.

I grabbed the .22 rifle sitting in the corner and walked to the living room and the front door.

There, in the middle of the room looking a bit shocked, was a boy of around 10 years old. I wasn’t pointing the rifle at him, but I had it ready and asked what he was doing in my house. He stammered that he was looking for me. I said “Well, here I am. What do you want?”

He couldn’t come up with a plausible story and I told him to get out and to never set foot on my property again. As far as I know, he didn’t.

 A couple of weeks later I heard that several houses in the neighborhood had been burgled— with TVs being the most commonly stolen object. This kid wasn’t big enough to carry most TVs of the era (mid to late 1980s), but he was big enough to scope out houses for an older sibling or a parent. I was glad I was paying attention and glad I looked scary enough that I didn’t seem worth the risk.

But I did start locking the door when I was home alone.

My yard eventually became scary enough that no one wanted to come near my house, anyway. Not even the meter readers for the electric utility, who told my dad-- their boss-- that a Satan worshiper lived in that house. They came to this conclusion because there were skulls and strange "ritual objects" in the yard.  It turns out they were scared of my tomahawk block and my sling target (which was a cow skull on a crude tripod). Plus, I didn't mow except for a narrow strip right around the house (I've never believed in mowing or lawns). Whatever works, right?

Some defense is active and some is passive. I support the use of both.

-

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

"Human-made weapons"

I recently saw an anti-gun bigot on Quora make the desperate claim that there can be no right to human-made weapons because those weapons didn't even exist until a few hundred years ago. He doesn't believe anyone has the right to own and to carry a gun, and is apparently ignorant of human prehistory, as well.

What is so different about a human-made weapon or any other human-made artifact? How does its history bear on this issue?

And does he mean all human-made weapons, or only guns? Does the fact that it is carried instead of being a physical part of the body make the difference?

Does a rock count since it can be used as a weapon without being altered? What of pointy sticks? Or fire? What if I carry an antler with me all the time?-- it's a deer's weapon.

Humans don't (generally) grow horns, antlers, claws, hooves, or fangs. People of his sort believe we should be punished for "only" having a brain, instead. A brain that allows us to design, make, and use weapons which don't grow on our bodies. He's insane.

Want to bet he still believes there's a right to health care or justice? Both of those only exist because humans created them-- just like guns.

Does he believe you have the right to not be a slave? The recognition of the right to not be enslaved is a relatively recent discovery. Would he toss that one, too, because it's not "old enough"?

You know he'd whine it's not the same thing.

And, the fact remains, the real issue is that there is no right to forbid weapons to anyone under any pretext. That "right" doesn't exist and can't be created. Not by legislation or majority opinion.

You just can't reason with bigots. They hate what they hate because they hate it. Politics makes people stupid.

-

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

I can't care when politicians kill politicians

photo by- hosein charbaghi 

Maybe I should be ashamed, but I just can't get worked up over politicians killing other politicians.

The only bad thing is that other people get caught up in the pre-teen drama that is politics. If politicians can get you to behave like a fool in reaction to the things they do to each other, that's on you.

Yes, I realize this sort of thing could cause an overreaction that would harm innocent people, but politicians aren't ever innocent. They asked for whatever they get. They are reaping the fruits of their labors. Their chickens have come home to roost.

Make no mistake, generals (and other military officers) are politicians just like presidents, muggers, rapists, police, congressvermin, or anyone else who uses the political means. Scum of the Earth.

If they all killed each other until none were left, but left the rest of us out of it, I wouldn't shed a tear. It's just too bad they are able to affect the rest of us out here in the real world.

-

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

Was a crime committed?

Click to embiggenize

Someone I know was told to show up for grand jury service this morning (Edit: She didn't make the cut). So this seems like a good time for a link-heavy refresher on what is and isn't a crime.

No victim; no crime.
Unless there is a "somebody" who can be pointed to (or specifically named) who had their life, liberty, or property harmed, there is no crime. There is nothing to take to court regardless of the legislation alleged to have been violated, and no matter how much evidence there may be that the legislation was violated, or how "serious" the employees of the state seem to think the violation to be. Somebody was murdered, somebody was raped, somebody was robbed, somebody was intentionally hurt, somebody was kidnapped, somebody was archated against-- crime. Otherwise, no crime.

