Justifying the state

Recently I ran across a statist's justifications for political government, "...to secure America's borders from invasion and to protect the freedoms of the citizenry." His claim was that this was the totality of the legitimate justifications for government to exist. Sounds like he just wants a big daddy.

Even supposing his claim were true-- and it can't be-- if an institution can't do what it has to do in order to justify its existence, it's time to scrap it.

There's just so much wrong with his claim.

The real enemy is inside America's "borders". Any threat from outside pales in comparison. A big part of the reason is that invaders would be shot by their intended victims in defense of life, liberty, and property, while internal enemies are apparently largely immune.

To "secure America's borders" is to make a continent-spanning concentration camp. Fences work in both directions, you know. And governments are more interested in keeping you in-- to be milked your whole life-- than in keeping others out. 

Governments never protect freedoms in any meaningful way. Sure they protect easy freedoms, but never do they rise to the challenge of protecting liberty, because governments are the only real threat to your liberty. Who else could threaten it like they do?

"The citizenry" is a polite euphemism for government property-- slaves. You may not see yourself that way, but government certainly does. They believe you belong to them. That's why they insist it's OK to disarm you, to "tax" you, to vaccinate you, to censor you (through their co-conspirators in "social media" corporations, if necessary), and to punish those who speak the truth.

Any government strong enough "to secure America's borders from invasion and to protect the freedoms of the citizenry", regardless of whether they actually do either, is too strong to allow you to exercise your liberty.

Only a delusional statist could believe the load that guy wrote to justify political government. 

And other people have other equally delusional justifications for government: to provide a 
"social safety net", to redistribute stolen money, to impose equity, to take away scary tools, and to otherwise be a big mommy.

Either way, it's a giant pile. Don't let people like that trick you into going along with them.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

That's not fear

It's odd how everything related to dislike, or even just a preference that doesn't include something, has been relabeled as "fear".

If you dislike injections, it's not just a dislike for needles, it's called a "fear of needles".
And if you don't see the need for a "vaccine", so you decide not to get it, people will declare you suffer from a "fear of the vaccine".

If you don't want to participate in certain things, it's called "homophobia" or "transphobia" (the accurate definitions of those words would be "fear of the same" and "fear of crossing/beyond").

If you distrust political government, you don't necessarily fear it. You might just dislike (or hate) it. You might also fear it, but while that may be related, it's not the same thing.

If you don't like vanilla ice cream-- if it's just not your favorite flavor-- does this expose your "fear of ice cream"? Or of vanilla?

I don't like watermelon; am I Cucurbitaceaeophobic? No. That's all just dumb.

You can dislike, or just not love, something without being afraid of it.

Understand, I'm not even talking about using force to stop others from doing anything. Just a personal preference that doesn't include certain things. No fear.

But "fear", or better yet-- "phobia", is catchy. It makes something sound like a mental problem when it may only be a preference. Some over-the-top hatred might be a mental problem, but hatred isn't fear or a phobia.

Why are these words used in this dishonest way? Well, those who screw with the words that are used can screw with your mind. Why might they be doing this to you? Are they afraid of letting you think honestly?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

It's amazing... the amount of effort the Universe is willing to put in-- just short of turning the laws of physics inside-out-- to make sure I don't make money. It's hard not to take it personally.

Anti-gun bigots are just bigots

It shouldn't surprise anyone that anti-gun bigots are also bigoted in other ways. But sometimes the depth of their bigotry surprises me anyway.

This one bigot just kept heaping her bigotries on top of each other (see for yourself if you're interested).

She said. "You oppose all gun safety laws? Mass murderers, domestic terrorists, insurrectionists, criminals, felons, those in mental health crisis, domestic abusers, non-citizens, and mass murderers all salute and thank you." 

That's a lot of bigotry packed into one tweet.

Before looking at all her bigotry, look at her dishonesty. Want to bet she's a BlueAnon nut who believes there was an insurrection back in January? 

Of course, "gun safety" is a lie. Guns don't need to be protected from anyone but politicians, and the only real way to do that is with more guns. I suppose she dishonestly means safety "from guns". I'm surrounded by guns and unless someone touches one of them in an unsafe manner, they pose no threat to me. I'm not afraid of them, not even a little bit. And the best way to protect myself from bad guys with guns is with guns. Even those who imagine police are there to protect them would be out of luck if the cops showed up to face (other) bad guys without guns. She's not worried about safety, she just wants to make sure no one can effectively defend themselves from her favorite bad guys-- whichever sort they might be.

Notice she mentioned mass murderers twice. Yet, anti-gun bigots are the biggest cheerleaders for mass murderers, salivating over the chance to offer them unarmed victims to their heart's content, so it's telling that she repeats herself.

Oh, but she doesn't stop there.  This is when her bigotry rears its head. 

"Criminals"? "Felons"? I guarantee you she has committed crimes. There's no way not to in today's police state. But not all criminals or felons committed acts of archation, much less acts of aggression. Even if they did, that can't erase natural human rights, even though many pretend it does. To advocate violating the rights of "criminals" and "felons" is bigotry. 

She apparently doesn't even notice that she seems to be assuming "non-citizens" are automatically to be treated like criminals. Notice, she didn't even claim they were "illegal immigrants" [sic], just "non-citizens". If that's not toxic bigotry, what is? 

People in a mental health crisis might need to be defended against, but they still have all their rights intact. And, remember who gets to define "normal mental health". Do you trust them to make the right call? Even after the 2020 debacles?

