Why must I tolerate the intolerable?

Why do those who scold me, telling me to be "tolerant", only seem concerned that I tolerate those who want to violate me?

I have no trouble "tolerating" those who prefer dogs to cats, worship gods, choose chocolate over vanilla, are some variety of LGBTQ, laugh at me because I dislike manual transmissions, believe the Earth is flat, or whatever. I may even love them, rather than to simply "tolerate" them, which seems a rather low bar.

You might tolerate the woodrat that lives under your porch, but you smile if he dies. It seems odd that thinking of people the same way is something they'd encourage.

So, yeah, I can tolerate an awful lot.

But, I won't tolerate those who want to rob, trespass, murder, kidnap, or govern. Archation is a deal-breaker. And it seems those are the people I'm most often told I must tolerate. No deal.

People who want to rob, murder, and govern you are not people you can "tolerate" and survive. They can't be a part of your future, if your future is to be one of hope and thriving. Don't tolerate them or their ideas.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Busywork

In school I detested "busywork". In fact, I didn't usually do it, no matter what consequences I was threatened with. I knew it was a waste of time, designed to keep the kinderprison inmates quiet so they didn't annoy the "teacher".

Now that I'm an adult, I see government as busywork. Unnecessary annoyances designed to keep you too busy to do what would be a better use of your time and money... if you bother doing all the busywork they assign, that is.

You end up paying "taxes" so that the thugs can afford to build and staff a courthouse to punish people for not paying "taxes" (among other things). No thanks. It's not worth it to me.

I feel there is no benefit to me of the State forcing people to get "drivers licenses", but people are forced to pay "taxes" to build and staff the DMV so that people can be punished for not having "drivers licenses".

Over and over I see government buildings and programs which exist to keep dumb people believing that those things are necessary, but which wouldn't look necessary without the problems they cause by existing in the first place.

I'm perfectly willing to risk doing without everything "provided by" government-- assuming no one will step in to offer replacements through the market-- just to be free of the annoyances which government creates.

Busywork. It's what government is. Under an illusion of necessity- for the gullible.

I don't buy it.

Exists only to prove how "necessary" it is

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Enforce the existing laws"

Bad arguments don't help your side.

For example:

"Why is enforcement of existing immigration laws, laws which have been a standard for decades, such a divisive issue? Most countries in the world have stringent immigration laws, why is it that America is not allowed to enforce similar laws? Why does the left in particular consider the removal of illegal immigrants representative of 'racism' or 'fascism?' I realize they are mostly insane, but I would just like to hear one valid and practical argument from them as to why the U.S. specifically should be saddled with wide open borders and why American conservatives in particular are racist merely for demanding that the current laws be followed?" ~ Brandon Smith

Let's substitute one Big Government lust, "control" of guns, for "control" of "borders":

"Why is enforcement of existing gun laws, laws which have been a standard for decades, such a divisive issue? Most countries in the world have stringent gun laws, why is it that America is not allowed to enforce similar laws? Why does the right in particular consider the removal of illegal guns representative of 'tyranny' or 'socialism?' I realize they are mostly insane, but I would just like to hear one valid and practical argument from them as to why the U.S. specifically should be saddled with easy access to guns and why American progressives in particular are tyrants merely for demanding that the current laws be followed?"

Because "laws" that are wrong, are wrong. Even if you believe they are "necessary". Even if bad guys would take advantage of the situation if the "law" didn't exist or wasn't enforced.

Even if you believe the Constitution has any "authority", whatever isn't specifically permitted for government to do is expressly forbidden. Nowhere in the Constitution is "immigration control" permitted, so it is an illegal act by the federal government to "control immigration".

Now, government is also similarly forbidden to import "refugees" or otherwise bring people into America, so that's not the issue at hand.

Yes, the Second Amendment specifically places guns beyond the (legal) reach of "laws", but it was unnecessary to do this, since that power wasn't mentioned anyway (and it would have been a rights violation even if the Constitution allowed it)- and the Second Amendment has been utterly powerless against the will of the bullies in Congress and the BATFEces to just go ahead and do what they want.

