Kent's Top Ten List of Cat Names

#10 Fluffy der Litterslinger

#9 Rip Climbcurtain

#8 Whiskers Handbiter

#7 Sleepy Dotchaser

#6 Pukey McHackenbarf

#5 Thing Tut

#4 Fuzzy Lickbottom

#3 Claws McShredder

#2 Hissy Nosetickle

And the #1 cat name that I will never be permitted to give to one of my cats:

                  Spastic O'Speedbump

(Dogs, too)

-

And please don't forget.

Ariel Castro promises Amanda Berry a "fair trial"

The next time some flag-waving "patriot" gets red in the face over Edward Snowden or his Russian asylum, ask them this question:  Why isn't Amanda Berry being pursued by US authorities and being forced to seek temporary asylum in Russia?

After all, Berry did the exact same thing that Snowden did: she reported the crimes of a criminal.  But in her case, only one criminal (or is it two?).  Snowden reported the crimes of thousands of criminals.  Shouldn't the "White House" have offered to give Berry a "fair trial" like it offered Snowden?  Or, would it have been more similar to have Ariel Castro be the one offering Berry the deal?  Why did Castro end up the one sentenced to prison instead of the whistleblower who reported him?

Supporting the prosecution and persecution of Snowden is the moral equivalent of seeking the same treatment for every other crime victim.  Because yes, Edward Snowden is also a victim of the crimes he reported, just as Amanda Berry was a victim with the other 2 women who were enslaved alongside her.

So why isn't Ariel Castro- the criminal- offering Amanda Berry- his whistle-blowing victim- a "fair trial", just like the various and sundry spokesvermin of the US Fedgov- the criminals- are offering Edward Snowden- the whistle-blowing victim- a "fair trial"?

Oops. I forgot.  The difference is just who the criminal happens to be.

Double standards disgust me, and this is a big one.  Victims should never be the ones put through the ringer of the so-called "justice system".

-

And please don't forget.

.

"Thinking is too hard!"

It is so much easier to be an emotionally-driven "patriot" waving that federal flag, squealing about "The USA!", and hating everyone who seems to show a hint of the "Man behind the Curtain" than it is to actually think things through.

Yes, I've known this for a very long time, and was guilty of it myself years ago.  But the recent events of the Bradley Manning injustice and the Edward Snowden fiasco really brought it home.  Well, it was the reactions of so many "patriots" that really brought it home.

It reminds me of a bunch of angry baboons- ruled by their aggressive emotions, and loyal to the troop "leaders" no matter what they are doing.  It's really sad.  Humans should be smarter than this.  We have brains.  Use them.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Free-market roads concept possible

Free-market roads concept possible

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 28, 2013.  First of the neutered columns.)

Are you under the impression that free market roads would be impossible, or at least impossibly complicated?

Then I have good news for you.

There are many possible ways for roads to be provided in a free society, even assuming unfettered technology wouldn't make roads obsolete.

Business owners could voluntarily join forces to provide roads and bridges that service their area so that customers could reach them comfortably. Neighbors could band together voluntarily to service the roads they use to get where they need to go. Companies could spring up to provide roads for a fee on your car insurance, or in some similar way. There could be toll road companies that bill you monthly for your use of their roads. You don't think road use is currently free, do you?

You'll still pay to use the road, but there will be accountability. The advantages of that should be obvious.

Privately owned roads had better be good, since the owner could be liable for any damage to your person or property due to poor maintenance or other road hazards like snow, ice, or tumbleweeds. Restitution would be a powerful incentive. Still, potholes happen.

Cars in a free society would probably be better at avoiding or dealing with problems than those we now drive. Perhaps they will automatically avoid that pothole to prevent the impact completely. If this fails and your car is damaged anyway, the road's owner may be able to recover some portion of the restitution he pays you from the car's manufacturer because of this malfunction.

Perhaps cars would immediately contact a database to report a road hazard, and its exact coordinates, so that other drivers (or their cars) could be alerted to avoid it, and repair crews could be dispatched.

