Opposition, not fear

People-- smart people, especially-- can oppose something without being afraid of it. Fear doesn't have to be a factor.

I'm not afraid of anti-gun legislation, but I oppose it because it violates human rights.

I'm not afraid of vaccine passports (or driver's licenses), but I oppose them because they violate human rights.

I'm not afraid of snakes, but I oppose putting them in other people's houses without their consent because that would violate their rights. The people, not the snakes.

To imagine that opposition to something must be based in fear is rather ignorant. It may even be a case of projection.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Niche museums for oddball interests

The other day I again visited the International UFO Museum (and Research Center) in Roswell, New Mexico. It's kind of amazing to me that someone could make such a museum and that it stays so busy. But good for them.

I wonder how a Museum of Government (as I have discussed in the past) would fare. 

It would be hard to make it interesting for reasonable people and government-supremacists, alike. And you'd need both to make money on it.

I have lots of ideas for displays, though.

I can picture a diorama in the "Prehistory of Government" room showing some skin-clad fellows realizing it's safer to pose as Wise Men and protectors who are "owed" a cut of the hunt than it is to roam from tribe to tribe killing and looting, thus forming the first political government. 

Another where they are arguing that only they and their henchmen should be carrying stone-tipped spears, while everyone else is only allowed a sharpened stick-- upon their approval, of course. For "safety".

Maybe the statists would come for the laughs, unknowingly wallowing in their ignorance. As long as they paid the admission fee, they can laugh all they want. The joke is on them.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

'Law enforcement' not what we have

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 3, 2021)

A couple of local sheriffs claim to be concerned that new legislation makes "law enforcement" [sic] the enemy. If so, they don't understand the nature of legislation.

Legislation always makes someone the enemy. Both those harmed by the legislation-- and make no mistake: all legislation harms some innocent people-- and those who enforce that legislation.

If policing were limited to law enforcement, they would only be the enemy of actual bad guys. When they act as legislation enforcement instead, they've chosen the position they say they don't want to be in.

"Don't hurt people or take their stuff" is the extent of real law, which true law enforcement would stick to. If someone enforces harmful legislation, which is everything else, they're on the wrong side and already the enemy.

Real law respects people's natural right to their body and all the products of their body. Legislation pretends someone else has a right to control what others ingest, how they earn money, how much of their money they can keep, and what they do with their property.

No one has a right to cross the line drawn above. Majority opinion or legislation can't create such a right. Enforcing such legislation or otherwise violating natural human rights is what makes someone the enemy, no matter how they excuse their behavior. It's no different than someone who was drunk claiming this is why they aren't responsible for an accident they caused.

Actual criminals violate real law while also violating legislation. Fake "criminals" only violate legislation. It's the difference between mala in se (actually wrong because it violates others) and mala prohibitum ("wrong" just because politicians say so). If law enforcement existed, this is what it would be limited to. But there is only legislation enforcement-- mostly chasing those who have broken worthless legislation based on nothing more than politicians' opinions.

Maybe they would claim this also coddles real criminals, but it doesn't. Real law enforcement would not protect actual criminals from their intended victims by enforcing legislation. This would do more to fight actual crime than posting a cop at every intersection would; turning New Mexico into a police state.

It seems legislation enforcers care most about legislation when it hurts them more than it hurts other people. They'll try to frame it as a danger to "the public" too. I'm not buying it. I can't fault them for a natural human desire to protect their position, though.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I never want you to be at a disadvantage

"Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless."

I don't know who first said this, and as with most quotes, it doesn't matter; it is true regardless. 

Maybe there's never a danger of you being helpless-- you could defend yourself with a chair or other improvised weapon. But to me, that's not good enough. I don't want you to be at a disadvantage against a bad guy. I want you to have the advantage, but if that's not possible, at least have the possibility of being adequately armed. 

Any legislation or policy which makes this less likely is evil. I would never support such a thing.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

"The right to v*te"

It seems a lot of people these days are very concerned about a supposed "right" to v*te. They either freak out in fear that this "right" is being withheld from some people, or they fear that if too many other people do it, it diminishes the value of their "legitimate" v*te.

I don't believe any such thing as a "right to v*te" exists, but even if it does, it's going to have very firm limits that most of its advocates aren't going to like.

If there is any such thing as a "right to v*te" it can't include a right to violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else by a majority. 

