Facing down Goliath?

Have you enjoyed all the pats on the back for not (yet) dying of Covid-19? I'm seeing those kinds of ads... along with the renewed calls to panic more again (since you're so inconsiderate to not be panicking enough to suit the karens now).

Are you buying in to your own heroism?

Some people seem to want to see themselves as heroic survivors for living through the pandemic. As people tend to do, they overstate the strength and danger of their opponent to make themselves look braver and stronger. Soldiers prefer to defeat giants and geniuses instead of regular people, so they'll often magnify the competence of their enemy. Nobody feels good about defeating a butterfly, they want to convince you it was a flying fire-breathing dragon.

It's the same with this coronavirus. No one feels like a hero for surviving a cold, so they'll pretend it's the plague and everyone can then feel good about themselves.

I am fairly certain this virus is highly contagious, but since it is obviously not a fraction as deadly as the fear-mongers want you to believe it is, what does it really matter how contagious it is? Catch it, get over it, and get on with life. It's not nearly as big a problem as the political responses to it are.

The only people I see who really seem desperate to make this virus out to be a bigger danger than it obviously is are those who have something to gain by overstating the danger. Either they get more political power or they get to see themselves as heroes.

It's really kind of sad and odd to me.

-

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.

Useful uselessness

I am disgusted by people who imagine themselves to be so helpless and pathetic that they believe this justifies enslaving everyone else.

Whether that's their excuse for cops or political government in general, that's how you make enemies.

Government-supremacists love this kind of person. They need them. Otherwise, there's no way to justify political government. All of society must be engineered to cater to the fears and handicaps of the helpless and pathetic, at the expense of everyone else.

I would be glad to voluntarily lend a hand... but if you're going to advocate enslaving me, that's going to somewhat kill my enthusiasm for the task. My sympathy has limits, and that's where the limit lies. My inner thoughts at this point are that you'll probably deserve whatever you get.

-

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.

No idea what government good for

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 27, 2020)

Many problems in modern societies happen because people confuse political government for something it isn't. They expect it to do things it can't do and isn't suited for. To do things right you need to use the correct tools.

A hammer is the proper tool for driving nails. A feather isn't a hammer; neither is a shotgun. Even though you might be able to use a coffee cup to drive a small nail-- don't try this with your favorite cup-- it's not a hammer either. Using things for purposes they aren't well-suited for will cause problems.

Even if something looks like a hammer, feels like a hammer, and can be wielded like a hammer, if it is made out of the wrong stuff it's not going to work well as a hammer.

After decades of observation I have yet to find any situation which requires government, or where government would be the best tool for the job. It doesn't seem to be the correct tool for doing anything helpful.

You probably disagree, so I'll stay out of your search for the proper use of political government and instead focus on what I know government isn't the right tool for.

Government is not your doctor. It is not a scientist. It's not an expert on anything other than how to push people around and steal their life, liberty, and property.

Government is not your parent. It is not your educator. It is not your moral guide. It is not your savior. It is not your friend.

Government is not your spouse, nor is it your provider. It is not your leader or your protector.

Government is not a genie from a magic lamp, granting your wishes. It is not your ATM. Anything it gives you has been stolen from someone-- often from your future self. Can future-you afford to support present-you?

Thinking of government as something it isn't won't turn out well for society. It's not healthy to treat it as though it is any of those things.

Even if you get away with using government as a tool, when you mix anything with politics you end up with only politics. It's like mixing poison with food.

As I say, I can't tell you what government is good for; I'll let you ponder the answer to that puzzle for yourself. For me, political government-- which is everything people usually call "the government"-- is an unnecessary evil. It's not a tool I would use even if I had no other.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Government is a mafia

Very often when I say something about having no need of being governed, some "Jeenyus" will come back with "Then you are free to leave my country". Ignoring the rules about not leaving with your property and the fact that there is literally no free place left to go.

Nope. To government-supremacists, if you don't like the gang that controls your neighborhood, don't try to kick them out, just leave. Leave your property behind, leave your family, leave your friends, leave everything familiar. Because the gang has a better claim to your territory than you do-- according to their supporters. And if you resist, their hit men will murder you.

This is exactly the same option you'd have if the mafia has taken over. I mean, if another mafia has taken over.

Government is a mafia.

If you don't like the way they run the territory they claim-- the archation they commit-- you can leave. Giving up all your land and leaving behind most of your money as an exit fee. And to what gain? You've landed in the territory claimed by another mafia.

Maybe that's sometimes still the best you can hope for, but it's not the solution it's claimed to be by supporters of the government mafia.

So when some brilliant government-supremacist says "Love it or leave it" they are admitting that government is a mafia. Thank them for making your point for you.

-

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 tread on ... anyone

I'm not "Black". I can still tell when "Black" people are being violated, and I don't like it. I can also see when "Black" people are violating others and I don't like that, either.

I'm not conservative. I can still tell when conservatives are being violated and I don't like it. I can also see when conservatives are violating others and I don't like that, either.