If someone refuses to pay, either for use of the road or for damages from flawed maintenance, arbitration could be sought.

There could still be patrols to make sure no one is driving dangerously, but they would never have authority above any other individual, and would be held accountable if they violate your rights; they and their employer would be personally liable for any abuse or harm you suffered at their hands.

I can't go into every possibility even I can think of in a column this short, and the solutions might be completely different, anyway. In a free society there wouldn't be a "one-size-fits-all" way to provide roads. Anyone would be free to experiment and compete with roads he found inadequate in some way. How might you do it, if you had the opportunity, without coercion?

.

The Bradley Manning verdict- irony in action

Let's engage in some far-out fantasy for a moment and pretend that there is such a thing as "treason" or such a person as a "traitor" in relation to a "country".

Yeah, I did warn you that this is fantasy.

In such an imaginary scenario, the only reason the government of the US existed was because of the Constitution.  The Constitution created it from nothing.

The Constitution was the government that those so inclined were loyal to.  Not the president, congress, Supreme Court, generals, "superior" officers, bureaucrats, or "laws".  Not even "the country".  Any orders or "laws" that violated the Constitution were "treason" and the person issuing those orders, a "traitor".

So, when a person took an oath to uphold, support, or defend the Constitution of The United States (as opposed to America), that person was swearing loyalty to the US.  Whether or not that is a good thing is a subject for another day.

So Bradley Manning took that oath, and is now being punished under the pretext that he violated it, for upholding it.  For being honorable enough to knowingly risk his life, liberty, and property by doing the right thing.  Because, by his actions he exposed the evil deeds of those who violated their identical oaths, but who were doing so in a way that others (their "superiors" and "patriotic Americans") wanted them to.  And for this he is being called the "traitor", when he is the only one, between him and his accusers and persecutors, to whom that word can't apply in any way.  The same goes for Edward Snowden.

Those calling for Manning's head on a platter are seriously confused.  They mistake the criminals who violated their oaths for the good guys "serving their country", and the guy who actually honored his unwise oath for the "traitor" deserving of harsh punishment.  The actual bad guys are being confused for the good guys by a purposely confused population of illiterates who can't think past their emotionalism.

Well, confused or just plain evil.  Just which it is will be exposed by their words or actions in the next few days.

-

And please don't forget.

Writing about the room while pretending the elephant isn't stinking up the place

There are some facts that it is almost impossible to ignore when speaking honestly about the religion of Statism.  For example: that their imaginary god is supported by theft and coercion- and is, in fact, nothing but theft and coercion when you dig right to the root of the matter.

Well, and that it is imaginary.  There is nothing behind the priests and worshipers.

And those are the facts I am not allowed to mention in my CNJ columns, at least for the time being.  Which makes for a much more difficult task.

So, I am trying to go at it from a different angle, which is taking a lot more thinking energy, and a lot more time, for the same amount of pay.  Funny what that does to the ol' motivation.

But I'm taking it one column at a time, and seeing where it goes from here.  I hope you are tagging along.

-

And please don't forget.

"Libertarian Money" blog

I was first made aware of "Libertarian Money" blog after its author left a comment on this blog.  And I immediately subscribed by "The Old Reader", have been reading it ever since, and am really impressed.

You would do well to also subscribe, but first read this excellent post to see what I'm talking about.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Kent's Top Ten List of Dog Names

#10 - Rabies O'Piddler
#9 - The Flea RV
#8 - Stinky de Gasblaster
#7 - Destructinator
#6 - The AntiCat
#5 - Puddles McBitebite
#4 - Sir Fartsalot
#3 - Barack
#2 - Begger Lee Drooldripper

And the #1 name for any dog I might someday have- Bitey "The Barker" McPoopenpisser

(Cats, too)

-

And please don't forget.

.

Complicating the simple

Consider this "puzzle":

Suppose we agree that everyone has a right to life, but that a person forfeits this right when he threatens the life of another — in that case it’s permissible to kill him.