She kept focusing, in various tweets, on "White males", too. I pointed out this racism, but she responded that "A white woman mocking white men is not racist, it’s sport. (Sexist perhaps)." So she almost accepted her bigotry in one case. Of course, she also posted a meme hinting at the size of gun owners' "virile" (?).

Later, after I linked to my explanation of what rights are-- because she asked-- she wanted to know "Did God make that list? Old white men? Asking for minorities and women.". You can go back and read what I wrote about rights at that link and see where it excludes anyone. She can't even see how bigoted her assumptions are.

Even after all her bigotry, she claimed I have "liberal anxiety" when she's the one advocating fascistic legislation. Delusional to the end.

She's like a parody of all the anti-gun bigots' bigotry, ignorance, and dishonesty rolled into one bitter little pill. But she's a hilarious inspiration.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Chasing shadows

It seems to me that it's human nature to hallucinate enemies.

I'm sure I'm susceptible to the same thing. I am human, after all.

One of the most common demonstrations of this I see is all the anti-gun bigots hating the NRA. They act as though all guns come from the NRA. As though it is the only reason all the anti-gun legislation they dream of isn't reality. They imagine the NRA wants mass murder and dead children. They pretend that opposing the NRA means they are on the good side.

When I explain that this is far from the truth, that the NRA is wishy-washy on gun-owner rights and has long been an advocate of anti-gun legislation, they usually attack me, personally. And then retreat into their hallucination again. It's completely predictable.

I've long said the best thing about the NRA is the way it makes the anti-gun bigots lose their minds. It also keeps them focused on the wrong thing; chasing shadows instead of going after the real rights advocates. As long as they hallucinate an enemy in the NRA, those actually fighting for gun-owner rights will have fewer rocks thrown at them. That's a good thing for gun-owner rights and for society.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Why support cops?

Why do so many people have blind spots where cops are concerned? Even otherwise liberty-loving people. I don't get it at all. 

One guy told me he thinks cops "fight bad dudes" so he doesn't have to. Such as when a woman gets beaten by her husband, instead of her having to confront the evil loser on her own, she can call the cops and let them do it.

Sounds cute if that were reality.

He's ignoring the fact that that abuser has a high likelihood of being a cop or "cop adjacent".

I have no problem with someone calling for rescue-- I do have a problem with those rescuers being a monopoly that everyone is forced to fund.

I also have a problem with that gang of "rescuers" not being held accountable when they show up and kill the person who called for help. A local woman experienced this, but she survived. The cop was a bad shot and only wounded her in the shoulder when he showed up to save her from an intruder he didn't find.

Also, why does it have to be the cops she calls? Because that's how the rules the cops established and enforce are set up. If she does what she has a natural human right to do, the cops will most likely kidnap and cage her until the government courts decide how much to punish her.

Others have told me it's because they are helpless and can't defend themselves. Not in those exact words, of course, but that's what they were getting at.

Still, others support cops because they are cowards. Sorry, but it's important to call things what they are. And if you're afraid to defend your own life, liberty, or property...

Cops are bad guys who sometimes accidentally do good, but more often either do bad or enable others to do bad. They are unnecessary and are harmful to society. Don't ever support or excuse them and pretend it's about supporting liberty.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

You're only responsible for yourself

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 23, 2021)

You are responsible for yourself. No one else can be as responsible for yourself as you are, nor can you ever be completely responsible for anyone but yourself. Please do your best in the case of babies and others who are totally helpless, though.

When your own responsibility fails-- and all of us have been there-- you can ask others for help. Friends, family, and charity are there to fill the gap when you fail to be as responsible as you should have been. The non-consensual institution of political government is also there for you to lean on, but this only creates more irresponsibility.

If you won't be responsible, no one else can force it on you. Not governments and their legislation, nor churches and their morals. No matter how hard they try, they're going to fail. It's up to you.

While you are responsible for everything you do, some people will try to convince you of a responsibility to do things which aren't your responsibility. This is one of the biggest tricks government plays on you.

This kind of person will make up an imaginary responsibility-- one which advances their agenda at your expense-- and try to convince you it's real. They will try to shame you for not doing what they want.

Among the false responsibilities which will be imposed on you is to "pay your fair share" in taxes for things you don't want and probably don't need. Just because someone else imagines it's a good idea.

You are also told to follow illegitimate orders which will harm someone; if you don't, you'll be called irresponsible.

A fake "social contract" is a great weapon to use to shut down rational thought and create imaginary responsibilities out of thin air.

You are responsible for not violating the life, liberty, or property of any other person. All your real responsibilities grow from this root.

You are responsible for supporting yourself, because if you don't, someone else may be forced to support you against their will. This violates their property rights.

You are responsible for keeping your nose out of other people's business, as long as they aren't harming anyone; to do otherwise violates their liberty.

As long as you have a conscience and can see the consequences of your actions, you'll know when you are being responsible and when you aren't.

Don't violate others. This is the foundation of responsibility. Anything less is irresponsible.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Don't cooperate with the slavers

A few days ago I pointed out that using democracy to defend yourself from the vampire of The State is counterproductive. You may or may not agree, but what else is there to do?

Plenty.

One of the best things I've read recently was "Be ungovernable" by Isaac Morehouse. I think his suggestions have merit. 

It's along the lines of "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.", by Etienne de la Boétie, but with more flair.

I resolve to be ungovernable while refusing to support the tyrant.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

War or "peace"?