Whether "immigration" (not a real thing anyway) is a good idea or not, the argument made by Mr. Smith above simply doesn't hold water. It's a purely statist argument, and as such, is nonsense.

It's still a prison wall even if you can't see it

-

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

(Steemit link)

That political pendulum

Isn't it odd how political people seem to always believe the choice is always (and only) between fascism and socialism. When one is in power, they flock to the other. If it's not one, then to them it has to be the other.

They don't see the other options, such as not violating others.

Maybe because that particular choice doesn't empower thugs.

But that option is always there. It's the only ethical option, no matter how the political critters may justify their preferred choice.

Why choose just one?

-

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

(Steemit link)

Concerning sex

A wise man-- L. Neil Smith, to be specific-- once wrote: "Many of life's tragedies -- and comedies -- arise from a misconception women suffer under that sex is optional."

It depends on what you mean by "optional". I wouldn't say anyone owes anyone else sex, but if you are under the impression that you are in a relationship, but you are suffocating your partner with a lack of sex, the "relationship" probably mostly exists in your mind. Sex might be optional for you, but if it isn't for him (and it's almost certainly not) there are going to be consequences if you don't face it and change something. Yes, it is your responsibility to change if you don't want him to find relief elsewhere. Sorry to inform you of this fact. You have the right of first refusal; don't be surprised or complain over what happens when you exercise it.

And whining or screaming about "cheating" isn't going to fix anything.

If you cut him off and he finds someone else, he isn't "cheating". You already are. If you have a guy who agreed to enter into a monogamous relationship with you, and you have cut off the sex, you are cheating on him just as surely as if you were doing the pool boy on the side. Yes, really. He agreed to monogamy-- sex with one person, not NONogamy-- sex with zero people. Zero is not one, and that's no longer monogamy, even if you wish it meant that as well. 

"Cheating" isn't only about one person having sex with someone other than the one person they agreed to be monogamous with. It is also about one person deciding unilaterally to end the sexual part of the relationship while pretending the relationship goes on-- including continuing to fall back on all the jealousy and whatnot that goes with the average sexual relationship. He may be OK with that, or he may not want to face your wrath by admitting to your face you are strangling him, but he is under no obligation to put up with this situation unless the current arrangement was by mutual consent. If it wasn't, he can't "cheat" no matter what he does at this point. You have already broken the deal.

You might complain that he didn't warn you first. Yet, he probably did; you just didn't listen or didn't take him seriously. You might have scoffed or tried to make yourself out to be the victim. How often must he express his pain to you, only to be ignored, insulted, or threatened? Once a week? A few times per year? Every five years or so? How often would be enough to get you to listen, and not use his vulnerability as a justification to hurt him even more?

Not only are you a cheater, you are also an abuser. Withholding sex, and demanding he not find it elsewhere, is emotional and physical abuse. It causes emotional agony and physical pain. If you hold him to your toxic arrangement by threatening him with a devastating divorce, where you "take half his stuff" and force him to support the kids whether you ever allow him to see them again or not, I consider you evil. Others may cut you more slack.

If any of this upsets you, you may need to take a close look at yourself and see if you are guilty. In fact, if you are offended you may be the person who needs to hear this most of all.

-

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

(Steemit link)

All 'shoulds' flow from short list

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 29, 2017)

Almost everyone seems to have opinions about what you and I should or should not do. Most are willing to impose their opinions through laws, which they are willing to have enforced with violence.

Their opinions run the gamut: You should be patriotic. You should be compassionate to the underprivileged. You should be responsible. You should leave risky jobs to the professionals. You should pay any tax a government claims you owe. You shouldn't own dangerous things. You should obey every law automatically and without question, no matter how harmful or absurd-- and you should support, respect, and instantly obey law enforcement officers no matter what they demand.

The list is infinite!

I can simplify things. You should respect everyone's life, liberty, and property. That's your obligation to your fellow humans, and it's enough. How you choose to follow through is up to you.

How is this any different from the other "shoulds"? Look at the alternative.

If you don't believe you should respect the life of other people, wouldn't it mean you believe it's OK to kill them for no reason? Self defense? If someone is in your way, kill them. What kind of world would result?