Now consider three people, A, B, and C. A aims a gun at B, B aims a gun at C, and C aims a gun at A. When A takes aim, he’s threatening another person, so he loses his own right to life. Normally in that case C would be justified in killing him, since this defends B. But B is aiming at C, which means he forfeits his own right to life … which means that A can kill him, and that C can’t kill A.

There seems no way to resolve this under the rules we’ve laid out. “Each actor has a right to life if he or she lacks a right to life and lacks a right to life if he or she has a right to life,” wrote University of Tulsa law professor Russell Christopher, who offered the puzzle in 1998. He uses it to suggest that subjective factors such as motive, belief, and knowledge must be considered when making these judgments.
(Russell Christopher, “Self-Defense and Defense of Others,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, Spring 1998)

But, it doesn't confuse me.  Because I don't think anyone can forfeit a right.  It's just that each of us has a right to defend himself (and his property), and that means that sometimes aggressors (and thieves/vandals) get killed.

When you consider a problem "under the rules we’ve laid out", but your rules are flawed, you will have difficulty resolving it, if you can resolve it at all.  Which is why liberty will never be found using the political method.  You are working under flawed "rules".

-

And please don't forget.

.

Liberty Lines- July 25, 2013 (Updated publication date)

(Oops!  This was originally posted here on the 18th, but it got bumped from the paper until the 25th.  That means it appears in the special Border Town Days edition of the paper.  That might be a good thing.

Published in the Farwell, Texas/Texico, New Mexico State Line Tribune, July 25, 2013)

-

Frederick Bastiat pointed out in 1850, in his book "The Law", that each of us has the individual right to life, liberty, and property, and that these rights predate any idea of law or government.

Because these rights exist, people discover Natural Law to protect them.

Once the laws have been discovered (not "written", as is every counterfeit "law") people often join together to form government, based upon the protection of life, liberty, and property, through those laws.

Anytime laws are written that do anything other than protect these individual rights, the laws have become perverted and harmful.

Anytime a government begins to pass and enforce these upside down and backwards "laws", the government has been corrupted; it has become a State.

As Albert Jay Nock pointed out in his 1935 book "Our Enemy, The State", once a society has rejected the social institution of government (which exists solely to assist in the protection of individual rights) for the inherently anti-social monstrosity of a State (which is based upon "laws" that violate life, liberty, and property for its own benefit), nothing can prevent its destruction.

The only thing that can be done at that point is to give the warning so that wise people can prepare.

Sadly, America is far down this path with the whole-hearted enthusiasm of most of its residents; supporting myriad "laws" that violate the nature of legitimate law and natural rights in more ways than it is possible to count. Look around and you will see property codes, taxes, prohibition, anti-gun "laws", requirements for licenses and permits, "national security"... the list could go on and on. Each and every one of these abominable counterfeit "laws" does the opposite of what legitimate government would do, and plays right into the hands of The State.

You've been warned. Prepare to ride it out and sit back and enjoy the show.

-

And please don't forget.

.

An offer you MUST refuse

My head spins.

I just saw on the news that "The White House" says Edward Snowden should be returned to the US where he can be given a "fair trial".  (Like Bernard von NotHaus?)

Let's skip right past the part where a building is speaking, and focus on the part where a criminal's spokespuppet is insisting that the person who pointed out the criminal acts of the criminal is the one who is to be given a "fair trial".  What Snowden did wasn't wrong, can't therefore be really "illegal", and for the criminal to be offering Snowden a "fair trial" is absurd.

I guess that next, burglars will be offering to sell back stolen goods for a "fair price", and rapists can give their victims a chance to give consent after the attack.  And if the victims refuse, then we can all throw stones at them.

If anyone should be offered a "fair trial" it is those whose evil acts were exposed by Snowden.  The thugs have it backwards yet again.

Then, I also saw John McCain emitting rancid verbal flatulence about how what Snowden had done was "a slap in the face of the USA".  Good!  The "USA" is the anti-America, and it's thugs, scam artists, crooks, and spies should face consequences for the acts of evil they have been committing with stolen "tax dollars".  A slap in the face is too good for them.