I don't want war. I'd always prefer to avoid killing and violence whenever possible. But I also know that the "peace" of the compliant slave isn't something I want, either. Some people seem to think it has to be one or the other. I hope it doesn't, but if it does... well, I'm not cut out for complaint slavery, even if I doubt I would survive war. I'm just not mean enough.

Personally, I suspect it is past "Claire Wolfe time". I think the window of opportunity has closed-- at least to where it's no longer possible to "STB" without it turning into a full-fledged war. In an earlier time, maybe it would have been possible to "STB" in surgical strikes. There weren't as many, and the obvious bad guys were pretty... obvious... to the normal person who wasn't a political shill. ("Political shills" include anyone who imagines FDR did anything other than prolong the Great Depression. And don't forget Wilson. Ugh.) Now, it's a huge hive of bad guys-- including their army of enforcers-- compared to back then. 

They are still few, compared to the rest of us, but they have the illusion of legitimacy fooling most of our neighbors. That might make up for anything they lack in numbers. 

I don't think they'll ever leave us alone to live in peace as long as they are among us. They crave more control than that. To leave some of us alone would demonstrate how unnecessary they really are. They can't let that happen. I think they'll be compelled to keep pushing and pushing until something snaps.

I think they'll probably end up defeating themselves whatever else happens. If we let them and stop pretending they are anything other than the criminals they are. That means stop pretending they are in any way legitimate; that political government has any legitimacy.

Obviously, if they do what Biden (and other political criminals) suggested, and use nuclear weapons against the people, in America, they've lost no matter how many of their opponents they kill. They're just done. At that point, no one has anything to lose by resisting.

Those who wring their hands over anyone who suggests that war isn't necessarily worse than the alternative might not be wrong, but I don't think they are 100% right. And it just feels like something is coming. Maybe it's just due to the general negative feeling I've had recently. I hope it's a false alarm. 

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

 "Liberty" and "freedom" are not synonyms-- neither are "morality" and "ethics". nor "violence" and "aggression". But convincing people they are is useful for those who want to control how and what you think. Don't use the definitions that play into your enemies' hands.

Democracy-- A stake through the heart of tyranny?

I have no love for democracy. But I understand its appeal.

Those who advocate democracy seem to see it like garlic, a crucifix, and a wooden stake to be used against the vampire of political government ("the state"). They seem to believe it's their only hope of defending themselves from being trampled by political interests.

But it doesn't work.  Instead, it makes the problem worse.

First of all, the reason garlic, crucifixes, and stakes "work" is that ("human") vampires are imaginary. They can't hurt you even if you don't defend yourself against them. As long as you don't initiate force against a non-vampire with those weapons, you haven't done anything wrong.

Government, as the entity most people imagine when they picture it, is also imaginary. But to use democracy to defend yourself from government is to become the problem you fear. You bring your enemy to life.

The bad thing in most folklore about being bitten by a vampire is that you'll become a vampire, yourself. 

Trying to defend yourself from an imaginary thing called "government" by doing the very things government does-- by trying to govern someone other than your own, individual self through a majority v*te-- is like trying to defend yourself from vampires by attacking innocent people and drinking their blood. This is not defense, but is something no one has the right to do.

Instead of defending yourself from the vampire of government, you're just offering yourself to that vampire by becoming a vampire. You've done the vampire's work for it.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Liberty is illegal

Liberty is illegal. Liberty isn't piecemeal. Either you have the freedom to do everything you have a right to do-- everything which doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights-- free from political interference, or you don't. There's no halfway. And government doesn't allow you to exercise your liberty. No political government anywhere willingly allows it-- libraries full of legislation are written to violate your liberty. So, liberty is illegal.

This is why governments such as the USA encourage people to focus on freedom instead. It's why government-supremacist organizations publish "freedom indices" instead of something more objective.

Freedom is subjective. It depends on what you want to do. You may have the freedom to "Netflix and chill" but not to carry a full-auto Tommy gun to the store, but if you don't care about the Tommy gun and are happy about everything else, you feel free. You are free. But your liberty is being violated.

Only by getting rid of legislation can liberty stop being illegal. And that probably requires getting rid of political government. Which means liberty will be illegal all your life.

That's not the defeatism you might think.

If you know you're going to have to be an outlaw all your life to get as close as possible to living in liberty, it removes a lot of the hesitation about breaking "laws". Your concern then isn't whether something you have a right to do is "illegal", but about getting caught. And once you realize evildoers of one sort or another will always be trying to violate you (it's just what they do), even if liberty weren't illegal, you can get on with living and dodging or outsmarting the bad guys, which is just life. Don't let the opinions of your enemies-- of liberty's enemies-- dictate how you live.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Government overreacts to those who don't worship it hard enough

One of the clearest signs that government is a ridiculous religious thing is the severity of the punishments governments impose for not buying their lies. For not having the "proper" respect for the buffoonish institution and all its nonsense. 

Usually, historically, that punishment has explicitly been death. 

Sometimes, these days, they can officially only get away with lengthy imprisonment, which is still ridiculously harsh for the actual acts committed-- if any. If they can manage it, and they often do, they still make sure the prisoner dies in their custody one way or another. 

Instead of making me take government more seriously, this overreaction shows the emperor has no clothes. He's naked, scabby, and an embarrassment to those he imagines are beneath him.

That severity of punishment doesn't even make sense. Not to anyone not brainwashed, anyway. I mean, I get it from government's warped, narrow, perspective, but that perspective is what exposes the lie.

