"We don't care"

That IS the truth behind the sign. 

It's not really about guns.

They don't care.

Your life doesn't matter to them.

Every justification is a lie. 

Don't let them get away with lying to you. 

Let them know you know what the sign means. 

Every time is is displayed anywhere. 

Under any "justification". 

This sign is ruder than someone spitting in your eye.

It is a lethal threat.

Don't apologize for them.

Don't cover for them.

It is what it is.

The truth may hurt their feelings, but it is still the truth.

Every single time.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

The Constitution- not even good toilet paper

The Constitution was a really bad idea to begin with, but it doesn't even do what its supporters claim it could do. If the US fe(de)ral government was once "limited" by the Constitution, then I guess I don't understand what "limited" means. "If only we had held the government to it". Ha ha ha!

Anymore, "Constitutional" just means "whatever the court decides government should be able to get away with". If the government wants it, it will be constitutional enough. Especially if following the Constitution would require disbanding huge segments of the Fe(de)ral government- such as the BATFEces (and every other clearly unconstitutional agency) and all the "laws" they impose and enforce.

No more military. No more departments of education, "the interior", or anything else. No more FBI, NSA, TSA, etc., etc. No more "Social Security", ObamaCare, Medicare/Medicaid, subsidies. No more income tax (or IRS). No more War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. In fact, practically no more fe(de)ral government at all. At least 99.999999% of the US fe(de)ral government is obviously, with crystal clarity and no room for quibbling, prohibited from existing under the Constitution. An honest reading would require it be instantly, without hesitation, abolished and disbanded. No adjustment period allowed.

And the courts won't allow that to happen, no matter how dishonest they have to be to keep the scam going.

It doesn't even matter if anyone with a reading comprehension level above that of the average 10 year old can see that such an agency or "law" clearly is not permitted by the Constitution- if it serves the State, it will somehow be "constitutional".

As in cases like this.

I can't even bring myself to care anymore about constitutionality- and I did care back when I began to explore liberty seriously. I mean, I knew the Constitution was a failure, but I wished it hadn't been. Now I see it as nothing but an excuse to impose a State.

Those who still see some legitimacy in government, and some value in the Constitution, may mean well, but they are no friend of liberty. They are supporting their own worst enemy. Stockholm Syndrome, for sure.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Ignoring reality has consequences

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 7, 2016)

When you ignore the rules of reality, you get hurt.

Notice I don't say when you break reality's rules, because those rules can't be broken. They can only be accepted or ignored. Ignore them at your peril.

Take gravity, for example. If you ignore gravity you will suffer, and you may even fall to your death. Once you accept the reality of gravity, you can use the rules governing it to fly or even to experience "weightlessness" in orbit. Neither is a case of defying gravity, but of using it to do things which seem to go against what you expect from gravity. You don't even need to know why gravity exists, or how it works, to accept and use it. You just need to know it exists and be able to measure its effect.

If someone walks off the edge of a cliff, you can expect them to fall to the ground far below and splatter like a ripe watermelon. Maybe bushes will slow their fall, or deep water at the bottom will cushion their landing, but don't depend on it. Nothing will truly defeat gravity unless you can turn off the rules of the Universe- and you can't.

There are also rules of civil behavior you ignore at your own risk. Those rules weren't dreamed up by any legislator and don't rely on anyone enforcing them.

If you choose to use violence against the non-violent, a chain of events will be set in motion. The same goes if you violate the property of others.

You may believe you are exempt from the effects due to imaginary rules someone created. Rules designed to give the illusion of authority to those who feel entitled to break the real rules. Their dreamed-up rules can't change reality.

If you decide to steal, trespass, or shove people around, even if you claim authority under made-up "laws", there will be repercussions. The fallout may not be what you or your victims expect. It may not even be timely- you don't know precisely when you'll hit the ground. Usually those who use the "political means"-- non-consensual tactics resulting in a winner and a loser-- to get what they want deny the possibility of unpleasant consequences to themselves. They will be surprised.

You won't avoid the costs you incur, even though the bill may not come when you'd expect and may not be what you expect.

No one is immune to consequences. Reality doesn't allow that option.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.

