Temporary is still worthwhile

The statist excuse for rejecting anarchy is that it would only be temporary. Some evil moron will always try to set himself up as Ruler, and idiot followers will let him. Until he comes along, those idiots will keep looking for someone to push them around. "It's human nature", the statists say.

So what if it is?

Do you not bother with anything "temporary"?

Well, everything is temporary.

Each individual life is always temporary.

Life will always end in death, so does that mean living isn't worthwhile?

Anarchy is life.

Even if anarchy is always temporary, replaced by the next dumb idea until that idea inevitably fails and anarchy happens again, does that mean it's wrong? That it was pointless? Never!

Establishing a State is always the wrong thing to do. It's always stupid and will always lead to bad things. And it will always fail. When it does, don't beg for a new State. Enjoy the liberty until the short-sighted idiots around you set up their next failure-to-come. Temporary liberty is still better than never getting a taste.

-

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

(Steemit link)

City-run range would be misfire

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 3, 2017)

I love libraries, parks, and zoos. However, I'm not selfish enough to believe other people should subsidize things I enjoy. For me to force someone to hand over their hard-earned money to pay for something they don't want and won't use would be wrong. Every dollar I take is a dollar someone can't use for things such as food, the electric bill, toys for their child, or medicine. My wishes don't change theft into something moral.

To have government do the taking on my behalf, through taxation, doesn't magically change wrong into good.

Government should never do anything which could be done privately and funded voluntarily. I believe this covers everything which should be done at all. If something isn't popular enough to be funded voluntarily it should go away. If people miss it, they can bring it back and pay for it.

I mention this because there's apparently still talk of establishing a city-run shooting range. While I love to shoot, it would be a mistake to let the city use tax money this way, and to let the city be in charge of such a facility. Government employees and guns are a bad mix.

Noise is also a problem. If you move near a shooting range you have no right to expect them to stop shooting just because the noise bothers you. However, if someone starts a new shooting range near your house, they are responsible for accommodating you. If they go ahead with their plans, they owe restitution for the harm they cause you by their presence.

Unfortunately, when the offender is government, the offender makes and interprets the rules, employs those who enforce the rules, and choose winners and losers. When government is the bad guy, innocent people are usually out of luck. Even if restitution is paid to the victim, it doesn't cost the offender, but is stolen from the injured party and his neighbors through the fraud of taxation. The bad guys can't lose.

Of course, I've been around long enough to know once some government gets a notion, the idea never truly dies. Not even when you believe it's defeated. Government ideas are real-life zombies. Kill one and It keeps crawling from the grave again and again, with the knowledge that eventually no one will be paying attention and the program can be imposed on the reluctant population. They do it because they get away with it, and it works.

You have the power to foil their schemes. Use it.

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Only government can..."

What worthwhile thing can "only" government (by which I mean, The State) provide?

Nothing.

I can imagine many voluntary ways to provide anything needed and wanted. But, a free society wouldn't be limited by what I can imagine, so someone would undoubtedly come up with better solutions than I can possibly imagine.

Liberty is the Mother of Innovation.

In fact, we manage to find many of these solutions in spite of government trying to stand in the way every step of the way. Just imagine where we would be without that huge, costly roadblock.

So, keeping government around, because you believe it is necessary, is very silly.

No doubt this will result in roads being built

-

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

(Steemit link for those who are on Steemit,
where you can get these blog posts the evening before.)

"Respect" women?

I'm somewhat ambivalent about abortion. I always have been, to the chagrin to those fighting on both sides of the argument.

However, when I saw a local billboard proclaiming "Respect New Mexico women", and listing "Our bodies, our families, our decisions" as the aspects of women I am to respect, I knew it was all, and only, about abortion, and instantly rolled my eyes at the hypocrisy.

But, then I realized I should give them the benefit of the doubt, so I went to their website, and yep, that's all the organization is concerned with. It's one of those times I didn't want to be right.

So, that's all "respecting women" means to them? Of course it is-- to certain political people.

Funny, but I have better ways to respect women, such as committing myself to not archate against them. The exact same way I respect men, or anyone who doesn't feel they fall into either of those categories. A level of true respect no "law" can ever approach.

-

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

(Steemit link)

It doesn't win you any friends

Speaking truth, that is.

And, this fact has been known for millennia.

Long ago it was said "veritas odium parit"; truth breeds hatred. Which leads to "shoot the messenger".