Yeah, I have a problem with anyone making an oath to a group of thugs to begin with, but some people have to start there.

-

And please don't forget.

.

What happens when liberty is violated?

In the past few days I have watched people pointing to the bankruptcy of Detroit as an indictment of "progressive" politics.

In response, I see others point to the "Deep South", and its lack of economic opportunity, as an indictment of "conservative" politics.

Both sides are right, to a point, but both sides are wrong because they are missing the "Big Picture".  What's the common denominator?

The violation of individual liberty through the political method.

In other words, both cases are an indictment of Statism as a whole, not of a particular form of statism.  But that doesn't fit in with the obsolete and falsified "left vs right" paradigm.  So statists of either stripe will keep throwing rocks at their ideological twins while studiously ignoring the root of the problem.

Liberty would fix both places.  Stop letting the cowards set the agenda and frame the debate.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Purpose of laws is protection of life

Purpose of laws is protection of life

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 21, 2013)

Based upon my columns you might believe that libertarians oppose all laws. That isn't true at all. I am only opposed to "laws" that should never have been imposed in the first place, which therefore should never be enforced. Unfortunately, that just happens to be the vast majority of "laws" imposed and enforced today.

Freedom exists in reverse proportion to laws. Every law destroys a bit of freedom. Yet it is perfectly possible for liberty to be unaffected by law. A law against theft doesn't affect your liberty at all because you never had the right to steal. A law is only legitimate as long as it leaves liberty untouched.

The only purpose of the law- and by extension, government- was protection of life, liberty, and "pursuit of happiness", including property rights. Any application of law that violates this- again, the vast majority of today's "law"- is a counterfeit substitute for real law and must be eliminated if the individuals who make up society are to ever again thrive.

But don't driver's licenses, for example, protect life and property somehow, even as they violate liberty? Hardly. Look at all the fatal accidents and vehicular property destruction caused by "licensed drivers". The safest drivers I have known were people who had managed to stay under the radar and drive without "official permission".

That license is a clear violation of liberty, especially as it gives The State an excuse to track you with another number, and because it provides another behavior modification weapon to be used against the people. How does the requirement for a driver's license protect your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness and property rights? It doesn't. It fails- hard. It is a net loss for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As is every other legal act imposed for our own good, for the common good, or for that current boogieman in the news: "national security".

Do I ever think a new law is a good idea? A "good law"?

Perhaps. If it ONLY exists to restrict the actions of government employees by limiting what they are allowed to do. A good law would hobble government employees and forbid them from violating you and me- in our persons or our property, or in our pursuit of happiness- and have the teeth to back up the threat. But the same results could be better achieved by eliminating the counterfeit "laws" that give them the false "authority" to violate us.

There hasn't been a good "new law" in hundreds of years. Maybe thousands.

.

"Stand your ground" or.. what, exactly?

I don't get the "controversy" surrounding "stand your ground" laws.  I can't even understand why anyone thought it necessary to make it "legal" to use deadly force against an imminent threat rather than running away "like a bitty little bug".

Basically I think it comes down to people who feel sorry for those who choose to attack others (or those who have a habit of acting in an aggressive and impulsive manner*), and those who don't.  Some feel that there is some "appropriate level of response" to being attacked-- a "proportional response", as they call it.  I give the defender a much wider latitude.

Sure, there is the potential that a bully could goad someone into approaching him in an aggressive way, and then shoot the person; claiming self defense.  Or, maybe they could just shoot someone dead and lie about the whole incident.  Nothing is to prevent the targeted victim of a scam like this from using deadly force in his own defense.  I'd rather 1,000 thugs "get away with" this than see even ONE defender be punished for defending themselves from an aggressor.

("But what about cops shooting those they stop?  Aren't they defending themselves legitimately?  Shouldn't they also get to stand their ground?"  They are defending themselves as legitimately as any other aggressor who shoots a person who resists and fights back.  Because in almost every single instance, the cop is the one who made the first aggressive move or threatened to do so.  I don't believe a bad guy gives up his right to self defense- I just hope he loses.)