If you don't believe you should respect the liberty of others, why not enslave them? Force them to work for you without getting the full benefit of their labor. Keep them in a cage when they aren't working, so they don't wander off without your permission. Pretend you have a magical quality called "authority" which empowers you to control what they do with their own body.

If you don't believe you should respect the property of other people, what's stopping you from taking what you want when you want it? Convince yourself you own a percentage of the money they earn from their labors-- a behavior which mirrors slavery; you are forcing them to spend part of their life supporting you. Don't allow them to use their property as they see fit. Impose restrictions which have no bearing on protecting the property of their neighbors.

Where would you be when your victims realize anything you permit yourself do to them could be turned around and done to you? Anything permissible for you is also permissible for your worst enemy. It's that simple.

All legitimate "shoulds" flow naturally from this short list, while false "shoulds" are exposed in short order. The sooner you learn it and take it to heart, the better things will be.

-

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

(Steemit link)

The gift (?) of Oddness

Looking back on my life I find that the times that hold the most value are the times when I did things that were strange, unexpected, unconventional, risky, or just weird. Those are the things I remember and smile about the most.

That doesn't mean I usually intentionally do "odd" things- they just come naturally for me. Although, I admit I once wore a black velvet sombrero with silver sequins to work just to see the reaction. (Note: it is hard to drive while wearing a sombrero.) It was fun. And it probably did nothing to change my cow-orkers' minds about my oddness. Generally, though, my natural reactions to the world lead me down the path to "strange".

But often, things that seem odd really aren't. They just seem strange by comparison to the status quo.

Apparently, valuing liberty is a very odd thing in the world today. It's much more conventional to be "patriotic" or to oppose the "other side" just because they aren't your side. You won't win many friends for politely declining their invitation to join their mob. "You're NOT of the body!!"

Libertarianism and anarchy, "odd" as they are, are a good fit for me, besides being the only rational and ethical way to live among others.

I guess it's also strange to not abandon principles when they become inconvenient, or when others think you should. Yes, my daughter was killed by a drugged driver. Yes, I still oppose prohibition and those who support and enforce it. Personal tragedy doesn't change the truth. And, the truth is and will remain that although drug abuse is dumb and dangerous, prohibition has even more innocent victims.

There were a few times in my life when I wanted to be "normal". I would try to blend in. Something always jinxed the attempt. Someone would ask something, and my honest answer would cause them to stare at me as if I had eyes on stalks coming out the top of my head. I guess "normal" doesn't work for me.

Truthfully, looking at what is considered "normal" these days, I see very little worth emulating.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Thinking of the long-term

The future. Most people want to leave a better future for their descendants, and do certain things they believe will help. Unfortunately, most of them do foolish things without thinking of the long-term consequences.

These people seek impulsive "solutions" which depend on aggression and property violation.

Even if you manage to solve some current problem using archation-- especially archation by government-- you have burdened the future with more government. With a stronger government. With more problems caused by government. Problems which will need to be solved eventually.

Government is short-term thinking. It's "pragmatism" that leads to ongoing trouble, and ever more "pragmatic" ways to deal with them. It's a hole you can never get out of until you bite the bullet and take the right way out; the way that seems strange and unfamiliar.

Yes, you have to survive the short term in order to get to the long-term. But stop seeing government as the way to fix things now. It isn't. Not really. You're only kicking the can a little farther down the road, adding more trouble for later; trouble someone will have to fix after you're gone. Using government is selfish and irresponsible, no matter how you justify it.

He's from the government; here to "help" you.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Lying

Do you have the right to tell a lie? Yes. Freedom of speech.

Do you have the right to not be lied to? No.

However, if you lie and cause harm to someone's life, liberty, or property you have done something you have no right to do, and I believe you may owe restitution.

You can look at it similarly to the right to own and carry a gun. You have that right. No one has the right to forbid you exercising that right. But if you shoot an innocent person by misusing that right, or wrongfully damage their property with your gun, or credibly threaten to do either one, you have violated them and will owe restitution.