Disarmed "warriors"

I don't support or appreciate ANY government military. Not here, there, or anywhere, at any time throughout history. There are reasons for that, and I accept that all statists, of every degree, disagree vehemently with me.

Regardless of statists' feelings, government militaries are never on the side of liberty or freedom; concepts they can't even begin to understand.

That being said, if you have a government military, keeping the participants disarmed seems really stupid. If you are going to have a military, the whole point- the only point- is for them to be armed and able to deal with threats. If you can't trust the participants around each other, or around the "public", while armed, you can't trust them at all. So, either they are untrustworthy, or you are a sniveling coward. Or both. If you can't trust the participants, how can you expect me to?

And putting "No Guns" signs on your facilities makes you look ridiculous. Who is going to take you seriously if you are so scared of armed people that you feel the need to post "We don't care if you die" signs at your doors? I mean, really. You want to be seen as tough and dangerous and all that, and yet you fear me with a gun? Pathetic.

Either choose to have a real military, individually armed 100% of the time, or disband and go home, leave the stolen money in the pockets of the people you were pretending to protect, bulldoze the Pentagon, sell off the weapons, and let the militia handle it.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Parking space games

Even if there were no "handicap" spaces, and no associated "fines" (theft by government), I would leave the close spots for those who need them.

I can walk, and I'm not usually in much of a hurry. It's just the decent thing to do.

But I don't get worked up over those who don't do what I do. I don't even really care when someone "illegally" parks in handicap spaces. If you believe you need a close spot, it's not my place to second-guess you.

Honestly, it bothers me more to see all those who park on the places with the yellow stripes saying "this is NOT a parking space". These areas are not government-mandated; they are designated by the property owner as places where he doesn't want you to park, for whatever reason. Probably so others can navigate the parking lot, judging by what I've seen. Yet, look at how many people basically spit in the property owner's face, saying "I'm too important to listen to you". I see it as self-important laziness- or worse. But, if that's how someone chooses to self-identify, I'll believe them.

The way I see it, decency is a choice. You either choose it, or it's probably not even on your radar. Selfishness and self-centeredness are capable of hiding the decent choices from just about anyone. "Laws" have atrophied most people's decency reflex. If it's "legal" or not gets used instead. Government is a crutch in more ways than one, and it weakens those who rely on it too much.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

The delicious, toxic bagel of statism

Statism is like a very-expired, contaminated cinnamon raisin bagel.

How do I know? Because I have experienced both.

Once upon a time, the girl I was married to worked in a nursing home. She would often bring home expired food that was being tossed out. At some point, she brought home a package of cinnamon raisin bagels.

I didn't ever get a real lunch break at my job, so I would often just grab something I could munch if I got hungry. (I still can only eat one actual meal per day.) One day, rummaging around in the back of the refrigerator for "lunch food", I stumbled across this bag of bagels. Yummy!

I took it to work and tossed it on the shelf where I usually put such things.

That day, a little while after "lunch", I started not feeling well. Not nausea, but dizziness. It passed.

The next day, not long after "lunch" I got hit with the most severe dizziness I have ever experienced. I couldn't stand. I couldn't sit. I ended up lying flat on the floor upstairs, out of sight of customers, gripping the carpet (the shop was previously a house and had semi-shag carpet) while my boss complained at me for doing so. I told her she didn't have to pay me for the time I couldn't work, but that wasn't the issue as much as was my inconveniencing her by making her have to stay at the store until I recovered.

As I lay there trying not to fall sideways, or up, I remembered how I had felt the day before, not long after I ate the bagel. I connected the dots and realized the bagels had probably grown some sort of nice fungus which was affecting me. As soon as I expressed this to my boss, she tossed the remaining bagels in the trash.

It took a couple of hours, but the dizziness passed. I dug the bagels out of the trash and checked their "best by" date. They were only a year or so out of date.

Maybe I should have presented them to a pharmacologist- I might have discovered an awesome new drug. But I didn't think of that at the time.