After scolding Fred Reed for his, frankly, insane support for cops nearly a year ago, yesterday I found myself squirming on his behalf when he wrote some very honest things about "The Troops", which everyone is supposed to love so unconditionally.

The truth about cops makes copsuckers hate you.
The truth about the government's military will make "patriots" hate (and "unfriend") you.
Truth hurts those who support evil people.

That's not to say that lies about people won't have the same effect, but lies are more easily countered with truth. If someone says something untrue about your beloved gang, just set the record straight, and that's that.

When it's the truth which makes people unhappy, they have no recourse but to fall back on hatred. Well, they can lie, but lies won't get them far when people know the truth, or can figure it out for themselves.

Speaking truth is worth the hatred you'll get. Or, I believe it is. You'll have to decide for yourself.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Loot, if not bling

I updated my CafePress stuff, just in case you're interested in promoting my writing in particular, and liberty in general.

No, I don't actually make any money from this, but CafePress does, which is fine with me, and it could get me some new exposure, while making you look better and more refined.

The credibility of statists

I'm finding that the opinions of statists (of any degree) are becoming less and less important to me.

I'll still hear them out, but if they advocate a government "solution" to anything, I'm likely to simply chalk it up to ignorance and give their opinion no further consideration. Anything else is being disrespectful to my brain, principles, and ethics.

It's like taking science advice from a person who has been convinced (or, who's decided to "believe") that the Earth is flat. It makes no sense to pretend they are credible in this particular arena.

Well, if a person believes that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery (the political means) are possibly better ways to live among their fellow humans than self ownership, individual responsibility, and voluntary association (the economic means), they've lost all credibility with me on that subject.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Questions, no answers

I wish I knew why.

I keep losing subscribers, and I don't know if it is because my writing is getting worse (or more offensive), or if it is just that the economy is getting worse.

If it's due to my "content", I want to know so I can try to do better. If subscribers are the canary in the mineshaft, I need to be paying attention to them. I do know I have angered a lot of people with my honest assessment of armed government bullies of every sort-- I've seen those comments about me crop up on other blogs around the internet from time to time.

If it's due to the economy, I'm not sure what I could do other than to inspire people through my words to the point they feel compelled to subscribe in spite of the economic problems. And that just goes back to questioning whether my writing is declining in quality or relevance.

It may also be that most people interested in liberty are usually broke-- which does seem to be the case, in general.

Anyway, if you are a former subscriber who would like to weigh in, please email me privately. I promise I won't criticize your reasons for ending the subscription, whatever they may be, nor will I beg you to resubscribe. I simply want some data here.

-

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

(Steemit link)

A diamond buried in manure

You never know where you're going to dig up a diamond.

This show-- the part about space travel and space exploration, anyway-- is simply dripping with statist elitism, but there is one bombshell hidden therein, uttered by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

"Legislation should be based on objective truths, not on some belief system you happen to have for yourself that others are in conflict with." 

He was referring to the danger of people who believe the Earth is flat writing "laws" to impose on everyone else. As if anyone else is somehow more "qualified" to make up "laws"...

Of course, I know "legislation" is counterfeit "law". If it has to be written down in order to exist, it isn't real law-- real law is discovered, fake "law" is written.

Yet, his statement cuts to the heart of all "legislation".

The objective truth is that if you take property that belongs to someone else, against the owner's will, you have committed theft. Calling your act of theft "taxation" based upon your belief system, which is in direct conflict with others, and with objective truth, doesn't change it.

The same goes for every other harmful piece of "legislation" which violates life, liberty, or property. All government, and the "laws" that go with it, are based on a subjective belief system, a superstition, which can be shown-- objectively-- to be false and harmful. No "legislation" should ever come from people who believe in that nonsense.

Thanks for your support, Mr. Tyson.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Memorial to what?

A very contemplative Dead Stormtrooper Day to all you supporters of The Empire.

This is how liberty died- to your flag waving, allegiance pledging, and stormtrooper supporting. The blood is on your hands. Own it.

States and Islamic losers

I've not hidden the fact that I am not a fan of Islam. I don't like any religions, but I'm particularly disgusted by Islam at this point in my life (even though Christianity actually has more of a negative impact on my day-to-day existence- but that's another issue).

This is simply my emotional reaction to it. I know all the reasons I shouldn't feel that way. All the explanations why this feeling is misguided and wrong. Emotions-- "feelings"-- have nothing to do with facts. Yes, it seems that-- unfortunately-- I am human in spite of my best efforts.