With a bit of a qualifier I'll get to momentarily, accidents can't be crimes even if somebody was harmed. There has to be intent for it to be a crime. The courtroom is not the place to decide on restitution for accidental harm done.

However, negligence which accidentally results in harm to somebody might be a crime in some cases, depending on how likely the act was to cause harm and how easily that harm could be foreseen by rational people. Hypothetical example: If I'm shooting at a paper target on the other side of a crowded room at my house and just as I squeeze the trigger someone steps into the bullet's path, I was criminally negligent. Shooting the person might have been an accident, but any reasonable person could have foreseen the result of my action. It would be different if I were shooting at a target outdoors, having made sure of my target and the surroundings, and a time traveler suddenly materialized in my bullet's path. In most cases, it's not that obvious, though. Since this is subjective, tread carefully in this area. It's always more ethical to let the guilty "get away with it" than to punish even one innocent person. And restitution instead of punishment is always the ethical choice, especially in the case of accidents or negligence.

Being offended doesn't qualify as being harmed.

The State isn't a "somebody" and neither is society.

Possession of anything, absent someone besides the someone doing the possessing being specifically harmed by that thing, can never be a crime.

The State's courtrooms are probably not the proper place to seek justice even in cases of actual crimes.

To be better informed, learn from the Fully Informed Jury Association.
And this is why they'll never let me on a jury.

-

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

Obey! Comply! Or else...

"Do what I say and you won't get hurt."

In rare cases, this is what an armed good guy says to a villain who has been caught in the act.

However, it's more often the threat a person engaged in evil makes to get you to comply long enough that he can hurt you without risk to himself. That's why members of the Blue Line Gang say this in the furtherance of "officer safety".

If you have done nothing wrong, to be threatened in this way is a mortal threat and deserves immediate, decisive self-defensive action (when possible)-- no matter who is making the threat.
If you have done something wrong... well, you shouldn't have.

-

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.

Still a sentimental fan of holidays

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

It's the holiday season! This is the time of year when people can celebrate-- or not-- however they like. It's also when those who feel they are better than you and assume the moral authority to dictate how you should be allowed to live decry what they see as the rampant consumerism.

I'm glad I live in a time and place where "consumerism" is possible, whether I participate or not. Most of human history has been a struggle to barely survive, with a low chance of surviving long enough to die of old age. The choices and options we have today are beyond anything even royalty could imagine just a lifetime ago.

Besides, other people's consumerism doesn't hurt me at all. Buy what you want and can afford.

The reality is: no one is forcing you to buy anything-- unlike those who use politics and will force you to "buy" what they are "selling"... or else. You may feel obligated to buy gifts, and I understand wanting to give gifts and make people happy, but it's still your decision.

Of course, the height of the scorned consumerism-- "Black Friday"-- is already past. I hate the name "Black Friday" and wasn't surprised to find out the name originated with armed government employees in Philadelphia who were contemptuous of the shoppers heading to the sales on the day after Thanksgiving. Those shoppers were apparently an inconvenience to their self-styled overlords.

Businesses tried to redeem the negative connotation by saying "black" referred to the fact they could get their finances "in the black" if they sold enough that day. This was better, but I still won't use the dark term in conversation.

I want businesses to thrive but I have no desire to fight the crowds or participate in a shopping frenzy. Even though it's not for me, I can see how some people might find it exciting. Different strokes for different folks.

I like giving gifts. It's fun to find the perfect thing for someone. Especially when it's something they don't know exists or would never buy for themselves. It's a wonderful feeling.

I also enjoy seeing how people decorate their homes and businesses, and I like the Christmas music which seems to be playing everywhere during this season. Yes, I'm a sentimentalist. It can be a fun time of the year if you let it. You can even enjoy the opportunity to "Bah, humbug!" the whole thing if that's what makes you happy.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Superior numbers, but still wrong

The number of people who agree with you has no bearing on whether you are right or wrong. It might be correlated in some cases, but probably not very often. You've got to go deeper than numbers. This is also a HUGE flaw with democracy.