Anyway, this is similar to statism. It looks delicious. It passes the smell test for almost everyone. But it screws with your brain once you internalize it, because it contains toxins you can't easily detect. Those of us who don't swallow it watch those who have done so flailing around, unable to do the simplest things for themselves. But they don't even realize how silly they look, or how helpless they are.

If only statism wore off after a few hours like bagel fungus does.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported, and probably causes dizziness only rarely. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

As a comedian, I suck

On Facebook, for no particular reason other than something I read made me think back to that politician who was once quoted as insisting the "income tax" was "voluntary", I posted:

As of today, subscriptions to my blog are voluntary.
You can pay, or spend the rest of your life in a cage (or die if you resist). But since you have that choice, or you can choose to move to North Korea instead of paying, it's voluntary. Right?
I mean, the "tax" collectors at the IRS wouldn't lie about what "voluntary" means, would they?

Almost immediately, a guy posted a response:

Laughing my @$$ off no one is going to pay you to look at your d@mn blog if you have relevant information for our situation you would be giving it away for free not asking for money  

(edited for rude words)

OK, so he didn't get the joke; maybe he didn't see the winky face. And apparently he has never heard of punctuation.

But, then... I got to thinking. Is that true? Valuable (relevant) information must be given away? Only crap gets paid for? And that's how you can tell the difference between the two? There's no good information in a book that's for sale, but if the author (or someone else?) gives you the book for free, the information in it suddenly has value?  That seems a strange kind of thinking.

I would imagine some valuable information is bought and sold, while some is given away, but to say that only free information has any worth seems... odd.

I mean, yes, my blog is free. More free than it used to be, even, since I have opened up all the previously "subscriber-only" posts. Does this mean it now contains "relevant information"?

Does this apply to other contributions as well? If I do a good job flipping burgers, I have to do it for free. If I'm a competent brain surgeon, I can't charge for my services. Only the hacks and con men can expect payment. Or, does it only apply to information?

As a way to put my "resolution" into action, I have adopted "Don't be mean to stupid people" on Facebook and in face-to-face interactions. So, I didn't give him a reply beyond "Whoosh" (the sound of the joke flying over his head). Perhaps I should thank him for showing me how some percentage of people think- although I suppose elections have already shown the prevalence of the entitlement mentality pretty clearly.

Relax, it was just a joke. Just not a very good one, apparently.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is VOLUNTARILY reader supported. 
Any TOTALLY VOLUNTARY donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated even if they destroy the value of any information I may have tried to provide. Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Statists believe they're smart, but...

...then they say things like how terrible new "synthetic marijuana" is, and how this problem is due to marijuana legalization around the country.

... or that Islamic terrorists are a big problem, so "we" need to keep using the US military to meddle in their lands so as to create more of them.

... they come up with bizarre "crimes" such as "trespassing on public property".

And then we see exactly how "smart" statists actually are.

Sorry, but if you believe more government will solve a problem, you ARE the problem. And none too bright.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Don't help cops feel useful

I don't want cops to feel useful, wanted, or needed.

I'd rather they struggle to walk the boredom tightrope between donuts and steroids without anyone inviting them into their life. If they are going to be collecting their ill-gotten paychecks anyway, I'd rather they be sitting in the donut shop than out "on the streets". It keeps the harm they do to a minimum. I don't want them "earning their pay" by committing acts of enforcement. Not even against my worst enemy.

I don't want cops to feel useful, wanted, or needed. Because they aren't.

Let the only official duties they perform be robbing drivers, molesting property owners, and other acts of archation. Period. Don't let them do anything to feel useful, wanted, or needed.

I understand calling them when your insurance company demands it. I also consider that requirement an act of aggression by the insurance company, but good luck finding one that doesn't insist on involving cops.

But, otherwise, PLEASE don't call the cops. For your own safety's sake, if nothing else. There is no situation so bad it can't be made much worse by inviting a cop into the mix.

Plus, I don't want cops to feel useful, wanted, or needed.

Call me instead. Or call a neighbor. Or handle it yourself. Or call a crackhead- your life will be in less danger from him or her, I promise you.