It's the same for any other category of people. Who you are isn't the part that matters to me.

For me to only care about violations if I'm the one being violated would be childish. Yes, it's sometimes more personal than other times, but I care if anyone is violating you for any reason, even if it's not going to affect me. Probably even if the claim is made that it will help me.

Your equal and identical rights should be respected and protected from all violators. Your primary responsibility is to not archate. I expect everyone to live up to that responsibility.

-

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.

Square circles

A person on Twitter recently claimed to be a "big government libertarian". I'm less and less convinced it is possible to be a minarchist libertarian without doing some incredible mental (and moral) gymnastics, but I know for certain a "big government libertarian" is logically and ethically impossible.

It's actually like claiming to be a square circle-- just not logically possible by definition. No matter how much you'd like it to be.

No true circle would have corners. Of course, the lack of corners doesn't mean the shape is a circle, either, but the presence of corners does, really and truly mean it's not one. This is simply a statement of fact. It's not an insult to those with corners. Accept it and move on.

If you believe you are a "big government libertarian" you are lying to yourself as surely as if you believe you are a square circle.

Join us in reality. It's not always a happy place, but our problems aren't imaginary ones of our own making.

-

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.

The real Covid-19 heroes

I'm coming to the opinion that those who are risking getting coronavirus are serving humanity. If the riots are doing any good, that's it. Same for political rallies (a slow riot?) or any other gathering.

Maybe it's not good for individuals who are under greater risk of dying from it, but this thing is going to have to run its course. The only way that's going to happen is if most people get it-- and if the experts are right (Ha!) and immunity doesn't last long, most people are going to have to get it at roughly the same time to take away its power.

In fact, it's probably our responsibility to get out there regardless of the risks (if any).

It seems Covid-19 has already lost most of its power to kill. Until the past couple of days, none of the 3 counties in various parts of the country I'd been watching with personal interest had had a new death attributed to coronavirus in 3 or 4 months. That's right-- three or four months. Even as reported cases of the disease have skyrocketed. That ought to tell you something.

Even the two deaths which suddenly showed up after the long "dry spell" are suspicious to me for a variety of reasons. Could my prediction about a renewed push to get people to worry about conornavirus again be coming to pass?

The panicdemic has also lost most of its ability to scare all but the most politically susceptible and scientifically ignorant. Politicians and other political people are desperate for you to stay scared so you'll give power to the politicians, regardless of reality. Don't. No threat is so great that such behavior would be a good idea.

If you are worried about the virus, please take every precaution you can. Let the rest of us do what we need to do to make the world ready for you again. Please don't try to stop us or point and whine about us. Don't be a karen.

-

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.

Politics fears (or hates) reality

Reality seems to offend the noisiest people these days. It's not just that they don't like it, they want to deny it even exists. And they demand you go along with them.

Especially when it contradicts their political agenda.

To this way of hallucinating, science isn't real to them because it has too much "western, white male" influence. It doesn't lead where they want to go. Nor (the belief goes) can you expect others to behave ethically when that's not a path that their culture created.

And on and on and on.

Reality is reality even if you don't like it. Even if it goes against your desire to force other people to pretend otherwise while facing the guns of government or the censorship of corporations. Or the wrath of the W0ke.

Maybe humans can't really know reality in its deepest sense. It's possible that's how it is. I can still recognize non-reality when I encounter it. And some reality isn't that hard to figure out.

One reality is that every human being has equal and identical rights. Every last one of us. It can't be logically otherwise. No one can have the right or imaginary "authority" to violate those rights for any reason. No one has special rights just because they choose to see themselves as a victim or are otherwise mentally ill. You aren't obligated to act as though someone's mental issue dictates reality for the external world. Anyone who attempts to use force to achieve this goal is committing archation.

I get it: Sometimes reality sucks. I want to be able to time travel and change the past. I want a Firefly-Class spaceship and a real lightsaber and a collection of sci-fi guns of various kinds. And to easily accomplish something that earns me a billion dollars. But I'm not going to attack you just because reality is what it is and doesn't hand me everything I want. That would be stupid. That would be politics.

-

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.

"A few bad apples"

Do we debate terrorist corruption?

Do we argue that not all rapists are bad people; it's only "a few bad apples" making the rest look bad?

No. Not if we are sane.

Because you can't have something evil and pretend those who participate willingly aren't committing evil just by showing up.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Market needs freedom to flourish

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 20, 2020)

The world's economy is being damaged by this pandemic, or, more accurately, it's being damaged by government reactions to the pandemic. The damage is adding up; getting worse with time. The only questions are: how bad is the damage going to be? and how long will it take to recover? I don't know the answers; no one does.

The economy will show scars of this time for years to come. Maybe forever. There are businesses which were forcibly closed and are never coming back. Whole sectors of the economy may die off from the damage. Sure, deadwood and weak branches were pruned away by the event, but there are some previously healthy limbs being torn off as well. The authoritarian shut-down was just more than some businesses could survive.