That means you have no right to encourage politicians to tax anyone, to ban the ownership or carrying of any sort of weapons, to take someone's land and put a sports complex on it, to force people to place their children in a kinderprison, to criminalize the manufacture, sale, or use of any substance-- to do anything in any way that violates natural human rights to life, liberty, or property.

And in today's world, that's about all any election-- a statist mob ritual-- is about. V*ting is the foundation of democracy, and democracy is mob rule; might (through superior numbers) makes "right".

The rights of the masses do not outweigh the rights of the individual. Not even if it's a trillion to one.

You have no "right" to gang up to violate rights you don't care about or that you don't like.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

"Cool-looking" stuff encourages crime?

Scott Adams suggests that getting rid of "cool-looking" guns would make it less likely that evil losers-- the only kind of people who commit mass murder-- would commit mass murder. 

These evil losers might enjoy imagining themselves-- according to him-- carrying out their massacre holding a weapon that they think looks cool. Maybe even dying with it in their hands. If they didn't have cool-looking weapons to wield, they would be less likely (he guesses maybe 5% or so less likely) to go through with their attack. Why bother if they can't look cool doing it?

Can you see the errors in his thinking?

The coolest-looking gun I own is my original Winchester 1894... at least in my opinion. Or, maybe it's my Hawken rifle. I guess it depends on my mood. The point is, "cool-looking" is always subjective-- it can't be otherwise.

And why only guns?

Would it be a good idea to get rid of cool-looking cars to reduce speeding and traffic fatalities? Again, what is cool-looking? 

My coolest-looking car was my 1975 Citicar-- not exactly a speed machine. And, most people didn't think it looked the slightest bit cool. But I did. (Evidence that I was never cool.)

Maybe get rid of the kind of houses that successful politicians/criminals like and that unsuccessful ones aspire to, to reduce the motivation to commit crime. 

Criminalize clothing that is frequently preferred by people who choose a life of archation-- black hoodies and business suits, for example.

Where does this silly line of "reasoning" end? It ends as it begins-- with violating people's right to private property based on what others believe they don't "need".

Decent people aren't going to intentionally violate others. Evil losers might. How cool a person believes a particular tool looks isn't the issue, and can't really be controlled by fiat. 

If you eliminated all the "cool-looking" guns currently available, some other commonly available gun would become the new "cool" one-- as would some other tool if you were magically able to eliminate all guns. You'd be trapped forever chasing the next cool thing in a futile attempt to make evil losers stop being losers who commit evil.

Should we give up everything we like the looks of in a doomed attempt to discourage bad guys from violating the innocent?

Or, you know, would it be more effective to make it OK again to defend yourself and others from all evildoers, no matter what tool they prefer?

You know my position.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

It's official. I'm balanced.

A few days ago on Twitter, it was all the rage to check to see how "balanced" you are, as far as whether you only get your information from a part of the political realm-- "right" or "left"-- ignoring the rest of it.

I've advocated balance from time to time, and always considered it a good idea. It seems (at least on Twitter, according to Ground News) I practice what I preach. Honestly, I don't see how the results could have been any more balanced.

Of course, when it says I "interact" with those "news" sources, it means I poke them and ridicule them when they say stupid, government-supremacist things. I may be balanced, but I am always biased for liberty.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Mass murder at Boulder's King Soopers

It's hard to avoid falling into conspiratorial thinking when mass shootings happen anytime the anti-gun bigots of government need them to happen.

Like, do these evil losers get their marching orders directly, or do they just know instinctively when to "go hot" to advance the anti-gun agenda?

How much do you want to bet the Boulder King Soopers was a designated slaughter zone? Has anyone seen a photo of the "We don't care if you die" sign by their door?

Some want to say that the cop being killed shows guns wouldn't save anyone. But, an evil loser is naturally going to target the one person he knows for sure is armed first. Then he's free to kill uninterrupted. A universally-armed population would have solved that problem before it even began.

It sickens me that someone could murder that many people without being shot dead in the act by 4 or 5 bystanders. But this is the world anti-gun bigots and their legislation have worked so hard to create and perpetuate. 

As always, the problem was too few guns, with the evil loser having the advantage. But anti-gun bigots want to double down and make this the guaranteed default-- by legislation, everywhere. You can't fail harder than that. They are literally siding with potential mass murderers, making it safer for them to commit evil. 

I've been part of more than one universally-armed society. An armed society IS a polite-- and peaceful-- society. Not, as the anti-gun bigots fear, one where everyone is afraid of everyone else. Maybe one where everyone respects the rights of everyone else, for sure. One where people who might otherwise feel the "need" to violate others are now afraid to do so. Not a bad thing in any way.