But don't do anything to help cops feel useful, wanted, or needed. They are parasites on society. Let them feel that way. Let that feeling lead them to make better choices. Or not. Not my problem.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

All assistance should be voluntary

(My Eastern New Mexico News [formerly the Clovis News Journal] column for November 30, 2016)

Help one another, voluntarily (my chosen headline)

It is once again the season to remember the less fortunate. On one hand, you shouldn't need an annual reminder to be good to other people, but on the other hand, sometimes it's fortunate the calendar has a few such reminders built in.

If someone wants to help those in need, there is nothing stopping her from freely giving her own money and time to those she feels deserve help.

Yet most who feel more money should be spent on their favorite government programs are never content to simply chip in-- they demand laws forcing everyone else to do the same.

It's the opposite of generosity, compassion, or caring. Those things are better expressed individual to individual.

If someone truly believes the government is best able to help those in need, he's completely free to write the U.S. Treasury a check to spend on welfare-- or on a new drone to crash into a Middle Eastern wedding. Relying on taxation to pay for anything is unnecessary.

For those of us opposed to bullying of any sort, it is essential for all the help to be totally voluntary.

You don't need a "law" to remind you to help people. If you care, no tax is necessary to get you to donate. In fact, taxation reduces the amount you are able to use to help others. No "law" can change the act of forcing people to donate into an act of generosity. No one can be charitable with other people's money, nor is it kindness to hand over your own money under threat. Putting government in charge of such an extortion scheme doesn't change its immoral nature.

Instead of giving your cousin another cute plastic knick-knack to dust or forget, spend the money on someone who needs it; someone you feel is deserving. No one should be making that determination for you, either. When you personally know the circumstances of the person you help, you know their needs better, and care more, than any bureaucrat distributing pillaged funds possibly can.

An act which is of minor effort or cost to you might impact someone's life for decades to come. I know from personal experience, having been on the receiving end a few times.

I often remember those times, especially during the holiday season. It's something I'll always strive to pay forward. Taxes, regulations, and all the other government coercion only stand in the way. They invariably hurt more than they help. Let's start helping each other, instead.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.


(Steemit link)

.

Setting myself up to fail?

I'm doing it. I'm making a New Year resolution. Unfortunately, it's not the kind that I find easy to make stick, but the other kind. I'm still going to give it a shot and, toward the long-term goal, I give myself permission to slip sometimes (although I will expect to be scolded if I do).

So, what is this resolution all about?

I am going to focus on preaching to the choir.

I'm not dropping the newspaper column, because Money, but I will try to limit my "spreading the message" to that. I may even find a more sensible focus for that column, too, if I'm lucky.

I realize I'm not going to convince fans of aggression and theft that they have been on the wrong side all their lives, and that their beloved uncle who died in some government war was on the wrong side. They don't want to hear it, and will do anything to avoid facing it.

So, I am going to try to focus on talking to YOU.

If some statists are "converted" in the process, great. If not, fine. I'm coming to see that they matter less and less to my actual life anyway.

And, just maybe, I'll come up with one of my other "resolution" type things, too. The type I have been more successful at keeping.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"The Masses"* don't know and don't care

You and I are not going to get through to most people. They simply don't care if they are being enslaved or violated-- especially if they believe they are being protected by someone else being "controlled" on their behalf.

I see this as cowardice and laziness, but they don't.

They don't know what liberty is. They actually believe cops and troops are protecting them and their "freedom". And they don't want to know they are dead wrong. They are content (or as content as they can be, under the circumstances) in their ignorance. It comforts them.

If you speak or write honestly, you will offend them if they happen across your words.

So be it.

You are not like them.

Just know that I know you are out there. I want you to know I am with you, as long as you don't archate. In 2017 and beyond.

You are my people; my tribe. If I can consider myself to be part of a tribe.

They are the weather. Obstacles to be avoided or dealt with, but otherwise not worth getting upset over. Which makes me think it's time for a bit of a change. Stay tuned...

*When I see "The Masses" I tend to put the break between words in a different spot: "Them ...", well, you know.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Cop" is a choice to molest, just like "rapist"

Being a cop=rapist is a choice to behave a certain way. A way which violates the life, liberty, and property of individuals. Good people don't choose that path. Not ever. No excuses or justifications cut it.