Some people feel that their right to lie means if you are defrauded it is your fault. "Too bad, so sad, Sucker. You should have been smarter and realized you were being lied to." I wonder if they feel the same about someone "allowing themselves" to be in the path of a fired bullet.

There are two types of lies: a lie told to protect the innocent from someone who wants to hurt them, and a lie told to harm someone. I've seen many people who don't see a difference-- especially when they like to hurt people. If you lie to protect the innocent, I believe you've done the right thing. If you tell the other type of lie, you've done wrong.

Government-- the State-- is based on many lies. Guess which type. Look at the body count if you can't figure it out.

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Autistic shrieking"? Nope.

How silly is this new meme of calling rational libertarian/anarchist objections to blatant statism "autistic shrieking"?

Incredibly silly-- and probably insulting to both the libertarian and the autistic. But, it follows a pattern I've noticed before, in unrelated areas.

When someone is telling you something you don't want to hear, it seems louder. It grates on your ears and sets your nerves on end. I've had my daughter tell me to "stop yelling" when I'm telling her something, in a normal tone of voice, that she doesn't want to hear. Truth can be uncomfortable, and that discomfort can be mistaken for a higher volume.

The truth that anarchy is the only ethical way to live hurts many people's ears, thus they want to accuse you of "shrieking" to cover for their own discomfort. So, when someone accuses you of "autistic shrieking" while you are defending liberty, know you've hit a nerve and laid open their hypocrisy.

They won't thank you for it.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Violating a thief's property rights

A few days ago on Facebook, a guy got completely obsessed over his idea that the victim of theft has no right to trespass onto the thief's property to get back the stolen goods.

Let me think about that a little...

Are you obligated to respect the property rights of a person who has demonstrated that he doesn't believe in property rights? Well, maybe. Chances are, he does believe in his own property rights, while making the conscious choice to violate yours. Just like a murderer doesn't want you to kill him in self defense-- and you still have every right to do so.

No, a thief can't "lose" his rights by his act of theft- rights can't ever be lost; that's not their nature.
You can't magically get new rights, which didn't exist before, by someone else's wrong act.
He had no right to take your property.
You have no right to trespass.
You also can't delegate rights which don't exist to someone else-- such as, under the current situation, cops, or in a hypothetical free society, "property retrievers".

So, where does that leave you? Violated and out of luck? Perhaps... but...

I have always said that if you feel you must do something you have no right to do, do it and accept the consequences.

That might mean getting shot while trying to retrieve your property. It might mean (in a free society) facing arbitration for trespassing. If you were truly retrieving property which had been stolen, that would be taken into account when deciding how much restitution each party owed the other. You might owe an ounce of silver for trespassing and for any property damage you caused while doing so; the thief would owe restitution to you for the same acts, which would cancel out. He might also owe you for your time, trouble, and labor which was necessary to get back your property because of his act of theft. The thief would end up owing more as long as you didn't wantonly destroy his property as a way to get back at him while retrieving your own.

If you respect the Zero Aggression Principle things will always work out in favor of the person who didn't "start it"-- if it favors anyone at all.

Still, you might decide that knowing who is a thief, and advertising that fact while avoiding (and keeping an eye on) this person is good enough. If everyone knows what he is, he may not live long unless he changes his ways. Your response is up to you. I'm not going to second-guess a person who trespasses to retrieve his stolen property.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Unlucky vs evil

The reason I consider cops (and other government employees) to be worse, to be more guilty, than someone who committed negligent homicide lies with their intent.

I don't for a second believe the person who committed negligent homicide intended to cause harm. Yes he made bad choices, but so do we all. You or I could easily do something stupid which results in the death of an innocent at any time. To pretend otherwise is denial. No act is truly safe, although some are obviously more risky than others. And, intentional or not, if you cause harm, you owe restitution (which may not be possible to fully pay).

But cops make the conscious decision to do what they do; they intend to commit the acts they commit-- acts of enforcement of counterfeit "laws"-- in exchange for stolen money. And they seem to feel proud for it. Proud for doing wrong. Utterly unrepentant in almost every single case. And they expect to be thanked or even worshiped. That is disgustingly wrong. That makes them more guilty.

One is basically unlucky*; the other is the enemy of everything decent.