However, my personal "feelings" don't mean I want "laws" created to "deal with" Islam. I most certainly don't. States and their "laws" are worse than Islam.

How is that? you may ask. Well, Islam doesn't guarantee the commission of evil; States do by their very nature. Very few individual Muslims actually use their religion to excuse the initiation of force- but every single person involved in the Cult of State commits daily (perhaps hourly, or more often) acts of archation simply by keeping that "job". Every. Single. One. Every. Single. Day.

So, every time an act of terrorism is committed by an Islamic loser, I feel my hatred for Islam burn... but I also remember that the State is more evil, more destructive, and at the core of all terrorism. Islamic terrorist losers aren't the only losers out there. They are outnumbered by multitudes closer to home.

Terroristic losers

-

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

(Steemit link)

This is one debt that can't be repaid

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 26, 2017- Yes, you've probably read this before. The court tried to silence my voice, so I am using every venue I can to bypass their censorship. Feel free to help.)

Editor’s note: Vincent Heredia of Benton, Arkansas, last week pleaded guilty to negligent homicide in connection with the 2015 death of Cheyenne McManigal.
He was sentenced to 72 months in prison.
Kent McManigal’s letter was provided to the court in connection with sentencing:

Dear Mr. Heredia,

Your bad choices led to the death of my beloved daughter. But I don’t hate you, and I hope this tragedy serves as a wake-up call for you. I would like to see you turn your life around.

I am not going to add my voice to the chorus of people calling for your head on a pike, or a lifetime in a cage. Punishment isn’t justice — although most people have come to confuse the two. Justice involves restoring the violated person back to how they were before they were hurt. Nothing you could do, and nothing anyone could do to you, would ever bring my daughter back and heal the emptiness in my heart.

Nothing can replace my ex-wife's daughter, my parents' and ex-in-laws' granddaughter, my grandsons' mother, my son's and daughter's sister.

Besides, "an eye for an eye" is nothing but revenge, and is barbaric. I don't blame people for feeling that way when tragedy strikes, but it still isn't right in my mind.

I don't believe in "laws", including the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. I don't "believe in" police, or prison, or "even" government. Those things infest our lives, and yet didn't stop your actions or save her.

What I do believe in is restitution. However, there are some debts which can never be paid. This is one.

If you want my forgiveness, you have it. That doesn't eliminate your debt, though.

The one thing you might do, in an attempt to pay this debt you've taken upon yourself, is to never again choose to drive under the influence of anything. In fact, you would need to make it a personal commitment to never again commit any violence against the nonviolent, and to never violate the property of any person. That means no government "job" financed through taxes, even if it were allowed in your future, but instead an honest job where you bring actual mutual benefit to yourself and those you serve, voluntarily. You can try to contribute monetarily to my grandsons' future, but the absurdity of "laws" is such that, due to those fleeting moments which led to my daughter's death, you'll probably be prevented from ever being in the position of having money to spare for the rest of your life. You aren't a Kennedy, after all.

I hurt for myself, my family, my daughter who won't get to watch her children grow, and for my grandsons. I also feel sorry for you, and if I could go back in time to divert you from the course which resulted in my daughter's death and the situation you now find yourself in, you know I'd do it. I just wonder if you would have listened to me if I'd had the chance to speak to you beforehand.

Sincerely,
Kent McManigal

-

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

(Steemit link)

Protecting the delusion of "good government"

I find it disgusting when someone is so dishonest they advocate "good government", as if such a contradiction were even possible.

Like this delusional statist: This is what democracy looks like

So, I posted a comment:

"Good government" makes about as much sense as "compassionate rape".
http://famguardian.org/Publications/OurEnemyTheState/OurEnemyTheState-byAlbertJKnock.pdf

Surprise, surprise, my comment was removed by TED.

Now, I just know if I had said the exact same thing, ridiculing something other than "good government"-- say, something anti-Trump or something-- they wouldn't have had a problem with it. It would have fit with their agenda. I seriously doubt their censors automatically remove any comment with the word "rape" in it. I believe they were triggered by my accurate observation which offended their sensibilities.

Prove me wrong.

-

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

(Steemit link)

The difference between cops and other bad guys

The only real difference between cops and other bad guys lies in the beliefs-- and thus the behavior-- of their victims.

Both sets of bad guys have their own "code" with which they justify violating those around them.
Both use violence to impose their will on others.
Both demand unearned "respect".
Both archate as a matter of course.

I see no real difference between them. A difference which makes no difference isn't a difference.

Cops, just like all bad guys, are scum.