The shut-down may turn out to be an economic extinction event, like an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs, and if so, there will be lots of vacant economic niches waiting to be filled. Perhaps they are waiting for you to fill them.

So it's not all bad news.

The automobile may have killed off the buggy-whip market, but look at all the new markets it created. We wouldn't have rear-view mirror pine tree air fresheners and thousands of other products if cars hadn't reshaped the market.

Things change. We will recover. We will be different; stronger.

Some economic barriers have fallen away during this pandemic. Mostly bureaucratic nonsense like licensing and such-- one example is letting doctors practice across state lines. Government may try to put the barriers up again when this is over. Don't let them. Anything which gets in the way during a pandemic also gets in the way during normal times, although it may not be as obvious. Use your new knowledge to oppose those barriers being restored and notice other barriers which should be removed.

Those who can adapt will do better than those who can't. Some people may be surprised to discover whether or not they are good at adapting. There are always opportunities around you. Learn to spot them, and find ways to act on them. This is something I'm not especially good at-- my hope is that you are better at it than I am and that I can learn to do better.

The market will prevail if allowed to flourish in freedom. Only political parasites would try to hold it back. Watch carefully to see which side those with political power choose.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Dealing with cops

Treat any encounter with a cop as if you are dealing with an armed, mentally ill serial-killer (who may or may not have murdered yet) who belongs to a huge, nation-wide gang of the same sort of people.

Because that is who you are dealing with.

I once had an encounter with a person like that who didn't wear a badge. I was polite, cautious, and prepared to kill him. Since the person wasn't a cop with "qualified immunity" he didn't escalate his aggression to the point where I would have been forced to act to stop the attack.

If he had been a cop, there's a good chance I wouldn't have survived the aftermath of the encounter.

Cops know they are largely immune from consequences of their actions, since killing one in self-defense is punishable by death. Is that knowledge likely to make them act better or worse? You know the answer if you know anything about human nature.

Abolish the police.

-

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.

Extended contact with a cop

Even if you pretend the legislation enforcers of the Blue Line Gang are somehow good or necessary (they aren't), if a cop can't settle a situation in less than a couple of minutes, he needs to just let his victim go.

The recent murder of Rayshard Brooks is a prime example. For over 40 minutes the cop kept molesting him, until he couldn't take it and ran-- only to be murdered by the subhuman failure in a badge.

I once sat in a convenience store in the middle of the night and watched a cop force a guy to do sobriety test after sobriety test-- for well over half an hour-- until the exhausted guy finally "failed" one and was arrested. It should have ended with one test, if it was necessary at all.

In the same town a few years later, there was a case where a cop (possibly the same one, but I'm not sure who I watched molest the guy) hassled a guy for a long time on suspicion of driving drunk. Finally, the victim had had enough and told Officer King he was leaving. "You know where I live; come get me if you want to arrest me" and he left his car to walk home. This caused the cop to flip out and electrotorture the guy excessively which resulted in a lottery win for the cop's victim. On the backs of all local victims of government.

These are cases where the cop wanted to commit a kidnapping and couldn't think of a reason to justify it, so he molested his victim long enough to find something. This is evil. And it is rampant.

It's no wonder people run after 30 to 45 minutes of an armed goon in their face trying to find a reason to kidnap or rob him.

The only potentially "good cop" is an ex-cop. Cops are scum. Yes, all of them, even your nice Uncle Bob the cop.

-

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 may need a lawyer

I hope not, but...

I've been trying to find a way to make some Time's Up items. I wish I could get some flags made but that always goes nowhere due to the expense of a run big enough to bring down the price of individual flags so that they would be affordable.

Anyway, I was going to make some Time's Up items through TeeSpring. I worked for hours getting products ready. Immediately when I "went live" they disabled my products, saying my design was subject to a copyright claim.

I filed a counterclaim, and never saw a reply (it said it could take 14 days) so I filed another one.

They wrote back that time and said "Time's Up" is trademarked and they will not be reinstating my products.

I've looked through the government's trademark office database and found nothing.

I've asked them who has trademarked it, since it is my original creation. But if they don't respond with a real answer (or not at all) I might have to do something to be able to make products with my own design on them. And this pisses me off greatly.

Does anyone know a lawyer who would do this pro bono? Or they could sue and keep most of the money as long as I can make my stuff.

I've never minded if someone makes a Time's Up product, and have given permission to several people to do so over the years. My problem is if someone has actually trademarked/copyrighted MY design to prevent me from making things. Or if TeeSpring is lying to me.

Also, tonight Patreon gave me a warning about running a raffle. Which I'm not. And never have and don't want to.

UPDATE: I am told these people "own" the words "Time's Up".

UPDATE 2: They have ignored every message I've sent them. So, I guess I'm not going to be able to use TeeSpring to make Time's Up products. I'll try to figure out something else. This is one of the problems with "intellectual property", to pretend someone can own words so that no one else can use 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.

Legislation is never good

All legislation has negative consequences. Even "laws" you might like.

Concealed carry legislation might sound like a good thing-- the more people who carry, the better. But by making it seem as though government gets to decide who is armed, it makes people accept anti-gun legislation more readily.