A lesson here is that, anytime anti-gun legislation is at the top of the agenda, don't go anywhere unarmed. A mass shooting is coming soon. Maybe more than one. It probably won't happen in your presence, but no one can guarantee that. "It can't happen here, now, to me" is delusional thinking. Be ready. Unlike the anti-gun bigots who blame guns, I want you to be safe, prepared, and responsible. I don't treat you like a somewhat stupid, naughty child.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Legislation-- Ideas so "good" they require threats

One difference between me and any statist is that, when I think something is a good idea, I'm not willing to force everyone else to go along. 

I believe almost everyone should own and carry a firearm with them everywhere they go. (Even those who I don't believe should do so shouldn't have anyone forbidding it.) 

However, I would be opposed to legislation forcing people to own and carry a weapon if they don't want to. I am just as opposed to this as I am opposed to legislation limiting who can own and carry a weapon or where weapons are "allowed" to be carried.

For the same reason, I'm in favor of people deciding for themselves, based on informed consent, whether they will take a vaccine or wear a face mask. I am opposed to these decisions being forced on anyone.

The only force I'm in favor of is that used against those who archate-- defensive force is a good thing.

Let the market of ideas work. If your idea is good, let it spread organically, not by mandate. If your idea is so "good" you have to force people to go along, it was never a good idea.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Worrying about the wrong things

My parents seem to worry a lot about "illegal immigrants", just as FOX News tells them they should. They manage to bring this up in conversations that seem (to me) to have nothing to do with the topic.

Usually, I just sit and stare when they go off on that tangent-- at least until I have had enough.

They imagine that this category of people doesn't "pay" taxes, which is ridiculous, but if it were true (which it isn't), good for them! I don't want anyone to help fund my arch-enemy. If you manage to avoid being robbed, who am I to object?

They complain that they are coming here for "free stuff", without realizing that the problem is offering the "free" stuff (which was stolen from others) to anyone, not the people who take what is offered. If you put out a bird feeder, you're an idiot to complain when it attracts birds. End the handouts, completely, and then no one will come here to get them.

They also imagine that Creepy Joe ("See, I can still walk!") Biden has opened the gates to anyone, when that's not even close to true. He has just renamed Trump's (and all previous presidents') policies to sound "gentler". "Kids in cages" has become "Kids protected in migrant facilities".

I don't advocate for "open borders" because I don't believe in government borders at all-- open, closed, or with a doorman. I believe in private property rights, and the right to defend yourself and your property from ALL violators, regardless of where they were born or why they imagine they have a right to violate you.

"But they'll all v*te Democratic!"

Yes, migrants-- if they get the chance-- will v*te for whoever treats them better. (Or whoever they imagine treats them better, as the case may be.) Whose fault is this?

If the Grumpy Opposition Party (GOP) turned the tables and treated migrants better than the Democrats do, what might happen? 

But why not simply admit that rights and liberty are never legitimately up for a v*te? No matter how many would v*te them away.

No one can v*te away your rights if your rights are never negotiable. This just shows why democracy is illegitimate, even when you call it a republic. Political government is always going to lead to the same place, and it isn't a good place-- it's a place where natural human rights get ignored and the supremacy of the State is beyond question. 

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Start getting prepared for emergencies

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 24, 2021)

I thought the past year had taught people to be prepared and less dependent on rescue by others. It seems I was wrong.

This has been quite the year for "preppers". Just one crisis after another, with the recent cold snap and power outages the latest chapter. If you're still not a prepper, you have no one to blame but yourself when you get caught off-guard by the next event. You've had plenty of warning, and you've seen that politicians aren't able to save you, even if they wanted to.

If I seem to harp on this topic, it's because I care about your safety and comfort.

During the recent cold spell, I heard personal stories from people who huddled in their cars for hours trying to stay warm; of school buses being distributed and parked in neighborhoods as emergency shelters from the cold; of burst pipes and house fires.

People died from carbon monoxide poisoning because they didn't understand how to safely stay warm when the grid is down.

We were lucky in this area. This time.

People have an individual responsibility to be prepared for storms, record cold (and heat), and power outages. It's not all their fault, though. They've been lulled into a false sense of security.

There's another lesson which seems obvious to me: It's a terrible idea to allow government to grant utility monopolies, decide energy policy, and otherwise interfere in the energy market. When this happens, you get blackouts at the worst possible times.