Let arbitration or shunning sort it all out as well as possible after the fact.  Nothing is perfect, but that's as close as you are likely to get.

"Stand your ground" doesn't mean chasing a fleeing bad guy down the street and shooting him in the back.  But in some cases... like if he is running off with some of your property, or you have reason to (credibly) believe he is running off for now, but knows where to find you or your loved-ones and plans to "finish this" later.  And I believe only the defender can accurately assess that threat.  But that has nothing to do with "standing your ground", while still being self defense.

I can't see any sense at all in "requiring" people to flee from a threat.  That only rewards the thugs, and demands that people act like cowards.  It's not a sustainable strategy for a civilization.  Or an individual.

-

*Now, "acting in an aggressive and impulsive manner" stops short, in most cases, of initiating force.  I get that.  However, if that is how you are in the habit of acting, you run a high risk of being misinterpreted and having a situation escalate out of your control at some point in your life.  It might be OK to act that way in some situations, or around certain individuals, but I don't see it as a good survival strategy in the long term.  But think for yourself and do what you want.

-

And please don't forget.

.

I ain't white

All the media-driven "racial" strife made me look closely at myself, trying to find any evidence of white.  I failed.  At least on my skin.  My teeth are closer, and the sclera of my eyes, closer still... but my skin?  Not white at all.  I held a piece of white paper against my skin and it made my skin look very non-white.  In fact, I looked brown.  How can that be?

Even my pasty pale legs are not white.  I'm not really sure what color they might be considered.  Should I protest that the color of my skin doesn't have a common name?

So, I am not white.

I suppose "Caucasian" might be a more technically correct term, but although I can find the Caucasus Mountains and "Caucasia" on a map (I'm not an idiot) I have never been to that region and feel no connection to it whatsoever.  Because of that, referring to myself as "Caucasian" always seemed like a lie.

Ah, but perhaps they are labeling "the culture" with the name of a color that has no basis in reality.  In that case, which "white culture" are they referring to?  There are many, and I don't really relate to any of them.  Or, are you simply referring to any culture that isn't "black culture"?  But that wouldn't work either, since there are not only "black" and "white", but a great many variations of culture even right around here.

I guess no one is talking about me at all when they go on TV and try to get "whites" and "blacks" angry at each other.  That's good.  It's one time that being "no one" is just fine.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Admitting you messed up

Collectivism wasn't forced on most people. They were seduced into it. They don't want to admit that this happened, and they don't want to be forcibly freed from it now.  Even those who now see the collectivism, and see how it is hurting them, may not want to admit they screwed up.

I try to offer these people a way out that lets them save face.  As I see it, the ZAP is a great way out.  Just don't initiate force again, and you won't face any retribution from me.  (Well, if you have hurt one of my kids in the past I can't promise to not go insane and violate my principles, and I don't believe it would be right for me to do so ... but you have been warned.)

-

And please don't forget.

.

Trust me, you’re not that gullible

Trust me, you’re not that gullible  (link fixed, unless the paper sees fit to change it again)

(My weekly Clovis News Journal [and Portales News-Tribune] column for June 14, 2013.)

Are you surprised at the revelation that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying on you? Yes, you. Personally. Not you, you say? Well- as long as you don't ever use a phone, a computer, or any other form of communication. You don't, right?

I hear some good, patriotic citizens claim that as long as you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried.

OK. Sounds good.

So please give me your phone number, your bank account numbers, all your passwords and PINs, your mother's maiden name, your Social Security tracking number, all your kids' personal information, and whatever else you think no one else knows. Then take your curtains down and leave your door unlocked 24 hours per day. No hiding in the bedroom or bathroom either, since you have nothing to hide.

And drop the "please" from the preceding paragraph.