If government were worthy of respect, they wouldn't need to overreact to those who show a lack of respect. They would be strong enough to laugh it off and show that any criticism is misguided. But they do overreact, which works against them and their dishonest narrative.

Government takes itself so seriously that it completely undermines any respect I might have dredged up from the depths once upon a time. Yes, government can kill, but so can a papercut or a worm. I don't respect something just because it can kill me. I try to avoid it. And I hate those who try to harm me by using such things against me.

Speaking of worms, it seems that every day I have less respect for those who treat political government as anything other than a parasitic worm. Those who act as if there's some necessity to it, and that it could be good if only it ... well, did something that it is never going to do or stopped doing things it's never going to stop doing.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The solution to crime isn't police-- it's to stop allowing police to make people helpless victims. Who else do you imagine enforces anti-defense legislation? "Abolish the police"-- if done right-- is an acknowledgment of this truth. Abolish the police and abolish anti-gun, anti-defense rules. The problem of crime is solved, if you let it be.

Fear doesn't figure into it

I'm not scared of the coronavirus disease, Covid-19. Almost everyone in my family had it and they all recovered, regardless of how many comorbidities they had. And some of them had a lot of comorbidities. Only one of them developed any "long-haul" issues, but those cleared up without any apparent residual harm after about 6 months. So being scared of Covid, in my case, would be silly. I'm just not.

Nor am I scared of the Covid-19 "vaccines" (or experimental, rushed-through injections). Most of the people in my family-- including, oddly enough, those who had already had Covid-- got the injections and didn't have reactions that were too awful. Just flu-like symptoms in a couple of cases, and pain in the rest. Nothing to fear, and coincidentally, not much different than the disease, itself. 

It's yet to be seen whether they'll turn into obedient zombies when triggered by the State through the "vaccines", like in the book Divergent. I'm betting against it (although I don't doubt some political criminals would love for this technology to be available).

As far as I know, I never had Covid-- I never took any test. I haven't gotten any "vaccine", either.

I dislike injections and avoid them unless I see a real reason for them. But I'm not scared of them. And in this case, I see no real reason to get one (or two-- or one every year). I would have to be afraid of Covid to think an injection is necessary, but I'm not.

I'm not fearless. There are things I am scared of. Large, aggressive dogs for example. And heights. So I know what fear is and I know when I'm experiencing it. Covid, and the "vaccines" for it, don't cause any fear in me. None. Fear just wasn't ever part of the equation.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Look toward cryptocurrency's future

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 16, 2021)

It seems nearly everyone is talking about Bitcoin and Dogecoin, as well as the thousands of other cryptocurrencies, these days.

Cryptocurrency is seen as a tool for financial freedom and privacy, as a way to hide profits from crime, and as a way to gamble and get rich (or go broke) quick.

Depending on how it's used, it can be all those things and more.

The prices of cryptocurrencies, as measured against government fiat currency like the US dollar, rise and fall, often based on nothing more than a comment from Elon Musk.

Some worry that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies aren't based on anything. Why do they imagine this is different than modern government money? The only reason a dollar has any value is because people imagine it does, based on the US government's promise to keep stealing from productive people far into the future.

Governments generally fear cryptocurrency and most want to regulate it. They frame this as "protection" for the people, but if that's part of the story, it's a small part. Mostly they want to tax it and stop it from freeing you from their control of the money supply. If you have alternative money, their inflationary schemes don't work as well for them and their cronies. They see this as a problem; I see it as freedom.

I don't believe governments will ever be able to control all cryptocurrency. They will keep trying and will have some limited successes which they'll publicize to try to scare you away from it.

If you want to try it, please diversify. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Not only should you get several different cryptocurrencies, but get some physical gold and silver, too, and even some of those US dollars. Realize, though, the dollars will continue to lose value due to the Federal Reserve's irresponsibility.

Recently there was some concern that Bitcoin is a climate disaster in the making, taking too much energy to create and trade. This ignores the environmental impact of creating and using dollars, or even silver and gold and barter, too. Everything has a cost. Accept this reality and make your choice.

I don't know what's in the short-term future for cryptocurrency. In the long term, I think it will replace government fiat money. Money of some kind will continue to be useful for trade. You should be able to decide what money you use.

(A reader didn't like this one and let me know.)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

How Things (fail to) Work

It seems many-- if not most-- people have hypotheses of How Things Work that depend on everyone being evil idiots... except when they have political power. In that case, they are necessary and society can't function without them.

Mmhmm. Sure.

These people never seem to notice how completely irrational and delusional this hypothesis truly is. And yet they'll lecture the rest of us to accept their diseased "reality". 

Usually, their main mistake is in defining every human interaction as "politics" when that's simply not the case. Only the unethical "win/lose" interactions are political, the rest aren't. And those political interactions aren't essential to society-- in fact, they are inimical to it; they are the opposite of social interactions. Politics is antisocial.

Are you going to be schooled on how to live among others by people who imagine everything is political, and that's not a bad thing? I will not.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"Fact checkers say..."

I'm cynical, but when I see anything prefaced with "Fact checkers say..." I take that to mean what follows is probably a lie. And probably one told to harm life, liberty, or property in some massive way.

There may be nothing they could do to stifle the opinions of others that would make me more suspicious. It's on the order of "Government experts claim...". 