Instead of government dictating how energy will be produced and distributed, there should be a market providing it. If government gets involved, there is no market; only politics. Central planning doesn't work. At least not to the advantage of the people. There isn't enough flexibility and innovation that way.

You'll become reliant on too few options.

Central planning works well in the short term for politicians and their cronies, though. That's why they won't willingly let go. The people will have to take it away from them if anything is to change in a meaningful way.

What should have been a learning experience will probably result in no change. The wrong people are being blamed and the wrong people are being asked to save us from next time. No one is looking in the right place for the solutions.

If nothing else, follow FEMA's advice for the emergency supplies they recommend at www.ready.gov/kit. It's a start.

(Added: Do I think FEMA is legitimate or credible? Nope. But this was written for "Themasses" who read the local newspaper. At least the FEMA supply advice won't hurt them, and would make them more prepared than otherwise.)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Creative boredom

People differ. This is why "one-size-fits-all" mandates and legislation never fit all.

I've always found a little bit of boredom to be essential for my mental health. Not the toxic kind of boredom, such as what I experienced in kinderprison classrooms, but creative boredom. The kind of boredom that, when it happens, allows you to do whatever comes to mind, eagerly, to relieve the boredom, without feeling rushed or like you're neglecting something else. And without someone screaming at you to pay attention, get to work, and stop daydreaming.

Call it free time, with no plan and no guilt.

If I have a dozen projects nagging for my attention the only kind of boredom that strikes is the destructive kind.

But if I have nothing to do, and there's nothing I feel I should be doing, my creativity can flow.

I've had too little of the good kind of boredom recently. I used to have tons of it. My wikiup and tipi area was where a lot of it happened. It was a daily mental vacation, and I miss it. (I've been trying without success to find a replacement for years now.)

The past couple of months have been unusually hectic-- tons of projects and "obligations" in various stages of completion with no time to take a breath. 

Usually, when I'm doing some mindlessly repetitive task I get bored and can at least think. That hasn't been the case with these projects, probably because they've required too much thought and attention. They've drained my brain and my body.

I have an art project I've been needing to work on (for my dad's birthday), but without time to get bored, it just hasn't happened. It's not something I can just decide I'm going to do, like a physical or mental task-- if I do it this way it would be a failure because of a lack of creativity. I have to have time to get bored enough to get creative.

I also find it harder to let my mind come up with blog posts and newspaper columns if there's no time for my mind to wander. Recently, because of this, I haven't had time to tone down my newspaper columns for "public consumption" as much as I normally do. Not sure if that's good or bad.

So this next week, I have declared my very own "No projects week". Maybe it's my spring break. Yes, there will probably be blog posts-- if I let my mind wander, they just come to me whether I want them or not. But I'm not going to be forcing anything. I plan on boring myself into creativity and hoping it recharges my batteries.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I hate when the evil loser survives

If you are an evil loser who murders people, I don't care extra about your victims if you did it because you hated their "race", sex, or religion (or lack thereof). I don't care about them less if you had no insane "reason" behind your aggressive act.

I don't care if you did it because you imagine they slighted you in some way that a rational person wouldn't even think of considering.
I don't care if you did it because of an addiction or any other mental or physical problem.
I don't care if you did it because people-- who were not your victims-- bullied you.

I don't believe in "hate crimes". You did what you did, and that's all that matters. People who are murdered but don't fit into a government-favored category are still just as dead, and their murderer is still equally evil.

The thing I always hope for is that you don't survive your attack, either at your own hand or at the hand of an intended victim or a rescuer.

I would have wanted one of your potential victims to have splattered the walls with your blood and brains. 

No, I don't want the Blue Line Gang to arrest you and cage you; both the gang and your caging financed by stolen money. That just victimizes more people, adding to the number of your victims in a huge way. That some pathetic people imagine that people like you justify taxes, cops, and the state just makes you that much more disgusting.

No sympathy from me.

All the above comes with a necessary caveat: I know the national mainstream "news" business lies, and I know government employees (cops, etc.) lie. Both lie routinely to make an event fit their narrative, so nothing I have heard from any of them about this event is necessarily true. There's your grain of salt.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Asbestos and guns

Asbestos is something which protects people from certain dangers, but is also inherently dangerous-- especially if mishandled. However, the greater danger comes from trying to remove it.

Guns are similar in some ways.

Guns are something which protect people from certain dangers, but they are inherently dangerous-- especially if mishandled. However, the greater danger comes from trying to remove them.