-

*We make some of our own "luck", some is randomness, and some is choices we have made combined with the random "luck of the draw". We may be confused over how much of each type we encounter in our life.

You CAN choose to not play

I'll get off the subject of cops soon- I just have a lot to get off my chest right now. Sorry.

-

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

(Steemit link)

I'll never support government dystopia

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 22, 2017)

Utopia isn't an option. Even if you had the power to set up society the way you think it should be, reality would step in and make your Utopia imperfect. Expect the unexpected and remember it's impossible to plan for everything.

The most important thing to keep in mind: no one can design a society. The belief that it can be done is a conceit common to governments and people who believe in them. Societies grow from the bottom up, they are not designed or imposed from the top down.

You still ought to know what you would like your personal Utopia to be like. Otherwise, how could you ever know which direction to take?

What do you wish the world were like? When you imagine your Utopia, what do you see? What are you doing to get there?

My attempt at Utopia would involve removing obstacles to liberty rather than adding anything. As long as you weren't harming anyone or their property, no one would have the power to get in your way. Nor would anyone have the power to forbid you to defend yourself from anyone harming you.

I am not qualified to run other people's lives. No one can be, no matter what supporters of government believe. So no one would be in charge of anything beyond his own concerns, unless explicitly asked by an individual to lend a hand.

There would be no such thing as "authority" as it is currently imagined. Yes, there would be experts who might inspire others, but no one could get away with pretending to hold a magic quality called "authority" which gives bullies the power to push people around.

You and I both know there would still be bad people in my Utopia. Some would try to become "the authorities" again, because they can't mind their own business. They lust for control over others, and want to steal and attack without consequence, claiming magic words can make wrong right when they act "in accordance with the law".

My Utopia wouldn't-- couldn't-- guarantee that some people won’t kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from others. Government is a guarantee that some will.

There would still be natural disasters, disease, and accidents. And, as they have always done, people will deal with them. I'll help when able.

So, even though Utopia isn't an option, I'll never support its opposite: Dystopia, empowered by government. Not even when demanded by the majority, as is the current fashion.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Proud of the bad guys?

It's a terrible shame when someone chooses to throw their life away in service to a gang of nasty thugs. That shame is compounded by delusional friends and family who think this tragic turn of evens is something to be proud of. It's most certainly NOT.

I have known a few very messed up people who became cops. The "job" didn't really change them, but did give their messed up nature a veil of legitimacy and a free pass from the state-lovers around them. They could commit evil and get praised for it.

To my mind, this is not much of a loss. Evil remains evil.

I have also known decent people who became cops. The "job" did change them. From decent people to aggressive "tax" junkies-- even if the change wasn't visible to those around them. This is a huge loss for the world-- when a person who could have contributed decides to be a parasite instead.

It is a tragedy when any (formerly) good person joins that gang. This is nothing to be "proud" of; there is no "good" in being a cop.

Yes, it is socially acceptable to be a cop or most other types of government employee. I even know people who believe it's OK to work for the IRS or BATFEces gangs! Socially acceptable or not, it is wrong. Just as wrong as being a mass murdering rapist. You can deny it. You can hate those who point it out. It doesn't change reality. Wrong is what wrong does.

Yes, the person is choosing a safe career (vastly safer than they want you to believe), and the money paid to them is wildly out of proportion to the "dangers" faced and "service" provided (but they'll whine about being underpaid). They can pretend to be doing something "good" while living on stolen money and being safe.

If someone you know plans to join some gang of vermin who aren't government sanctioned, are you proud of that, too? Because the reality is that other gangs of thugs are probably better people than the government gang your loved one is choosing to join. The only difference lies in who supports the gang.

It tears at my gut to hear of some young person making the hideous choice to get a government "job", and it is compounded when that "job" revolves around molesting people.

Just. Don't. Do. It! It's not right even if it makes delusional people proud.

It hurts me that people I am closest to won't read this blog, and continue to fall for the lies of the archators-- while often being archators themselves. It hurts when people betray the values they claim to hold as soon as those values become inconvenient, and when standing firm would require holding their ground against popular opinion (popular with one political correctness faction or another). Wrong is wrong, even if someone you love is doing it. Even if it is socially acceptable. Even if the masses respect and support it. It's the bandwagon of death. Jump off before it's too late.