I've seen some of the things "fact checkers" say. They'll take a tweet or story about someone's doubt, and they'll "check" things that were not a part of the piece they want you to be suspicious of. It's as though they are hoping you can't tell they've baited and switched, but will see the warning and that will be enough to convince you the writer has no credibility without looking into it.

Of course, sometimes it backfires on them.

The tweet at the top of this post was posted well before the "fact checkers say" lie hit social media. So, that's not the specific warning they applied to this one, but it didn't really work out well for TPTB. This tweet is still being shared on a massive scale. If the clowns at Twutter had ignored it, it would have been quickly forgotten. But that's not how it turned out. It's probably on course to become the most retweeted tweet ever, even though you have to jump through hoops to retweet it.

And, if you'll notice, the clowns of Twutter, after claiming that the tweet is "misleading" (it's not), want you to follow their link to "learn more about how vaccines work" even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the tweet. They can't even criticize it honestly.

I see the same sorts of things happen with any skepticism concerning the most recent president selection, too. "Fact checkers say" all sorts of things that are demonstrably not true, and usually have little or nothing to do with the information they don't want you to know.

When you see "fact checkers say" you can probably ignore what comes after. It's most likely going to be an authoritarian lie. At least, if you see that preface, take anything after it with a grain of salt.

(It's probably a coincidence, but as I was trying to post this I suddenly started getting a warning that the "update failed"-- it wouldn't auto-save. That hasn't ever happened, other than a momentary glitch. But this time, it kept going on this way for a long time, over and over. It's enough to make a person suspicious.)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"That's too far!"

Is there anything government could do that would make statists, government-supremacists, or just the average person who wants to believe government is necessary or good, say "That's too far!"? I have growing doubts.

I think they'd either deny it's even happening at all-- it's "fake news"-- or they'd claim it's being misinterpreted, or they'd find a way to justify it.

That's the difference between you and me and them. If government does something right, I'm able to say, and I believe you could, too, "Government did a good thing" and still say that doing a "good thing" using politics is unethical. I mean, even mass murderers can sometimes do something right, and they should be acknowledged when they do.

This is a level of awareness or honesty I just don't see from government's supporters.

I don't think government supporters are rational. I think they are able to fake rationality pretty well in some cases, but their superstition eventually trips them up.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Freedom is subjective; liberty is objective.

Liberty is great, promoting it is hard

To keep promoting liberty is hard work. It's not popular and is mostly thankless (there are greatly appreciated exceptions, though). In the 20 years since I first got online, many of the writers I have paid attention to have stopped writing. Some died, others just vanished. Did they get burned out? Did they say everything they had to say? One, Claire Wolfe, has cut back quite a bit on posting, but I'm glad she's still around. Others who didn't stop writing found more popular bandwagons to hop on.

One actually started advocating communism, maybe he was trolling but if so, I didn't stay around long enough to find out. 

Others got distracted and started promoting Trump or became obsessive anti-Trumpers-- either course made them lose credibility in my eyes and I stopped paying attention. Some went nationalist. Promoting any brand of authoritarianism just isn't going to fly. Yeah, I understand it's pragmatic.

"Social Justice" collectivism seduced a few more. I think that's an easy way for liberty advocates to feel more popular since it can be spun in a way that looks like supporting individual rights, even when it isn't.

But, whatever the reason, when I look back at who I was reading and learning from at the beginning of my online journey, most of them are gone now. Either actually gone, or gone from my sphere. Just like I am gone from the sphere of others who believe I parted ways with them over one issue or another. It happens. Views evolve. 

I have to stay true to myself and my interpretation of liberty. Wherever that takes me. I do a self-evaluation pretty often to see where I stand with regards to individual liberty-- to see if I think I'm going off track, and nudge myself back on course when I need it. Sometimes I get that nudge from others.

It might be nice, in a way, to find something more popular to focus on. I'm sure it would pay better. But I just can't put that much effort into trivial things that I see as passing fads. At least, even though this is hard work, it's worth it to me.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Imagine if the rabies virus mutated and got weaker over time like the coronaviruses (and others) do. After a couple of days of being grumpy due to a headache and a tight throat, you'd be fine and immune for life. It would have simplified my life.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like having a really strong opinion for or against a vaccine might be tempting the Universe to smite you.

"Anonymous" art buyer: "Hey Hunter, when one of your paintings sells for exactly $251,963, that will be me. You can then have your dad's handlers return the favor." See how easy that is?

Don't "trust science" or "follow the science", DO the science. Yes, you really can in many cases. Science is not magic beyond the capacity of normal humans.

They just don't want it to work

It took years, but I eventually came to realize that when someone claims liberty (a libertarian society, anarchy, Voluntaryism, whatever you want to call it) "won't work", they are telling me about themselves. That they aren't capable. That they might not be trustworthy or responsible. That they can't imagine living without a Big Brother.

I already know all about the faults that humans have. I know how liberty recognizes and accounts for them. I trust myself to be able to navigate the world without an aggressive gang of thieves to fall back on.

I feel bad for those who can't. 

I may still call them out, though. It should be embarrassing to be that way. 

What's funny is that these people so often see themselves as the intellectual opposite of communists and other collectivists, who they'll try to group me with, while operating from the same playbook as those they imagine they aren't like.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Liberty is among self-evident truths

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 9, 2021)

Many times over the years people have demanded proof that liberty is better than the alternative. Sometimes the detail being questioned changes-- maybe it's the concept of human rights or ethics they are objecting to-- but the argument is the same.