It's interesting that some people recognize the truth where asbestos is concerned, but ignore or deny the truth where guns are concerned. 

In fact, one such person wrote an entire book about misguided fears where he pointed out the facts about asbestos, but then prattled on and on about how "the real danger" to us was the availability of guns. With issue after issue, if there was a way he could find to blame "the availability of guns", that's what he did. It was awkward and kind of dumb. Politics had caused brain damage and he didn't realize it. His brain damage made him anti-science.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Time's running out on Time's Up flags

If two Time's Up flags sell in the next week, they will remain available for at least another month. Just so you know, in case you haven't gotten yours yet.

I have to sell 2 per month or I lose money on the listing, and I haven't sold any during the past month. The 23rd is the deadline. It's up to you.

UPDATE: They'll stay up for another month, at which time I'll post another reminder (or repost this one). Thanks!

Live long enough to be a curmudgeon

My dad has occasionally said he's glad his dad didn't live to see how the world has gone. He died in the late 1960s, only a couple of years older than I am now.

He was rabidly "conservative"-- in many of the worst senses of the term. He would have hated even how leftist the 80s were, compared to his comfort zone. I would probably have had a hard time getting along with him had he lived until I was older.

I don't want to become that way. But I will speak up.

Yes, I hate how some things are going-- I despise "w0keness" with a passion when it clashes with individual liberty-- which it usually does. I dislike how political everything has become, and I understand why politics causes divisiveness-- it can't be otherwise. I hate that human rights are always on the chopping block built of "equality" (or worse, "equity"). I hate how popular communism has become-- while mostly being called something else. I hate how people seem to imagine you have to choose between being a socialist and being a copsucker, when the two have more in common with each other than with me.

But I don't want to ever be the person someone else is glad didn't live to see...whatever happens to society. I'm willing to keep pushing for liberty against all tyrants and karens as long as I can, even if it means I've become a curmudgeon.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Politicians responsible for much loss

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 17, 2021)

It's so nice of New Mexico's political overlords to allow businesses to re-open a bit-- until they change their minds again. We should gather in the frozen fields and sing hymns to their glory. Wearing two or three masks each, obviously.

If you don't praise the bully when he beats you slightly less, you're ungrateful.

The past year has been very educational. I have learned people will tolerate anything, on the flimsiest of excuses.

They will allow politicians to destroy their businesses, cripple their social lives, dictate what they wear, and imprison them in their own homes without even a show trial, as long as there's a new cold virus for justification. Unbelievable!

I can't even blame one political party over the other-- they are both guilty. This was sold to the public as "Science!" and no one wanted to appear to be against science. Yet, when even the tiniest bit of politics is mixed with science, you've tossed science out the window. You're left with only politics.

America will never get back the liberty it lost to the politicians and politicized experts over the past year. Sure, the restrictions will be scaled back temporarily-- as permitted business re-openings have shown-- but politicians have seen what they can get away with. Next time they'll test their limits again. Each time the liberty they allow us to have back will be slightly less than it was before. Incrementally you will be enslaved, and most people won't notice until it hurts them, personally.

If you think I disliked people who use politics against their fellow humans before, that was nothing compared to how I feel about them now.

Even though I lost most of my income over the past year, due to other people losing theirs, I fared better than many people did. I was ready for supply chain disruptions. Other people weren't. Many people may never recover financially, and those who harmed them-- just as surely as looters or arsonists would have-- will never be held accountable.

It's a shame the practice of tarring and feathering politicians has gone out of style. Otherwise, I don't think politicians could have gotten away with what they did to America over the past year.

We'll have to wait and see where this goes. Unless America changes direction completely and Americans start to value liberty again, it's not going to go well.

- 

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Browse my TeeSpring shop

Check out my prepper community on locals!

Is your compliance all used up?

I think the government overreach of this past year drained my "compliance bladder" of all its stored compliance fluid. I'm pretty much empty now. At least for nonsensical (or what I see as nonsensical) stuff.

I know some people have feared that humans are being trained to be compliant over the past year, but I wonder how many recoiled the other direction. There's always an opposite reaction and unintended consequences.

It's difficult, because I do try to respect store managers' signs requesting (or communicating the state's demand to wear) masks. But recently, I've been forgetting more and more. I just can't care anymore. Not even a little. I never cared much to begin with, but what little I did care has been used up. They pushed too far and too long.