It works the same way with every other type of legislation. Even if you can't imagine how that could be true.

Legislation is always a bad idea. Don't patch bad "laws" with more "laws"; abolish the bad "laws".

-

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.

Anarchy Day 2020

It's Random Acts of Anarchy Day again.

Do something right. Without "official" permission or a license.

Thank you!

-

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.

"Classical liberalism"? Yuck!

For years, I've noticed the more refined "libertarian-leaning" elites out there have claimed to be, not libertarians, but "classical liberals". This may be to distinguish themselves from the unwashed masses like me.

Once upon a time, I felt a little guilty that I couldn't be part of that elite. I eventually came to accept that it simply isn't possible. I don't fit.

I can't be a "classical liberal" because I don't accept any justification for political governance. Ever. Politics makes people stupid.

Sure, maybe it's better to be a "classical liberal" than to be fully on board with whatever police state dystopia the pro-government extremists lust for. Still, it's a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. Once you accept just a little political governance, how will you stop it from growing out of your control? History has shown that you can't. Or won't.

How liberal-- in the antique sense of the word-- can you be when you still advocate stealing "just a little" to prop up your "minimal government"? "Just a little slavery" to empower the "night watchman" state? Even if this "minimum state" doesn't immediately do what political governments naturally do and metastasize out of control. Supporting such a state of affairs doesn't seem generous/liberal; it seems greedy and self-centered to me. They want "just a little" government so badly they'll sacrifice your liberty to have it.

No "classical liberalism" for me! It relies too heavily on politics.

-

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 be timid

So many people seem reluctant to dive in. They want to tiptoe around the edges.

If you're going to do something, and you're sure it's the right direction-- or at least not the wrong direction-- go big!

Don't just have shaggy hair, grow it long.

Don't just listen to music, sing karaoke!

Don't be a lukewarm political libertarian, be a real libertarian.

Society has enough wishy-washy people who are afraid to stick their necks out. No one needs any more of them.

If something is worth doing, it's worth going for. Moderation is OK as long as you don't overdo 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.

Time to let people take own risks

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 13, 2020)

I would expect, given the record of failure, this coronavirus experience would cause people to reconsider their belief in the credibility of government. From past experience, I know hope-- or something darker-- springs eternal. Most people are desperate to believe government is capable and credible in spite of 5000-plus years of evidence to the contrary.

As face masks become mandatory in more places, don't forget those same government experts were ridiculing people who were wearing masks early; insisting masks didn't work-- and telling people to stop buying or wearing them-- just weeks ago.

They have also been encouraging businesses to limit their hours of service which forces more people into a business during fewer available hours, and they're closing campgrounds and other places where people could physically distance in the healthy outdoors. Both policies are the opposite of helpful.

People choose to not remember the deadly errors, but view them as government taking decisive action to "flatten the curve".

I understand the call to "flatten the curve"-- especially in the early days of the pandemic when everyone was just guessing what might happen. We now know that's not going to work. It's time to let people make their own choices and take their own risks.

This will solve itself if people let it; faster if government stops dragging it out.

There's not going to be a vaccine-- not a real one, anyway. This virus is going to have to go through its natural cycle. If you're going to catch the virus, it's going to happen sooner or later. Since eighty percent of cases don't cause symptoms, you may never know. You may have already had it.

Let the virus spread and naturally lose strength over time, as these types of viruses always do.

No, that's not "safe". Nothing is. Americans are giving up their liberty for promises of safety. Promises which were lies from the start. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin wrote those timeless words on November 11, 1755.

Soon you may be forced to decide which is more dangerous-- the virus, the government, or economic disaster-- and act accordingly.

Every non-governmental job is essential! It's time to do the adult thing and get back to normal life. Lead the way and force government policy to play catch-up, as it usually does. Recovery is, and has always been, up to you. Let's get to it!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Tearing down statues

I have no personal attachment to monuments to military/political people or events. You could say I even hate most of them. You probably understand why. Every historical figure is almost surely someone's Hitler.

However, art-- even when ugly or offensive-- is art. And older art is historical. Destroying historical art because it has unpleasant connotations is ignorant. The "reasons" are irrelevant. I opposed it being done in Iraq and I oppose it being done in America.

Not only is art being destroyed, but the vandals are also burying history. Hiding something doesn't change what happened, and often helps some people pretend it didn't.

Tearing down monuments is the book-burning of our time. At least until book-burning comes back into fashion.

-

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.

Your autonomous zone

Autonomous zones are suddenly all the rage.

I'm all for setting up autonomous zones, but not if you steal other people's private property to do it. That's what political governments do, and it's wrong. (Government "property" already belongs to you so it can't count.)

Your property is-- or should be-- an autonomous zone, whether it's your house or your business. You rule that zone as supreme dictator (if living with others, as supreme co-dictators)-- at least until you choose to voluntarily open it to others, in which case you can't just violate visitors' rights because you want to. If you do this you're no different than any other political government.