But cops have the distinct advantage of their victims believing that cops are on their side, and accepting just about any awful thing cops do to them and their loved ones. Copsuckers must be masochists and self-loathing people who feel they deserve abuse at the hands of cops, bolstered by their belief in "the law". So they don't fight back or defend the innocent from these bullies, but usually support and defend the bad guys.

The underlying belief is delusional.

But more and more people are losing those beliefs. They are crumbling in the face of the behavior of the cops.

As soon as enough people see cops for what they really are, it will be a very bad day to belong to that gang. A very bad day. That day is long overdue.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Government school IS child abuse, Chapter ... Too many to count

People who confuse schooling for education, and those who believe that because they survived the abuse (and believe they turned out "OK"), others should have to suffer the same abuse ("to prepare them for the real world/to make them stronger"), won't like this talk: Why school should start later for teens.

Even among those who supposedly watched this video, I see them trying to use the very objections she addressed in the video! That's how deep the indoctrination is. They simply can't comprehend anything that threatens their belief.

The evidence is growing that school harms kids. Homework is another issue that is only an issue because people don't want to let go of an institution that they have been led to believe is "necessary", "helpful", and "useful". Just like past forms of slavery. Let it go already.

There is no such thing as "public education". There is "public schooling"-- more honestly known as government schooling-- and there is education. The two are not connected except by accident in rare cases.

Even the tired old excuse of "socialization" is a lie. Government schooling doesn't "socialize" kids, it anti-socializes them. Go to any government school, watch the kids between classes, and tell me which of the behaviors you witness there you think my kid needs to copy and wouldn't otherwise learn. I'll wait for a sensible answer.

Death to kinderprisons!

-

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

(Steemit link)

Justification for "taxation"?

Is taxation somehow not theft because "the government owns the land"? Statists have made this assertion, but for me it only brings up more questions.

How did the government get the land? Does it really own it, or did it simply decide it owns it?

Can I form a government today and suddenly own all the land from this moment forward, no matter who has owned it, and no matter how many generations it has been in their family? And then "tax" them based on this presumed ownership?

If not, why not? What's the difference?

Is it the belief that a collective can do things that would be wrong for an individual to do? This is nothing but a superstitious belief.

Theft is still theft. It doesn't matter where it occurs-- either at stealing the land or stealing the money from those on the land.

That statist argument fails-- as do they all.

Uncle Scam is gonna need a bigger hat

-

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

(Steemit link)

Statism's made-up concepts, words, and delusions

Most "crimes" aren't wrong. They certainly aren't unethical, and are probably not immoral, unless the State's opinion colors your morality-- in which case your "morality" is less than worthless to me.

Most "crimes" are actually just testimony to the fact that your society permits too much government.

Things such as "smuggling", "money laundering", "drug dealing", "speeding", "truancy", "tax evasion", doing things without a "license" or "permit", "resisting arrest", and a host of other "crimes" can't possibly be wrong.

In fact, as you may notice, the believers in government had to make up words to make the acts sound different from what they really are, just so they could declare them "crimes" and initiate force against (or steal from) those they catch doing them.

In the same way, they had to make up words like "arrest", "fine", "execution", "eminent domain", among countless others, to hide the actual wrongs they commit behind these misleading words.

(Those who complain that I make up words and definitions seem to give the Church of State a pass for doing the same thing, but they do so in order to hide the truth from scrutiny rather than to open it to the light of day for all to see.)

You can't remain ethical and be "law abiding". It's simply not possible. Not even if it were possible to simply be "law abiding", which it isn't. Too many "laws" are contradictory, and you don't know what all the "laws" are-- no one does. Or can.

Once you see the acts on both sides for what they are, and stop seeing them through the dark lens of statism, you'll start losing your religion-- at least you will if you were previously a believer in government.

You'll no longer be automatically suspicious of those targeted by "laws". You'll stop believing that if a person has been arrested they must have done something wrong. You'll stop automatically believing that prison inmates deserve whatever they get.

You'll also stop being able to honor or support those who prop up the State with their acts of archation on its behalf. You'll stop seeing cops and politicians as "good guys" or role models. You certainly won't want to see loved ones taking this path.

This won't win you friends. But the few new friends you find, and the few old friends you manage to keep, will be higher quality than those you lose.

For me, it has been worth it. You'll have to decide for yourself whether it is worth it for you.