Look how often in the past "everyone" believed such-and-such and it turned out to be completely wrong. This is still the case.

Of course, that the majority disagrees with you doesn't make you right, either. Some people fall into the trap of believing it does.

Statists have superior numbers. They also have a set of beliefs which are demonstrably wrong. They won't listen to the reasons those beliefs are wrong, except in very rare cases. When they are exposed to the reasons, I notice they can't really refute them, but they can refuse to accept them. They'll generally fall back on the excuses that it doesn't feel right to them, they can't imagine any other way, or they don't like it.

Sure, everyone does this to some extent (even those who believe they never do) but this is a universal trait of statists. Almost a defining characteristic of statism. Statism can't exist without this trait being in full-force all the time. And they still mistake their belief that "everyone" agrees with them for evidence that they are correct.

They aren't. I'm almost embarrassed for them.

-

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.

The Modifier

If there's one trait which characterizes me, it's that I modify things. I can't help it. If I see something that I believe could be better, and modifying it to make it better seems to be within my abilities, I try.

When I was a kid this often meant I broke things and then felt ashamed.

Now I'm more likely to recognize when something is beyond my abilities-- but not always. I still break things.

This trait is why my flashlights all have LED bulbs in them now. It's why my vehicle has Fischer cup holders (not an affiliate link), why I made litter boxes for the cats, why I made myself a standing desk years ago, and why I can never seem to leave "well enough" alone.

Most of my former bosses seemed to appreciate this quality as I was good at solving problems with what I could scrounge up and modify.

But I don't stop at physical things.

When the English language seems inadequate to a task, I coin a new word. "Archate" is not the first by any means, nor was it the last, but it is the one I most hope will eventually catch on.

The reason I coined "archate" is that I really like the Zero Aggression Principle as worded by L. Neil Smith, but I knew it could be better. It was essential, but not sufficient because it didn't cover everything humans have no right to do-- everything which violates the equal and identical rights of their fellow humans. Yes, some people try to define theft, fraud, etc. as "aggression", but it's a stretch.

The ZAP, in my opinion, needed modification so I searched dictionaries for a word which suited it better than "aggression" and found none.

So I coined a word and modified the ZAP to become the Zero Archation Principle. Did I break it or make it better? I can't know the answer to that, but I can say with complete confidence that I don't feel any shame over my modification this time.

-

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.

Impizzament

If I decide to order a pizza, choose the toppings and crust style I want, and go through all the motions of ordering it and paying for it-- but for some reason, the pizza place never gets my order, did I order a pizza?

Even if I can explain all the evidence and technicalities that show I did order this pizza, will I get the pizza I ordered? Will I be eating pizza soon or will I just be arguing with people that I really did order it?

Is there any point in arguing over whether I really ordered a pizza, or should I come off my high horse and place the order again, making sure it gets to the right person-- the person who can actually fill my order-- this time?

Do I want the pizza or do I want to debate who's right?

Politics makes people stupid.

-

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.

Unshakable faith in The State

A couple of nights ago, an odd confluence of things made me consider my statist family members.

I'm currently watching The Man in the High Castle after I accidentally subscribed to Amazon Prime for a month, and then I ran across this piece of fiction in The Voluntaryist, and that combination started some wheels a-turning.

Had Germany won WWII, would my parents have grown up to be loyal Nazis? Believing the Bible told them that God had put that government over them and it was their duty to obey and be good citizens?

It really seems as though nothing can shake their faith in the U.S. feral government and its escalating police state. They may oppose certain policies or even most politicians, but they never question the institution of political government itself. They refuse to consider that the U.S. government might not be ethically superior to all others or that perhaps political government isn't necessary at all. And, of course, they are enthusiastic supporters of the State's reproductive organs. They are good Americans in all the ways the U.S. government wants.

So, had they grown up immersed in a slightly different political environment, would they manage to question its legitimacy when they can't seem to do that with this one now? Would any "patriotic American" be able to do that?

I wonder...

-

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.