But as long as it's your legitimately-owned private property and you don't open it to visitors, it should be yours to control completely.

No representatives of any other government allowed in unless you explicitly permit it on a case by case basis. No cops. No "tax" collectors. No inspectors. None of them. They have no right to violate your autonomous zone in an "official capacity" for some other organization that has no legitimate claim on your property (like a town, county, state, or country).

A "property tax" is a yearly ransom imposed by these thieves who have no legitimate claim to your property-- but who will steal it and murder you for resisting. Be careful dealing with this kind of robber. Their gang is large, stubborn, and heavily armed.

If you use your property to violate the life, liberty, or property of others, they have the right to defend themselves from you. You can't make a rule to take away their right to do so-- again, this is a tactic political governments try to get away with. So, act wisely and ethically, unlike they do.

You might even join with others to create a larger autonomous zone-- as long as it is by unanimous consent. That's more difficult, and not necessary.

No one has a higher claim on your property than you do-- not even if legislation and policies pretend otherwise.

Your home is your autonomous zone; your castle. Never forget it. How you choose to act on this knowledge is your business.

-

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 dishonesty

A while back I listened to a Left-Statist preaching against Religious (Christian) Nationalists.

You know I'm not a fan of religion, of nationalism, nor of Right-Statism. But I am a fan of truth, and this podcast had very little truth in it.

I've never heard such a collection of dishonest Straw Men and outright untruths in one place-- by someone who seemed otherwise intelligent and well-meaning-- in my entire life as I heard in one hour of listening to this Left-Statist author and the show's host.

Straw Men, false dichotomies, lies, mischaracterization (about both Right-Statists and Left-Statists). It was hard to listen to. It was full-on fanatical government-supremacism from beginning to end.

She (and the host) pretended that government handouts financed by theft are the same thing as charity. They pretended that democracy is laudable (as long as their side [sic] wins). They focused on how these Right-Statists get out the news of the candidates they like while utterly ignoring how the Left-Statists use the entirety of the national mainstream and alternative media (including social media) to campaign for their candidates. The only reason that's OK is that their side [sic] uses it. They lied about government indoctrination day-prisons to equate them with education.

I can't even list all the dishonesty they packed into that hour. It was vile.

But it's a good way to remind myself how these people think and the superstitions they believe and base their lives on. I couldn't do this very often though. Yet, this is why libertarians are better informed than statists-- we hear and evaluate both sides, honestly and often. They don't even hear the other side.

-

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.

Defense for the incapable

A common tactic from those who want to at least appear to have an argument against abolishing the police is to either claim that they themselves are incapable of protecting their own life, liberty, or property, or to try to scapegoat someone else as being incapable.

Nonsense.

Plus, when you try to blame others for your desire to keep "employing" the gang, it's rude!

I've seen enough examples of kids, small women, the elderly, and the disabled protecting themselves and others from archation (and so have you) that I don't buy that anyone who isn't completely helpless is incapable. It's a coward's lie.

Maybe some don't want to accept the responsibility, but they can.

It's not your job to coddle those who refuse, but you can if you want-- at your own expense. It doesn't give anyone the right to enslave everyone else for their imagined weaknesses.

Yes, there are some who are truly incapable of defending themselves, feeding themselves, or wiping their own butts. Nice people take care of this kind of person, sometimes for money-- but society doesn't revolve around their inability. That would be like living in a prison established to make certain that no one could be any more capable than the least capable among us. I'm not going to live that way.

Refusing to consider abolishing the police based on the lie that people who are otherwise capable can't protect themselves is antisocial, unethical, and statist (but I repeat myself).

-

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.

Candace Owens, I thought you were better than that

Candace--

To observe that a murder happened and to point out that it was a bad thing doesn't mean someone imagines the victim was a hero. I never thought that.

It just means that at that moment he was doing nothing which required killing him to defend life, liberty, or property.

Why would a murder victim need to be a hero before I oppose the murder? It would be a strange thing to need to check to make sure every murder victim is a hero before objecting to his or her murder.

That he had "drugs" in his system is irrelevant unless you believe it's OK to murder a woman who's had some wine and then fights back against a kidnapper. I take that back-- it's irrelevant and wrong even if that's what you believe. The stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is prohibition propped up by counterfeit "laws". To excuse murder based on that Big Government program is wrong.

Yes, it is known that Floyd did some actual crime, too. Real archation. His victim would have been right to have killed him in that encounter. I would have cheered his death in that case-- it would have been self-defense and not murder. But not in this case, and not over what he was murdered for doing.

Your fawning support of government-supremacism and its jackboots seems like it would embarrass you. It would certainly embarrass me.

I really imagined you were better than that and I'm disappointed to discover I was wrong.

-

OK, I admit I've never followed her or even read anything but selected quotes of hers, but most of those seemed a little smarter than what I saw when she tried to make sure to tell people who protest the murder that Floyd had a criminal past. So does the murderous cop-- why not go into detail about that? Why not recognize that policing attracts thugs and turns otherwise decent people into thugs or at least into people who will stand by and allow thugs to violate life, liberty, and property-- all in exchange for a paycheck financed by theft. Government-supremacism makes people stupid... or hypocritical or 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.