If a rapist=cop is shot and killed for violating someone, it's not a tragedy. It is instead a triumph of good over evil. Of right over wrong.

Of course, those who support the cop=rapist will be angry. They will question why force was used against the rapist=cop, instead of something less decisive. Something like compliance in the moment, and then seeking justice afterward "if it is determined" a wrong was committed. You know if a wrong was committed- you don't need the cop=rapist's buddies deciding for you.

Ethical people won't criticize or second guess when a rapist=cop is killed in the course of his natural, evil acts, but most people aren't ethical.

If you are violating life, liberty, or property you deserve to die. No question. And this upsets those who can't come to grips with what it is they are supporting.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Relax. Just breathe...

I need to remind myself-- over and over-- that I don't control what others do. Not even close relatives.

If they do things I consider shameful, I shouldn't let it get to me. Their choices are NOT mine, and I am not some dictator who gets to allow or forbid their actions.

I shouldn't let myself feel embarrassed. They aren't me, and I am not their master, nor would I want to be.

Still, it sometimes hurts. Especially when I see it as something that just feeds the State and makes us all a little less free in the long run. Especially if I know some will associate that person with me, and might assume I approve of what they do.

People must always be free to make their own mistakes-- even the ones they foolishly refuse to see as mistakes.

I shouldn't allow myself to get so bothered that I say nasty (even if truthful) things. I need to be better than that. But, it's a journey, and I keep getting lost along the way.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Trust

Jyn Erso- Star Wars: Rogue One

If you want me to trust you, you WILL trust me with a gun. That is absolutely non-negotiable.

If I trust you, I'll never ask you to disarm. Not in my business, my home, or my presence. Never. 

If I do ask you to-- or if I demand it-- you'll instantly know I don't trust you and I don't like you.

And, the reverse is also true. If you ask or demand that I disarm, I'll take that as a very clear sign of how you feel about me. Trust goes both ways.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Free riders"

For a large number of people, their concern over "free riders"-- people who get a benefit without obviously paying for it-- is what stands between them and accepting Rightful Liberty. And that is a shame.

A common objection I have seen is that in a free society, where one would contract voluntarily with a private fire department, if your neighbor's house catches fire and your fire contractor fights it in order to save your house from damage, the neighbor has benefited from your contract without paying anything. Your neighbor is a "free rider".

True, as far as it goes.

I suppose you could have a stipulation that your fire department is not to fight fires consuming your neighbors' houses, if they have not also contracted for service, so as not to contribute to their "free-riderhood". The fire department could just sit at your house, hosing it down so the fire doesn't spread to your property. As long as the contract was agreeable to you and your fire department, you could have just about any conditions put in you like.

Alternately, if your house catches fire and your fire department puts it out, your neighbor has again benefited, since his house is less likely to be damaged now. Perhaps you prefer that in this case, your fire company set fire to the neighbor's house in order to allow nature to take its course? I really hope no one would want that.

The "free rider" problem is greatly exaggerated. If people get together to build a bridge, and don't charge a toll for crossing it, does that mean an out-of-town visitor is a "free rider" if he crosses the bridge?

How would you know? He may be crossing the bridge to trade with a business owner who helped pay for the bridge; someone he wouldn't have been able to trade with had the bridge not been built. So is the business owner being cheated since he paid to help build the bridge and the visitor did not? What if this person who crosses the bridge decides to trade with a business owner who also didn't contribute to the construction of the bridge? Does this business owner never trade with the other businesses around him who contributed to the bridge? How did he get the money that he spends in these other stores? Is there no value in keeping his store open for the other people in town?

If you choose to pay for police or "national defense", are those who refuse getting a benefit for nothing? That depends if you ignore the fact that under current conditions, "national defense" endangers us all, and police are bullies and scum. Me, I'd prefer to just get rid of ALL anti-weapon "laws" and let the cost of being a thug rise back to where it belongs.