They don't accept the superiority of liberty over whatever they'd prefer, so they demand proof.

No matter what I say, with each response, they move the goal post. With each objection, I'll be asked to prove something different. At some point, I realize the person doesn't understand because they don't want to understand. No amount of effort on my part will make a difference. I'm wasting my time. There's some reason they want to keep believing it's OK to harm others who are not violating anyone's life, liberty, or property.

Occasionally I ask questions to see if I can figure out their reason; I never get a straight answer.

Asking someone to "prove" liberty is better than the alternative is like asking someone to "prove" it's better to not be boiled alive. If you're willing to claim it might be better to be tortured and murdered, what can I say?

Like it or not, there are some things which are objectively true. Only politics or other superstitions can make someone dispute this.

If it's not wrong to attack-- to violate-- peaceful people who aren't violating anyone in any way (or making a credible threat to do so) society is an impossibility. Maybe that's OK with you. There's no way to pretend it's only wrong when you want it to be wrong, but not in other cases where you'd like it to be right. Inconsistency brings down this house of cards.

There would be no such thing as theft. No such thing as self-defense. Slavery couldn't be wrong. Some people might like these ideas to be true. I've been told rights aren't real because they are only a human construct. Fine. If this is the case, there could be no right to govern others, so we are back where I began.

If you want to be enslaved, I respect your choice. Maybe it is better for you. I'm going to assume it isn't; that you'd prefer your liberty and self-ownership to be respected and defended. Then I'll act on this assumption until you explicitly tell me not to. I am sure liberty is always better even if you won't accept the proof.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

How 'bout them experts?

If you've spent any time on "social" media, you've probably seen proclamations from current or former soldiers (or Blue Line Gang enforcers) who use their gun expertise to tell the citizens what they need or don't need. They imagine their background gives them even more credibility than Joe "Fire a Shotgun Warning Blast Through the Door" Biden. 

It doesn't.

If you don't know what you're talking about, and form idiotic ideas based on your ignorance, it shows.

I have actually seen them make arguments similar to all those I sarcastically included in the image. And yet, they'd claim to be the experts. Experts you should listen to. Like a doctor who calls his superstitions "science".

Let them say their piece. I would never discourage these fake experts from exposing their ignorance to the world-- and being confronted by knowledgeable critics. I think it's a useful thing for them to do. It's just too bad some other people, who aren't knowledgable enough to see the obvious ignorance, get fooled. But, then they too will get ridiculed and "educated" for repeating the stupidity-- not that they'll believe the truth, since it isn't what they want to believe.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

A real piece of KRaP

The worthless loser (Kevin Ray Perry-- KRaP) who burglarized and set fire to my (now 97-year-old)  great-uncle's house a couple of years ago, and then this past January tried to burglarize someone else's house while they were home. got sentenced to 10 years in prison for that pair of crimes.

No, this doesn't make me happy. First of all, I am against imprisonment for anyone. Second, this doesn't hold him accountable for the damage he has done. Damage he intentionally committed. No restitution will be paid to his victims, so justice isn't on the table. It rarely is when the government "justice system" gets involved.

I would rather let people know who he is (and doing so relentlessly-- Kevin Ray Perry is his name), what he did, and then "let nature take its course". An "outlaw" in the original sense of the word-- outside the "protection" of "the law". Basically, a free kill. Yes, I hope his next intended victim kills him. That saves money and will keep him from ever violating anyone else.

None of my relatives, including my great-uncle's daughter, are happy, either. They believe this scum has shown he can't be allowed among the rest of society and needs to stay imprisoned much longer. I believe funding prisons only makes things worse. I don't see anyone this determined to be such a piece of KRaP surviving into old age, no matter what else happens, anyway. He's not bright enough and seems pretty dedicated to getting himself Darwinized. I'd like to see him get what he seems to be trying to get.

Now, I'm also ready to completely forgive him. It would take an admission of what he did, restitution to the satisfaction of everyone he victimized, and a guarantee (backed by immediate consequences) that he could never archate again. It's the same deal I offer every violator-- politician, cop, or freelance. It's simple, but not cheap. But it requires them to admit they are the bad guy, and most bad guys aren't willing to be that responsible (that's why they are bad guys in the first place).

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Sometimes, doing nothing is the right choice

I have the right to make choices-- to take risks-- that might result in me sacrificing myself. 

I have no right to make the intentional choice to sacrifice others. 

I continue to see it as more ethical to do nothing rather than to feel pressured into "doing something" which may result in sacrificing someone. 

This is why I don't fall for the trolley dilemma and it's why I am not going to get any Covid vaccine or gene therapy, while not caring one way or the other about the choice others make. Let the gears turn, but don't throw people into them.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Most people die of natural causes. If anti-gun bigots were consistent, they would scream to ban natural causes... even if it meant murdering people to prevent them from dying of natural causes. I mean, they are already on the side of murderers now, so it's not much of a stretch.

Can politics avoid using the political means?

If your politics encourages you to steal from others or to control what others do with their bodies or their property, it's a problem. And that's pretty much the definition of politics. Only if you try to pretend politics is about society by redefining it, and leave out what it really is, can it be justified. 

It's why I dislike politics. ALL politics.

This is why libertarianism isn't political-- not when it stays libertarian. And it's why a Libertarian (political) Party is going to be not-so-libertarian when it tries to do something other than educate people; when it tries to engage in politics.