People like this are why we can't have nice things

This was in response to a comment in which I posted a link to my suggestions for ethical alternatives to theft-funded Blue Line Gangs.

See if you can find the flaws in her complaint compared to what I actually suggested in that post. And, this time I'm not going to protect the identity of a dishonest statist.

I would have shrugged it off if she had addressed what I really said, and not only responded to the hallucinations in her head, instead. If you have a problem with my suggestions, address them honestly. Don't strawman it like she did-- my response, if you do, depends on how sorry I feel for you in the moment.

Is she only dishonest, or also pathetic, or just a copsucker? You decide. People like her try hard to ruin everything for the rest of us who aren't so pathetic.

I can't wrap my head around how emotionally attached most people seem to be to the occupying military force that infests America. Even people who (it seems) would know better. They are not essential to society-- they are society's enemy. They are the enemy of individual rights and liberty.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Found: Those "good cops"

I'm always being scolded for insisting there are no good cops. "Of course there are good cops!" they'll say.

They'll even point to examples they believe prove their point. I look at each one carefully.

I've seen nice cops and even helpful cops. But no good cops. Not one. Not ever.

Yet the protests continue.

But I finally figured out where all those good cops are hiding.

They've been in Wishful-Thinking-Land all along, hanging out with the good rapists, the good IRS employees, and the good looters.

It's always the last place you look!

-

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.

Abolish the police (and then what?)

The completely rational idea of abolishing the police scares some people.

They think "But who would I call if someone is breaking into my house in the middle of the night?"
Chances are, if that's happening, it's a wrong-address police raid and you're about to be killed, and calling more police to the scene isn't going to help you. I'm sorry if this news upsets you, but you need to face reality eventually.

On the off-chance it's a freelance thug breaking in, you have better options than calling the police even now.

Take responsibility for your own defense-- you ought to be doing this first anyway. Calling someone else should always be a last-ditch response. You are there now; they aren't. What could happen before someone arrives to save you? Almost anything. You are the first responder, and you always have been. Act like it.

If you still feel the need to call back-up: Call your neighbors. If any of my neighbors called in the middle of the night, I'd respond.

If that doesn't work for you, there are still options better than inviting the Blue Line Gang to your house and facing the very real possibility they'll shoot you by "mistake".

Use Cell411.

Or call a crackhead.

Or, use the money you should be saving by not being "taxed" to fund those badged tax junkies to hire private security-- ones who will actually be contractually obligated to protect you, individually ... unlike police.

Or think of another option that suits you better.

The thing is, to imagine that abolishing the police would leave you helpless is what the police would like you to believe, but it's not even close to reality. The "reasons" to not abolish the police are as flimsy as the "reasons" people once used to say it wasn't possible to abolish chattel slavery. In hindsight, those "reasons" look stupid, dishonest, or evil.

You have options; better options. You can create new options. Police must be off the table to free you to find better solutions.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Defund, dismantle, and disavow-- Abolish the police

Minneapolis is "threatening" to defund its police department? It's a good first step... if they are serious. I have my doubts.

Abolish the police!

Isn't it odd how an idea which has been around less than 200 years is now imagined by so many people to be essential for civilization. Especially when that institution is utterly antithetical to civilization and society. This societal cancer (or is it a virus?) is said to have begun in London, England in 1829 and spread from there. It should have been smothered in its crib.

Abolish the police!

But, yes, defund the police. Not only in Minneapolis but everywhere. And then refund the money to the victims of theft ("taxation") so they can provide for their own security if they so choose.

Abolishing the police would get rid of the police union, too. A valuable bonus. Government employee unions are a lie anyway.

Dismantle the whole institution until not one stone remains stacked on another. And don't replace it with anything. You have to disavow the whole concept of government police. Otherwise, someone might try to establish a new legislation enforcement gang later.

Abolish the police!

If people want to hire security-- and pay for it without the ability to force those who don't want to chip in to pay anyway-- that's their right. They don't have the right to hire enforcers and force everyone to pay for them-- they never did.

Government-supremacists are terrified of abolishing the police. They are afraid of what would happen next. Sure, some are probably afraid of rampant crime, but I'll bet more of them are even more afraid of people finding out they never really needed the Blue Line Gang in the first place. Once you figure this out it's not that far to realize you don't need politicians, either.

Abolish the police! It will be OK. I promise.

(Abolish the police, and then what?)

-

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.

The murder of George Floyd

George Floyd may have had some drugs in his system at the time he was attacked by the Blue Line Gang.
He may have resisted arrest.

So?

To those who think this matters, how do they feel if a woman who had a glass of wine is killed while fighting off a kidnapper? It's the same thing.

Once I discovered Floyd was originally molested by legislation enforcement thugs because he may have spent a counterfeit Federal Reserve Note (FRN) I was even angrier over his murder.