It'll be OK. I don't steal, and I have no desire to run your life or harm you. I won't share your information with anyone who doesn't need access (for reasons I can't share with you). I have only your best interests at heart. Trust me.

You're not that gullible... are you?

It's not about secrecy; it's about privacy. It's not that your life is shameful; it's that it is no one else's business. Giving up your privacy destroys your liberty, and is not even in the interest of "national security"- it is in the interest of totalitarian surveillance and control. Old Soviet Union levels of control and tyranny. Or worse.

Any State that claims it needs this information in order to be secure is a government based upon extreme paranoia. It doesn't deserve your support or loyalty.

So what will you do, now that you know? Will you adjust your behavior, stop supporting these domestic enemies, and finally realize that you are responsible for governing yourself and that no one else can ever "represent" or protect you better than you can? Will you finally accept the liberty of self-ownership and reject the slavery and coercion of statism?

Or will you continue to make excuses for these crooks and deny the facts? Will you accept the "official story" and the empty assurances that your private information will stay private (beyond the offices of those spying on you, anyway) and will never be misused? Will you pretend nothing happened, or just turn on the TV and ignore unpleasant truth, believing it will go away?

Which course do you think future history will show you should have taken?

.

Who's against everything?

A few months ago, after I had commented on someone's Facebook post, one of his "friends" said I was "one of those people" that she called an "aginner"; someone who was simply "against everything".

Against everything? I can't even wrap my mind around that bizarre mischaracterization.

I am against aggression and theft in all their varied forms. Nothing else.

Of course, as I seem to remember, I was speaking out against aggression and/or theft committed in the name of The State.  Apparently that didn't sit well with her world-view, so she had to try to make it appear that I was just unreasonably against everything.  It showed me what she was against, and worse, what she was "for".

Not that people like her will ever listen, but it might be fun to just ask what, exactly, they are supposing I am against in the specific instance that gives them such a problem.  It might be very enlightening to see just exactly who the "aginner" really is.

-

And please don't forget.

.

"What do you want to be...?"

When I was a kid people would always ask me "What do you want to be when you grow up?"  I never had an answer to that question.  I don't even remember secretly having an answer I was embarrassed to tell others.  The answer just wasn't there.  I'm not sure I could relate to the question at all.

I also remember in elementary school hearing other kids saying which college they were going to attend, and asking me where I was going to go.  I had no answer to that, either.  I never understood why they were even thinking about it, and wondered why it mattered to them.  I remember thinking that they would probably change their minds several times before the day came.

There were a lot of things I wanted to experience, but nothing I wanted to do to the exclusion of everything else.  And, I suppose, without a clear picture of what I wanted to "become" I couldn't get interested in going to college to become something.  Even when I did go to college, I never "declared a major".

But it all came back to not having any answer to "What do you want to be when you grow up?"

Now I regret that to a certain degree, but I'm not sure what I could have changed.  Because I still "suffer from" the same ... lack, or absence.  It's probably a personal failure on my part, but I swear it feels like a genetic glitch- like I'm missing an organ from birth and no amount of wishing or pretending will make it spontaneously grow.  Perhaps if I had been a more motivated person, I could have forged on ahead as if I had an answer.  And sometimes I wish I had.

I will say that there were some things I wanted to do.  And each and every one of those things I was told was not possible because it was "illegal".  Of course, now I realize that "illegal" doesn't mean "impossible", or even "wrong", but at that young age all I thought was that I didn't want to be the bad guy breaking "laws" and going to jail just for doing what I selfishly wanted to do.  It's a difficult delusion to kick.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Playing the Game

I understand why some people keep ignoring the imaginary nature of The State- they don't want to be shut out and made to feel invisible.

When everyone is wringing their hands over what "government" is doing, you don't get listened to when you point out that you can't fix the problems by doing more of the same, but only by walking away from the silliness.

But that isn't the solution that people want to hear.  It's too "simplistic" and doesn't involve exciting things like running for office, writing "your" congressvermin, or throwing your support behind a "law".

But it IS the only thing that will ever succeed.

-

And please don't forget.

.