If people see a benefit in something, they will probably be willing to foot the bill. In a free society, bridges and roads and fire departments would undoubtedly be cheaper and better, since no bureaucracy is eating up the funds and producing nothing but more bureaucracy. There is no reason to whip out coercion to deal with this. A true parasite will suffer the consequences of his decisions regardless whether there is a "government" of any sort to punish him or not.

Besides, everyone will be the "free rider" at times. There is no avoiding it. I think this is only a problem if you look at the situation selfishly or from a "but that's not fair" perspective. Just accept that the times someone else is getting a "free ride" on your dime are paybacks for the times you get the same benefit. It all comes out even in the end, so don't keep a ledger trying to nit-pick every offense. Even if someone seems to come out ahead, are you really willing to give up a little of your liberty to make sure everyone pays in every instance? I'm not.

Not paying "taxes" for roads; using them anyway

-

PS: Also check out this article which has another, much more detailed take on this: Small-Town Anarchy

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Updated from here

Opinions must change to fit facts

(My Clovis News Journal November 23, 2016)


How often do you change your opinion about anything? When you do, what causes the change?

With the reluctance toward changing an opinion, it's amazing anyone ever does, on anything. Yet, it is possible, and it does happen. I have changed my opinion on many things over the course of my life.

When I change my opinions, I would like for truth, reality, and reason to be the catalyst. When I'm wrong, I want to know, and I want this knowledge to change me.

I am very suspicious when anyone tries to change my opinions by appealing to emotion. It reeks of manipulation. Emotion is the preferred tool when an opinion has no facts to support it. It happens every time.

This doesn't mean I always change my opinions for the right reasons, nor does it mean flawed reasons never affect me. I'm honest enough to know anyone can fall for delusions and superstition, and we all allow our biases to color our perceptions of reality. But I don't have to like it.

Often, the more I observe and learn, the more holes I see in my previous opinions. Other times, when I ponder things I've known all along, I realize I haven't been consistent. Then I can't rest until the inconsistency is dealt with. Facts can't change to fit opinions; I must change my opinion to fit the facts.

Changing your mind in the face of new information isn't "wishy-washy", it is smart. Sticking to an opinion by ignoring new information is a sure sign of stubbornness. It may keep you popular, but it stunts you as a person.

One particular change in myself is, while my personal opinions are still largely conservative, I no longer feel entitled to use force to impose my opinions on others. In fact, I see that as one of the worst moral failures possible. Good ideas don't require force.

There are other opinions I hold which might be considered "liberal", but unlike most of those who call themselves liberal or progressive, the thought of using force-- particularly the force of the state through "laws"-- to force others to behave certain ways is completely repulsive to me.

This personal opinion has only gotten stronger over the years. No one has ever given me a compelling reason to change my opinion on the use of governmental force. Their failed justifications don't even begin to reach the level of evidence I require to change my mind.

-

(Also, as the Clovis News Journal and Portales News Tribune are becoming The Eastern New Mexico News, here is another link to this column: link
.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.


(Steemit link)

Merry Christmas

... or whichever Solstice-centric celebration, if any, you observe.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Must suck to be statist

I am coming more and more to the conclusion that statists are miserable.

They squeal at anything that threatens to poke a hole in their belief system. They assume the worst in every situation. They assume you mean whatever will offend them the most. They strike out with hatred at the slightest opportunity.

And, it's not just in response to me, but even those who try even harder than I do to meet them halfway.

They also see any disagreement as "hatred" and being miserable. They are strange, sad little people. No matter how numerous or powerful they are. They know they are on the losing side. And this takes a toll on their attitude.

Sucks to be them, apparently.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

If a cop kills me...

If I'm ever killed by a cop, I'm sure most of the community (however you define that) would decide I deserved it.

Probably because I don't excuse cops for archation.

There really couldn't be anything else they'd be able to use as justification.

I don't aggress, nor do I violate people's property rights. I don't even threaten to do either one. But, I don't excuse their "heroes" who do, and that is the biggest sin in the statist's mind.

And, considering that most people are statists, it means killing me is justifiable in their eyes-- if I ever act on my convictions at a "bad time" and refuse to comply with the bullies they worship.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Recent medical bills have hit me hard, cleaning me out in the midst of December birthdays and Christmas, so any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)