I have no idea how many counterfeit FRNs I may have spent over the course of my life. Every few months some of them turn up in this area. I know cashiers who have been fooled before the counterfeits were discovered by management. If they were good enough to not be noticed before the cashier got them, should the cashier be kidnapped or murdered over this mistake?

Is a phony piece of phony money-- a counterfeit of a counterfeit-- worth killing over?

The Federal Reserve [sic] makes trillions of counterfeit dollars. That's what a Federal Reserve Note is. And that's the real crime.

Those cops should never have approached George Floyd.
They should not have escalated the situation to a kidnapping.
They should not have murdered him.

Police are where the knee of tyranny meets the neck of humanity.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Legislation and the responsibility gap

When someone looks at-- or imagines-- evil behavior and says "This is why we have to have laws" they are usually admitting they are not responsible enough to avoid doing the wrong thing. It's an admission of their own ethical weakness.

I don't believe you suffer from that particular weakness-- you don't "need" legislation to keep you from raping, murdering, looting, etc. I feel bad for those who imagine they do, and you probably do, too.

Or alternatively, if they lack the inclination to archate, the claim that "we need laws" is an admission that they don't feel they can be responsible enough to defend themselves (and others) from bad guys. They fantasize that legislation can bridge their responsibility gap.

Either way, it's a failure of personal responsibility and as such is kind of pathetic. Don't be like 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.

Reopening isn't politicians' call

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 6, 2020)

To open or not to open; that is the question. But it's the wrong question. While there's plenty of debate and disagreement over allowing businesses to re-open; when and how it should be done, the discussion misses the point completely.

No one had the right to shut down businesses they didn't own. You don't have the right to tell someone they must shut their business and you can't delegate a right you don't have. Not to a governor or anyone else. This means the authority to tell businesses to close shop, even temporarily due to an emergency, doesn't exist.

The same applies to telling people they aren't allowed to leave their house or to gather with groups of friends. To forbid people to gather is a clear violation of the First Amendment even if you agree and even if government employees are allowed to get away with it.

Nowhere does the Constitution say "unless there is an emergency and people are scared". I know because I've checked.

Government employees can get away with making these rules because the people of America have been infected with a superstitious belief in political authority.

I understand the fears which lead people to accept such orders, even though I don't share them.

I still believe you should be careful and shouldn't do things which put others at too much risk.

Respecting liberty is always the right choice, but there are risks either way.

There is no policy which won't cost lives. That option doesn't exist, even in normal times. The best you can do with any policy is trade lives. Ignoring the virus would have cost lives; shutting the economy is costing lives; seeking some sort of middle ground costs lives too. It's time to stop this silliness.

The ethical thing to do is to remove government from the equation, let business owners decide when and how to re-open, and let individuals decide for themselves the amount of risk they are willing to accept.

If someone is not willing to accept risk to save America, they are perfectly free to self-quarantine inside their homes as I would assume they have already been doing.

This virus-- or any other-- is going to have to run its course, whether it happens in a month or in a year. It's time to accept this and let it. I think you'll discover the fear-mongering was overblown.

So, open or stay shut, but it was never the politicians' decision to make.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Libertarian tyrants?

If your argument is that "libertarians will never get into power because..." then you have shown you don't understand libertarianism. It's not about gaining power; it's about recognizing that no one has the right to archate.

It's the same sort of thing that happens when someone makes the statement that "if libertarians would use government power to force someone to carry a baby to full term, don't they have the obligation to have government support them afterward?" I actually heard someone make that case-- again, displaying an incredible lack of awareness of what libertarianism is.

Libertarians can disagree over abortion; they can't really disagree over the use of government/initiated force and still qualify as libertarians.

Objecting to this stuff isn't "No true Scotsman"; it's pointing out the nature of 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.

Censorship is a loser move

Censorship is running rampant, but I've seen people argue that it's not censorship unless government is doing it. That's not correct. Censorship doesn't only refer to government action.

While the First Amendment prohibition of censorship only applies to government organs, because those are the only ones who can use legislation to prevent someone from expressing an opinion (or telling an inconvenient fact) or hearing the same, it is still censorship if I prevent you from speaking or being heard. I'm not individually obligated to promote or "host" your message, but if I take action to prevent it from getting to those who want to hear it, I'm censoring just the same as if I banned you from expressing it.

If I deleted comments from my blog which expressed an opinion I didn't like, it would be within my rights... and it would still be censorship. I wouldn't feel right about doing it because, to me, censorship is never ethical, even when you have the right to do it.

The first definition of "censor" is "an official" who suppresses [things] deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. But the second expands that to be anyone who does something similar. That encompasses employees of Twitter, Google, Facebook, and all other quasi-governmental, pseudo-private, institutions.

As I have pointed out on the topic of "private prisons", if it's wrong to do something, it doesn't magically become right just because it's not being done by a direct government employee. It's wrong if done by a corporation or by a private company or by an individual. Murder isn't wrong only when committed by a cop, and censorship isn't wrong only when committed by a government censor. Even though the First Amendment only applies to the direct government employee.