I don't accept the State's definitions, concepts, made-up words, or delusions. I don't believe in its "goodness" or "necessity". I'm an ethical outlaw. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm nowhere near this noble

-

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

(Steemit link)

Taxation is theft by government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 19, 2017)

Tuesday was the day sometimes called "Tax Day"; not exactly a holiday, and about as far from a "holy day" as it's possible to imagine.

Some people get tired of libertarians pointing out that taxation is theft. Particularly those whose paychecks depend on this particular form of theft. Whatever you call it, when someone demands you hand over some of your property, threatening to hurt you in some way if you don't comply, it's not the act of a good person.

How excited were you to pay taxes this year?

Or, if you got some of your own money back, were you grateful for this "gift"? Even in this instance, you weren't paid the interest they owe you for keeping your money tied up. Who else gets to take your money under threat, keep it for months-- or for over a year-- then give it back (after you spend hours on paperwork, or hundreds of dollars, to prove it's yours) without paying interest?

If you believe your neighbors should be forced to fund things you want, against their will if necessary, you are on the wrong side. You are no different than someone who cheers for a mugger because he claims he'll buy them a gift or two with some of the ill-gotten plunder.

Don't fall into the trap of believing that since people have no real choice but to use some of the services and infrastructure paid for with taxes, they have no right to complain. People have every right to use something they paid for, and-- if the payment was coerced-- to complain about it. To think otherwise is selfish.

If you want to fund government services and programs, I would never dream of standing in your way. Send them all the money you want. Why would you wait for a law to tell you how much to send? Just mail a check and feel good about yourself. If more is needed, convince me and others to join in, using your best arguments. With a good enough idea, plenty will be willing to join you and fund it. If the money collected voluntarily isn't sufficient, the program needs to go away.

The only legitimate government would necessarily include whatever government you can finance with donations, without there being any penalties for choosing to not donate.

Government: the only idea so wonderful you have to threaten people with prison-- or worse-- to get them to finance it. No thanks. I'll pass.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Anti-gun bullies are natural

Anti-gun politicians, bureaucrats, and law-imposer thugs are the natural course of things. They are all anti-gun in reality.

Even the ones who claim to be "pro-gun" and get "A+" endorsements from the "gun rights" groups (which invariably love statism more than liberty) are anti-gun.

If they believe there should be even one "law" concerning gun ownership or possession, they are anti-gun.

If they believe the right to own and to carry a gun depends on "citizenship" or some other statist concept, they are anti-gun.

If they believe someone can lose their right to own and to carry a gun, they are anti-gun.

If they believe the Second Amendment gives anyone a right to "keep and bear arms", they are anti-gun.

If they believe the kind of gun makes any difference, they are anti-gun.

If they insist on guns being banned from the Mundanes in their presence, they are anti-gun.

At it's heart, "anti-gun" really means anti-liberty. They are anti-liberty bigots.

I don't like bigots- not in general.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Encounter with an irresponsible twit

This evening I saw someone do something very irresponsible. Nasty, even. It may have been an initiation of force-- it was definitely a credible threat to initiate force.

I felt the urge to ... something. I don't know what, exactly. I didn't have an urge to call the cops on him, but when I saw a cop drive by seconds later I had the shameful thought that the cop should have witnessed what I saw.

What happened is this:
A group of teens, mostly girls, was sitting at a picnic table at the edge of the park. Two teen boys were walking down the street nearest the table. As they passed, one hurled an empty Coke bottle at the table. It smashed on the concrete slab and the bricks of the partial wall holding up the roof. One of the girls at the table looked at him (his goal, I'm sure) and said "Seriously?" He said "Yeah, seriously" and kept walking and talking to his friend. The people at the table went back to what they were doing (so apparently didn't see it as a threat). I followed the boys to the corner of the park, got their attention and pretended to take a photo of their faces.

I despise people who act like that boy. I always have. Intensely. I don't beg for "laws" to be used against them. I don't want him "fined" or "arrested". I probably wouldn't use violence against him, unless he had been a continued threat to someone's safety. I can despise him without harming him in any way. But I probably wouldn't lift a finger to help him if I saw him being attacked. I'd probably suffer "temporary paralysis". I'm not saying that's right, I'm just being honest.

You know, it really doesn't take much effort to not be a jackhole. So, why do so many seem to choose that path? How do people mistake this behavior for "manliness" or "masculinity" when it seems more like a self-centered, spoiled toddler who has no thought for anyone but himself?

Oh, and I picked up the broken glass as soon as the others left the table.

Not the actual bottle- it was much more shattered than this

-

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

(Steemit link)