Cops. No worse than any others

-

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

(Steemit link)

Liberty Butts

It's interesting to me how committed most people are to liberty.

Liberty... but not if it means leaving people alone to do things I don't like.

Liberty... unless it means I can't control other people.

Liberty... except when people want to use their property in ways that annoy me.

Liberty... but not if some people might get hurt.

Liberty... except I claim to support both gun rights and those who violate them.

Liberty... until someone I love is on the wrong side.

Liberty... unless it means I have to face the fact that cops and the military are the bad guys.

Liberty... except I like to fly the federal flag alongside the Gadsden flag which stands for everything the federal flag is against.

Liberty... but I really like seeing "the troops" bombing those foreigners.

Liberty... until my emotions get triggered by displays of Holy Pole Quilt and patriotic songs and dead troops.

Liberty... but I like to say "Don't tread on me" while supporting those whose "job" it is to tread on me and everyone else.

Liberty... except it obviously doesn't apply to "those people" who came here from some other country without MY government's permission- or even with it if I don't like them.

Liberty... until it upsets me or shows me I'm wrong to support certain things or means I have no right to do some things I really want to do.

Liberty... but, but, but...

Are you a "Liberty butt"?

How to show you're confused about who actually does the treading

-

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

(Steemit link)

Hate isn't worth the effort

But it's been a hard thing for me to keep in mind the last several days. I'm feeling miserable in many ways right now-- I need to get over it.

It's very rare that I hate individuals.

I can hate actions. I can hate gangs which exist to commit those actions I hate.

If an individual is in a gang which encourages actions I hate, then eventually I might start to hate that individual-- especially if their gang becomes an important part of their identity and they defend the evil they commit due to their gang associations.

If another individual continually commits actions I hate, on a freelance basis, and refuses to stop or take responsibility for their actions, then it is always possible I could start hating that individual, too. It's still about the actions rather than the individual.

More likely, though, I'll pity those individuals and see them as stupid and/or stubborn. In most cases I'll continue to hold out hope for any individual, knowing that anyone can change and stop being a bad guy in an instant. All it takes is realization and a refusal to excuse the inexcusable just because it's convenient.

And pity is healthier for me than hate, anyway.

Bad guys of the Blue Line Gang

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Spurious quotes"

It bothers me when a quote which is truthful is doubted just because the "famous person" the quote is attributed to may not have ever said it.

Truth isn't propped up by the person who says it; people are raised up by the truth they speak.

It doesn't matter at all whether Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." At the time, it was a true statement, no matter who said it. If a guy pumping gas at some crossroads in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming said it, it is still true. Even if no one knows for sure who said it, it is true. Someone said it sometime, because there it is, right up there near the beginning of this paragraph. That's good enough.

Anti-liberty bigots quibble about who said what, because the truth of what was said is inconvenient to their cause. But if they can make the argument about who said it, and make you believe that if Famous Person X didn't say it, it's not relevant, then they can fool some people into rejecting the truth. Truth is damaging to the anti-liberty bigot's cause, because truth is pro-liberty.

So, the next time some anti-liberty quibbler whines that George Washington never said “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” let them know YOU said it. The truth doesn't rely on who said it, it remains true regardless. Claim all true "spurious quotes" as your own and shut down the bigots.

Truth, even if the American Lenin never said it- but irrelevant

-

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

(Steemit link)

Vincent Heredia sentencing update

I feel cheated. (Pieced together from this site)

Well, OK. They covered their butts.

§ 16-90-1114 – Derivative rights of member of victim's family (a) If a victim is a minor or is incapacitated, incompetent, or deceased, a member of the victim's family may exercise the rights of the victim under this subchapter. (b) If more than one (1) member of the victim's family attempts to exercise those rights, the court may designate which of them may exercise those rights.