I get it: others are using politics to violate your life, liberty, and property. They are using politics to archate. You want to turn the tables for a change. You want to use politics defensively to protect yourself from their politics. But I don't think it's any more possible to use the political means defensively than it is to set off a nuclear bomb defensively. You'll end up being the aggressor by your action. Theft and aggression are never defensive, nor are they restitution.

Sure, it sounds amusing to say the Libertarian Party is all about plotting to take over the world so they can leave you alone, but is that true? If liberty can only be protected by using the political means is it worth it? Is this a case of raping to promote virginity? I'm not sure but that's how it looks to me.

Obviously, any type of libertarian is better than any type of authoritarian. Don't think I'm saying otherwise. I'm just bothered when libertarians advocate using politics against others in any way for any reason. It doesn't seem to fit with the principles of the thing. What if that's the only way? Do you really "have to" slaughter an entire village-- women and children, too-- to protect yourself from a few bad guys who live there and are a threat to you? I doubt it.

I've just never seen any politics that didn't involve justifying archation at some level. And if it existed, how would it still be politics?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

If anyone would like to toss a little bit of money into this troublemaker's PayPal account ( paypal.me/Dullhawk ), it would be appreciated. Thank you.

If you start with the assumption that government is necessary, that democracy is a positive thing, that vaccines are always good, and that cops are heroes, you aren't thinking. You're just parroting the tenets of your cult.

Government doesn't disappoint

When you expect nothing good from government you won't be disappointed. This is why government can never disappoint me. 

It can anger me-- as any aggressor or thief will-- but it isn't possible for me to be disappointed in it. Sure, I'll feign disappointment sometimes to mock government, but it's only an act.

When government does something stupid or harmful, I just roll with it as well as I can. Sometimes I am a little bit shocked by the depth of the stupidity, but never disappointed.

When legislation fails to protect the innocent, and actually makes things measurably worse, no disappointment. Anger, but not disappointment.

When government drops the ball on some "service" I am being (non-consensually) charged for, I am not disappointed. Neither am I disappointed that I never get refunded due to this failure to provide the service I was forced to pay for. Sometimes a little disgusted, yes, but not disappointed.

Government can surprise me when it fails to do the wrong thing. It has happened a few times, but not often. Even those pleasant surprises are tempered by the knowledge that those events were made illegitimate through theft ("taxation") and aggression.

Back when I was young and naive and I could be disappointed in government, it was nearly a permanent condition. One disappointment after another. I was young and dumb. I believed that politicians mostly meant well. I confused legislation for law. I believed it was possible to have a mostly good political government, if you did it right. But then I grew up.

I am not disappointed that thieves and arsonists violate property rights-- it's what they do. Sure, I like it when they get shot in the act, but I can't be disappointed that they act the way they act. The same goes for political government. It would be stupid to be disappointed that government does what government-- by definition-- does. People act, and things function, according to their nature. They can't do otherwise without changing what they are.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Hating the messenger

Some of the angriest responses to things I write come after I warn of bad things in the near future-- particularly bad economic things. Such as inflation. It's not the only thing people get mad over, but it's probably the strangest.

Why would people get mad over economic warnings-- mad enough to write to tell me how wrong I am? To tell me it isn't happening and that it never will. To say I'm an idiot for claiming it's already started because they don't (won't?) see it. 

One particular guy wrote me last August in response to this column, saying local prices weren't going up and the dollar wasn't losing value because "God is in control". I wonder if he sees prices going up yet, or if his head is still stuck in a prairie dog hole and he hasn't bought anything since he wrote that email. Would it be nice of me to follow up and see what he says now?

Why all the anger? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I hope I am; I don't want hyperinflation to happen. It's not that important for me to be able to say "I told you so". But they could show me why they believe I'm wrong, rather than simply expressing their anger over my warning.

I suspect the anger might be triggered by a few different things. 

Maybe they are just that invested in the current system. They believe it has served them well so far, and they want to believe it will keep doing so. Maybe they don't want to feel bad about what they've done to their grandchildren's future.

Maybe uncertainty scares them; if they proclaim their certainty forcefully enough, they feel safe. It's like a magic spell to chant for protection.

Maybe they just don't believe the government they worship through Holy Pole Quilts and pledges of allegiance would ever knowingly wreck the economy (while enriching its cronies) and put them in harm's way.

Maybe they just hate me and this topic pushes them over the edge and motivates them to write out of anger.

Or, maybe that one correspondent's religious faith depends on not seeing that government can do bad and stupid-- even evil-- things, and attacking anyone who suggests otherwise.

But if you don't see it happening now, I doubt you ever will. Not even when you're pushing your wheelbarrow of "dollars" to the store for a loaf of bread. Getting mad over it won't change anything. Hating the messenger doesn't prevent disaster.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Drug abuse stupid but prohibition evil

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 2, 2021)

It's normal to focus more on things which matter to us personally. It's harder to care about everything else. I'm most vocal about the liberty I see being attacked the hardest. This is why I mention gun-owner rights so often. These rights are currently attracting the most hate.

If you want me to defend a right, start a coordinated attack against it.

Beyond rights I care about the most, you have the right to do things that don't interest me at all, or things I don't like. As long as "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", as Thomas Jefferson said-- nor the pockets or legs of anyone else-- I support your right to live as you wish. I don't care who it offends; there is no right to not be offended.

I recognize and respect the equal and identical rights of every human being alive. It matters to me when those rights are violated, whoever is doing the violating and however they justify it.