As I've said from the beginning, I'm agnostic about the masks. Yeah, they may help a little in some way. Probably not enough to justify being a karen about them. And making them mandatory was pure evil. Masks aren't my line in the sand though, especially since I kind of like their "facial recognition" defeating utility.

The state on one side of me has ended all Corona mandates--the state on the other side of me still has all the silliness in force with no end in sight. But a lot of businesses still demand masks even though they aren't forced to do so anymore. Like the caged bird that doesn't realize the cage is gone.

I never "social distanced" other than staying away from those who were trying to do so. I've done as little as possible to accommodate the Branch Covidians. I have observed and learned from their behavior, and have taken measures to protect myself from their craziness.

I just can't see myself going along with any new orders-- regarding anything-- unless a Blue Line Gang thug is looking at me. Then I might, to avoid being murdered.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Invalid claims on you

If you imagine government's claims on you are valid because of maritime law, birth certificates, social security cards, the Constitution, lords and feudalism, the US being a corporation under obligation to the monarch of England (or the Rothschilds), or anything of that sort, then you are free to believe it. 

But none of the claims on you are valid regardless of what you believe. You have just fallen under the spell of government-supremacism. Who has the right to decide such things? Where does this authority come from?

I'm not with you on this runaway train. I don't care what any government believes now or believed in the past. I don't care what agreements between governments say. To believe in any of that requires a belief that political government is legitimate and I don't-- I can't-- believe that.

Yes, I realize delusional people will act on their beliefs to the contrary. A crazy person might also shoot me because he believes I'm a dinosaur, but that just means he's crazy, not that he's right.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The Dr. Seuss divide

I would really like my readers to weigh in on something. Something that I'm not sure I'm right about.

The newspaper editor disagrees with me about the Dr. Seuss situation. His take: "... I think [the Dr. Seuss company] ha[s] been unfairly criticized. End of the day, they made marketing decisions they think will increase sales. God bless profitable America."

Thomas Knapp lumped those like me (and Claire Wolfe) who don't think this was a good move with the "deplorables".

If the company (corporation?) did this to boost profits, I hope it hurts them financially in the long run. I don't want censors to prosper, especially when they make their decisions based on "someone was/might be offended". It doesn't matter to me if they had the "legal right" to do what they did-- that's a statist notion.

I think this shows the flaw with IP generally and with copyright, specifically. 

Dr. Seuss didn't make this decision about his works, someone else who was entrusted (by whom?) to manage his legacy has decided to vandalize it, instead-- in my opinion. 

If they won't publish those books, I think it would be perfectly ethical for someone else to publish them-- especially if they used some of the profits to support causes Dr. Seuss would have supported. I can't imagine him supporting cancel culture, but maybe he would have-- I know he was a flawed human being.

But what do you think? Is this something they have a right to do and I am being anti-market if I object? Which side of the divide do you find yourself on?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Do you believe government has rights or authority?

If you believe government has a right to do anything, you are a government-supremacist.

If you believe government has authority to do anything, you are a government-supremacist.

Individuals-- and only individuals-- have rights. A group of individuals has no rights that each individual doesn't already have. More rights can't be created by banding together with others. 

Only someone who imagines that government is superior to the individual could believe that a government has the right to do anything to any individual. Such a description fits a government-supremacist-- they believe government is superior to the individual. To them, government is supreme.

Authority, when used to talk about government, is not real. The belief that political authority is real qualifies as a superstitious belief. The Most Dangerous Superstition, according to Larken Rose-- and I agree. 

Only someone who considers government superior to the individual could imagine that such a group has authority to violate the natural human rights of any individual. Such a person would necessarily imagine government is superior to the individual. To them, government is supreme.

Do you believe government has rights or authority? If so, why? How would you explain and justify these beliefs?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Free will

I don't know if free will is real or not. It certainly feels real, but I also understand the arguments against it-- although I believe quantum physics' uncertainty provides a place for free will to hide.

Scott Adams has repeatedly said he doesn't believe in free will, but he believes "we" have to pretend it's real so "we" can punish criminals and maintain civilization. Why? That is only necessary if you imagine that revenge ("punishment") is necessary for justice, and it isn't. Government-supremacism can cloud your thinking as badly as any other mental problem.

Self-defense and restitution don't depend on why someone does something, only that they did. Their action created a debt; justice requires this debt to be paid (or payment to be attempted).

If you have no free will to avoid archating, it's the same as your having no free will to choose to fall upward into the clouds. There are still consequences. You've still become part of a chain of events, one of which could be restitution or death at the hands of your intended victim. The lack of free will doesn't change this.