Cheyenne's mom was apparently the designated speaker; none of her words were aimed at the evil tax junkies of the court, so her statement was less "inflammatory". It spared the goons' feelings. (Added: just to be clear, I don't have any animosity toward her or what she said, but only toward those who chose to let her words be heard and squelched mine. Well, I intend to do all I can to spread mine far and wide! Read them here.)

And, there's more from the sentencing, if you are interested, from here.

.

Obviously, I don't consider any of this legitimate; I share it for information (and historical purposes) only.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Courts: the circus of cowardly clowns

My opinion of government-- and the unethical cowards who work for it-- has just slipped down another couple of notches. I didn't know that was still possible.

Employees of this gang were too scummy to read my letter at the sentencing of the guy who caused the accident which killed my daughter Cheyenne a year and a half ago-- probably because it wasn't very accommodating toward the evil which is government nor toward those who debase themselves by working for it.

And, yes, every person who works for government debases himself by doing so-- anyone would be a better person not working for government than they are while holding a government "job".

But, back to the Tools of the State: Don't offer me a chance to speak if you don't have the backbone to actually follow through, you nasty cowardly parasites.

I admit I wasn't too surprised. I know the nature of the scam. Still, it angers me.

I'm also disappointed at how many people on "my side" still think it's reasonable to put people in cages. If I believe someone is such a danger that I feel they belong in a cage, I'd much rather see them killed in self defense the next time they try to initiate force. Self defense comes closer to justice. And until then, if you are worried about them, watch them so closely they can't lose a skin cell without it being noticed, and share every move they make with anyone who wants to know. If they don't like that they can voluntarily separate themselves from society at their own expense. It's something they should have thought of before they made their bad choice.

If you want to cage someone, do it at your own expense and don't pretend it's on my behalf. Imprisonment doesn't "work" for its claimed justifications, in fact, it probably only makes things worse. It certainly doesn't "fix" anything.

I hate that I felt I needed to keep up with that was going on in some government theater the past few days.

After this, I feel drained, disappointed, angry, and sad. I know-- my fault. I shouldn't let it get to me. I'm flawed.

--

Just for your information, if you are curious, the court gave him a plea deal for 72 months in a cage-- he's up for parole in a year. The cops bungled some of the drug testing, apparently by doing it illegally, so it was inadmissible in court. He plead guilty to "negligent homicide" (for which justice would require an attempt at restitution, not a cage) and "felon in possession of a firearm" (a counterfeit "law"). But of course, anyone who expects justice from government courts will be disappointed. Fortunately, I knew justice wasn't even on the table. Never is. Punishment is the substitute they prefer, because it empowers the State. That's ALL those monsters care about, really.

Irony illustrated

Added: Here's what I was able to find (from here)--

So, did they screw me over, or not? Is it worth the stress of having to deal with "people" I despise and have zero respect for? I don't know.

Added later: Here's the court record: link

-

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

(Steemit link)

Agreeing with the opposition

I have sometimes said that I agree with "conservatives" and "liberals" each about half of the time: when they are right by opposing the opposition. That may be a slight exaggeration- they are probably right less often than that.

I agree more often with "conservatives" who are criticizing "liberals" than I do with "liberals" who are criticizing "conservatives".

I have wondered why this is.

I do come from a "conservative" family, so that might have something to do with it.

When "liberals" criticize "conservatives", they seem to always do so by advocating a Big Government response or solution. And that drives me away, even when I agree with the existence of the problem they are wanting to solve. Sometimes they whine over "fairness" or "feelings" or some other maternalistic garbage, and that loses me completely. On the rare occasions when they criticize "conservatives" rationally, by pointing out their hypocrisy or inconsistency or ethical failings without suggesting the solution is more government, I can agree (while recognizing how funny it is to see people in glass houses throwing stones).

When "conservatives" criticize "liberals" they usually do so by pointing out the stupidity of the "liberals'" Big Government leanings-- its history of perfect failure. Something I agree with. When they start talking "morals", "authority", or other paternalistic garbage, they lose me.

And, no matter what anyone, on any "side", is criticizing, if their "solution" is a government project or program or "better enforcement", their solution is no better than the problem it pretends to address. Therefore I reject it utterly. There is either a better way, or the problem is best left alone.

-

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

(Steemit link)