Interestingly, just after I wrote this I ran into something very similar linked over at Claire's blog. I suggest you read that one, too.

-

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.

Why reform, and preserve, evil?

Should chattel slavery have been reformed instead of abolished?

So it is with the police-- legislation enforcement gangs. There is no acceptable way to reform that gang, they must be abolished, Totally. The institution is an abomination and can't be made otherwise.

Yes, the legislative fiction of "qualified immunity" needs to be scrapped. It's the Nuremberg "defense" as policy. I bet the Nuremberg defendants would have given anything to have been protected by that corrupt "legal" concept! And it's just as unethical-- as evil-- no matter who it protects. But it's still not the core problem. The existence of the "job" of police is that core, and it needs to be dug out and burned as a biohazard.

I don't need or want police. If you use them against me you are my enemy and a bad guy (since I will not have archated against you) and I don't want to have them used against you "on my behalf" [sic]. I'm not that much of a loser.

Abolish the police.

-

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.

This anarchist condemns rioting and looting

I am an anarchist.

I do not believe in the legitimacy of any rulers, politicians, political governments, or other non-consensual institutions. No exceptions. That's what "anarchist" means.

I condemn archation (the initiation of force and property violations) no matter who commits it.

Cops are the bad guys.
Antifa are the bad guys.
Looters, arsonists, vandals, attackers of any sort are the bad guys.
As are all who use the political means.

Defenders are on the correct side, but not everything claimed to be defense is. It's not "defense" if you use force (or politics) against someone who isn't currently violating your life, liberty, or property, nor credibly threatening to do so.

Those who protect the innocent and private property are doing the right thing, whether their actions are "legal" or not. Yes, that means it is right to shoot looters and vandals or anyone who is violating others.

Doing the right thing, without violating anyone, with or without "official permission", regardless of what legislation permits, is anarchy. Do anarchy right.

Don't claim to be an anarchist if you don't want to be burdened with the responsibility inherent in the philosophy, and especially not if you're a socialistic thug (or thug of any other variety) who violates the inflexible principles for sport. Or for your twisted notions of "justice". You can't get justice by being a non-anarchist.

-

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.

It's not about race, it's about police

A cop casually murdered a guy while his associates looked on and enabled the murder. Protests erupted, then turned into riots and looting, losing any moral high ground they may have started with.

And people are claiming this is about "racial injustice". As if cops of all "races" don't murder people of all "races". It's about cops, not "race".

Yet almost no one is pointing this out.

I guess it's safer to lie and say it's about "racial injustice" than it is to tell the truth and say it's about cops.

The "job" of policing both attracts thugs who enjoy bullying and hurting people, and it turns formerly decent people into monsters who live on stolen money, keep their "job" only by robbing, molesting, and killing people, and routinely look the other way while fellow gang members commit evil as part of "doing their job".

Get-away drivers are charged in the bank robbery committed by their associates. Robbers who didn't pull the trigger are charged with murder just because they were present as associates of the fellow thug who did. But cops who stand around while a fellow gang member murders a guy can't be charged with murder because... "reasons"? BS!

If you support the police in any way, you support tyranny. You support infinitely big government. Cops are where the boot heel-- or the knee-- of tyranny meets the neck of humanity.

There's no legitimate excuse. It's past time.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Trusting... what?

The blurb claimed: "A new study finds that trust in science predicts compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines"

False.

I trust science completely. However, science isn't what most people seem to believe it is. Science is the best method for figuring out reality and making it work for you, consistently.

Science mixed with politics isn't science any more than food mixed with poison is still food. 

-

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.

They don't care who's watching

Some government-supremacists who aren't terribly situationally aware argue that a cop wouldn't intentionally commit murder in front of witnesses and cameras.

How does this belief measure up?

Would cops murder someone while they know they are being watched and recorded?

Well, sure, if they believe they are immune from real consequences. In other words, if it's an average legislation enforcement officer who is aware of how this usually plays out for murderous cops committing the murder.

Cops aren't afraid to murder because they usually get away with it, no matter how blatant it is. Even if "charged" with a crime. Juries are stacked with copsuckers. Prosecutors belong to the same gang as the cops. As do judges. A murderous cop has to be really careless to suffer real consequences.

There are many dumb, pointless ways to "reform" the police. There's also one good way to solve the problem.

Abolish the police.

-

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.

Looters, cops, and other scum

The urban riots over a nasty legislation enforcement goon's act of murder are turning into bad guy vs. bad guy. As it stands, I can't support either side nor can I care what happens to the thugs on either side.

I would never rat on or condemn anyone for shooting a looter or a cop.

Both are examples of people engaging in acts of archation. Play evil games, win painful prizes.

No, you can't be an innocent cop. Putting on the gang colors is a declaration that you intend to archate. I understand that some people have an irrational need to pretend cops are something other than what they are and that they do something other than what they do. But, that's just what it is: irrational.

At this point, I don't care if both sides wipe each other off the face of the Earth.

-

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.