If you do have free will and you used it to choose to archate, you chose to create a debt. Even if you pretend you didn't choose this debt, your actions created it. Again, free will is irrelevant to the outcome.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Politics not a good look on anyone

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 3, 2021)

Politics has a strange effect on people.

I'm stunned at how many people can't let go of Donald Trump. They cling to him like a life raft in an ocean of uncertainty.

I'm not talking about Trump's supporters, but about those who hate him passionately. Those who suffer from what is known as "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

Most Trump supporters have moved on. They accept the reality he'd be too old for the presidency in four years. He'd be seventy-eight by then, and no one that age should be subjected to the pressures of the presidency. This includes the current seventy-eight-year-old White House occupant.

But the dedicated Trump haters can't move on. They obsess over revenge fantasies which they dishonestly call "justice". Against Trump, and everyone they believe wasn't sufficiently anti-Trump while he was in office-- or now.

Without Trump to hate and focus on, they'd have to look closely at what they put in the White House, which would not be comforting. They don't dare take off their anti-Trump spectacles and look with objective eyes.

Pointing this out gets me called a Trump supporter, which shows the depth of their self-deception.

On the "other side" are those who can't let go of "Q". If you aren't familiar with "Q" don't dig in to it unless you have spare time and mental health to waste.

No matter how badly the Q predictions missed, those who are desperate to believe in "The Plan" only remember the predictions which-- by coincidence and sheer numbers-- appear to have been right. In other words, it is like a carnival psychic or a horoscope. You'll see whatever truth you fool yourself into seeing and forget about the misses.

Even outside these extremes, politics makes otherwise normal people support things they'd never consider doing personally because of their morals.

This isn't new. It's been the same as long as people have entertained the belief that it's OK to try to govern each other in addition to themselves.

Politics doesn't look good on anyone. There must be something addictive about it, though. People keep trying it on in various guises. The strange political obsessions of this year will fade away, only to be replaced with different strange beliefs in future years.

People will continue to imagine their own political beliefs are reasonable and the political beliefs of others are delusional. It's as predictable as the tides

- 

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Browse my TeeSpring shop

Check out my prepper community on locals!

Dumb experts

It's so fun to be scolded for "denying science" by Branch Covidians.

It's hilarious to be lectured on economics by people who have fake economic credentials based on Keynesian "economics".

It cracks me up to be told what "real anarchy" is by people who learned the word from government schools, the mainstream media, socialists, or other government-supremacists.

It's silly to be "educated" about guns by people who used guns (and bombs) to promote the US feral government's agenda in foreign countries and who, because of this experience, "know" that an AR15 is a "weapon of war" that no one should be allowed to own.

Some people's "expertise" (or submission to "the experts") makes them dumb.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Renouncing citizenship seems pointless

Why would anyone bother to renounce "their" citizenship? I'm not going to assume you are the property of a government-- a "citizen"-- unless you publicly affirm that you are. Who would do otherwise?

How can a person renounce something they never explicitly agreed to or embraced? 

If a crazy person imagines she owns me, is it necessary for me to publicly confirm that she doesn't?
If someone imagines I'm a dog, do I need to renounce my status as a dog?
If someone has gotten it into their head that I'm a brain surgeon, do I need to file papers proving I'm not one?

Now, if the crazy person is going around announcing to everyone I know that I am their slave it might inspire me to say "No, I'm not", but if the delusion exists only inside their head what is it to me until they act on it?

If someone else gets the idea that I belong to Crazy Cora or a government, or that I'm a dog, the problem is obviously theirs until or unless they act on it. Other people's craziness isn't my responsibility.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Being "polite"

On various issues, Scott Adams has long been harping on doing what one side (usually the Left-Statist side) demands because he says doing otherwise is "impolite". He says, why be impolite when you can just be polite?

Well... Because "polite" is as subjective and imaginary as "fairness", which he has criticized as a concept invented so that idiots and children could feel like they are participating in the conversation. In all but a few cases, "polite" is exactly the same. 

Sure, almost everyone would consider it impolite to sneeze in someone's face or sit there picking your nose enthusiastically across the breakfast table from someone, but the issues where he calls for politeness aren't nearly so clear-cut. 

Being polite is going to mean different things to different people; sometimes things that are directly incompatible. One person's "polite" is another person's "rude".