So, even though access to marijuana isn't important to me, I write about it because it's a right which matters to many people. It attracts attention, both from those who recognize the right to trade and use it and from those who want to continue using government violence to violate the right.

All choices have consequences; accidental or intentional. Some of the things you have a right to do can hurt or kill you. Misuse of any drug-- especially those more dangerous than Cannabis-- is one of those things. I still oppose drug prohibition. Drug abuse is stupid, but prohibition is pure evil.

If you are irresponsible you can harm others; something you have no right to do. Saying you were under the influence when you accidentally harmed someone can't wipe away the debt your act created.

You also owe restitution just as surely if you are under the influence of political authority and harm someone with legislation. Accept your responsibility.

Self-employed bad guys are almost as much a problem as those who believe they are entitled to violate your rights. The mugger and the tax collector are doing the same job, with the same result. There is no difference, other than it is more socially acceptable to defend yourself from one thief than it is to defend yourself from the other.

Respect liberty, even those parts you don't care about. It's what society needs most.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Liberty requires perpetual secession.

Happy Independents Day

No, that wasn't a misspelling. If you get it, you get it.

I hate that Independence Day has become "The 4th of July" and a celebration of government and the government's military. That's so not what it's about, and something I can never participate in.

But for those out there who understand, celebrate your independence with me.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

I love America and therefore I hate its enemy, the United States of America. It's odd how many people are confused by that statement.

Body counts aren't a good argument

People who argue for even worse "gun control" [sic] than Americans are already burdened with love to quote various questionable statistics on how many people are killed with guns every year.

There couldn't be a less convincing argument for them to make. Sorry. And it isn't that I don't care. I care a lot! I've had three close friends who were shot; two of them died as a result of being intentionally shot by evil losers. (The other was intentionally shot by an evil loser who was mugging him, but he survived.) That's no excuse to support anti-gun legislation. I'm not going to punish you for the deaths because it wasn't your fault. You didn't pull the trigger. In fact, I believe if you'd been there and were properly armed you would have tried to save their lives-- and I say this to anyone reading this blog. 

The problem is never "too many guns", and there is no way to "keep guns out of the wrong hands" without keeping them out of too many of the right hands, too. And the wrongest of the wrong hands-- government employees-- are never even factored in. 

Even if you use the dumb excuse of preventing the "mentally ill" from having guns by imposing draconian legislation, that's a hard "No" from me. Keep legislation out of it.

People die tragically every day. If you believe guns should be banned or rationed by the state because they are a tool that is sometimes involved in tragic deaths, why not food? (And yeah, I realize there are government-supremacists like a former NYC mayor who would support rationing or banning food on this pretext, too.)

Thousands of people choke on food annually. I know of someone whose young son choked on a piece of popcorn and died before they could save him. People commit slow suicide with food by grossly over-eating and by eating horribly unhealthy things. You've seen it happen. Evil people have served poisoned food to others as a way to murder them. Sometimes there are food "malfunctions" (contaminated food) and people die from it. 

Still, no one has the right to ban food. It's crazy or evil to even suggest it. No one has the right to regulate food, either, but they've already got their foot in the door on that point.

Back to guns: You could argue that there are other defensive tools you could use instead of guns if guns were eliminated. But none are as effective as guns, especially in a world where you'll never get rid of all the guns as long as government employees have them. (If they were as effective as guns, I'd bet money that the gun-banners would want to ban them, too.) 

You could argue that there are alternatives to traditional food, too. Twinkies, for example. (Just kidding.) People could swallow nutrition pills instead of eating food to keep themselves alive. Or get hooked to an IV full of nutrients. The point is, there are suboptimal substitutes for food, but you could try to rely on them to keep you alive. Just like the suboptimal alternatives to guns.

With all its drawbacks, food saves more lives than it takes. So do guns, but that's not the part of the story that makes the news. It's more thrilling to focus on evil losers murdering people than on boring things like good people showing a bad guy a gun and encouraging the bad guy to go away quickly.

The lack of food kills. The lack of a gun can kill. Both are your natural human right-- which doesn't mean anyone is obligated to provide you with either one; they just have no right to prevent you from providing for yourself. Gun-banners are exactly as evil as those who would starve you to death to keep you safe from the very real dangers of food.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Getting permission to change your mind

People can't believe what they don't believe, and don't believe what they can't believe. I know; I've tried.

There have been times I really thought I should believe something I didn't believe. Either because I didn't like the implications of not believing, or because people I respected believed differently.

In those instances I was already primed to change my mind; any real reason could have nudged me over the line. Yet, in most cases, no one could give me good enough evidence to really change what I truly believed. No one could give me a good enough reason. No one could give me what was needed to actually change what I believed at a deep level.

I could lie and say I changed my mind, but why? There is no way for me to pretend to believe something I don't. I know it's not real to me. I won't act on it as though I believe it. (If I have any doubt, then I don't "believe" it anyway. I just lean that direction.)

This is something I can lose sight of when dealing with other people. Even realizing that they may be the same way I am when I'm in their shoes. If I expect them to change what they believe, I've got to give them a good enough reason to do so. Give them evidence. Maybe it won't help them change their mind, but if I don't give them at least that much, how could I expect them to change.

In the heat of a disagreement-- especially when the other person keeps pulling out insults and decides to call me a "mediocre white man" because I believe in liberty and rights for EVERYONE-- it's hard to not sink to their level. At least, I've never sunk to racism like they did, no matter how nasty they get.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com