Scott believes that historical statues are impolite; while I believe demanding that someone take down a statue to soothe your feelings is impolite-- even if the statue is of someone I consider a monster, like Hitler, Lincoln, or FDR-- any military or political figure, for that matter. Yuck! But they neither break my leg nor pick my pocket by existing.

He considers it impolite to not use incorrect or made-up "gender" pronouns and to not validate someone's opposite sex cosplay, while I consider it impolite to police (sometimes literally) the words people use when they are simply trying to communicate in an obvious, truthful way using words that have been standard speech all their life. I consider it impolite to demand that someone lie.

It's the same with many other sorts of words. No matter what words you use, soon someone will decide to change the acceptable words so that they can condemn you for the (now) "rude" words you use. It's a Red Queen situation where you have to keep running as hard as you can just to stay in place. Ridiculous in the extreme.

He has suggested it would be impolite to not edit Dr. Seuss's books to fit a modern sensibility. I think it is impolite to judge them by the w0ke standards of today.

I consider it very rude to impose mandates and legislation to enforce someone else's idea of politeness. Now, I don't intend to be rude, but if you can't satisfy someone no matter how much you bend for them, I say it's past time to stop trying.

Politeness is a trap. A better metric is archation. Don't violate the life, liberty, or property of-- don't initiate force or property violations against-- anyone. Politeness is fuzzy; archation is concrete.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

There's still time to get a Time's Up flag!

Texas flirts with liberty

The Texas governor announced he is ending the coronapanic shutdown in Texas next week. Finally! 

Since he didn't have the right or the imaginary political "authority" to impose any shutdowns in the first place, it would have been great to have never gone along with it, but better late than never.

Now he needs to end the criminal ban on "constitutional carry" in Texas, too. By pressuring whoever needs to be pressured to finally stop being a criminal state (at least on that dimension) and be compliant with the law.

It's always good when government decides to stop violating the natural human rights of the people.

Of course, those in the Cult of Covid are weeping, wailing, and gnashing their teeth. They are acting as though this means they won't be allowed to wear a mask anymore. I haven't seen that suggestion anywhere. (Surely they are all Californian imports.) They are presenting "Beto" as the "hero" Texans need to hold us prisoner longer. I don't need a governor other than myself. They can keep Bob'O; I'll keep my guns and my liberty.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The Wisdom of knowing when to keep quiet

These days it feels like it's hard for most people to have pleasant social interactions with others who "believe" differently. 

I think a large part of that is due to people feeling it's OK to make everything political, and to air their every belief. You know they believe differently because they feel the need to rub it in your face.

Just imagine how it would go if everyone you interacted with on a daily basis felt the need to tell you what kind of crime they commit regularly. You meet someone and one of the first things they tell you is how much they enjoy burglarizing houses. Or that their hobby is shoplifting. Or rape. 

And then they expect you to just go ahead with whatever you were going to be doing with them?

Sure, you'd pare down the number of people you willingly interact with that way, getting rid of some deadwood in the process, but wouldn't it look a lot like what I see happening now?

Personally. unless someone admits to being a murderer/politically-inclined person, I'll assume they are OK. Most of the time, if I need to interact with them anyway, I'd rather not know the worst things about them unless I'm going to be living with or working with them. You are a kitten-stomper? As long as you don't brag about it I won't know. You support Politician X or Z? Keep this horror to yourself and I won't feel the need to ridicule you or run away from our casual interaction.

Some might claim that there's no comparison, but they'd be lying. If you advocate using any application of the political means against others, any difference between you and any other monster is only a matter of degree (if that). It would be best to not go around yapping about it unless you want people to treat you differently based on what you admit to.

This is my problem when most celebrities (including "science" celebrities) start interjecting politics into their public statements. It's also the same with anyone I know casually. I don't want to know how horrible or stupid you are. Why would you want me to know? And once I know, do you really expect me to have no reaction to this revelation? 

Dragging your politics into the open cripples society.  It's anti-social and shameful.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

YOU can do great things if you ignore those who would hold you back

Those who see "racism" in math, science, grammar, general excellence, and ethics are using those things as a mirror. They are only seeing their own reflection.

I believe anyone of any "race" is perfectly capable of great things. And by "great things" I mean things that improve the lives of humans in general (and sometimes other life-forms, too) without archation.

To imagine that doing great things means you've accepted the "superiority" of one "race" or its ideas is to belittle yourself. It's not "colonialism" to embrace good ideas. To hold back the lives of anyone tragic enough to listen to you express this sick belief is to be the worst enemy they have.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two