Food costs

Worth it, but not free

Have you ever seen the silly meme saying something like: "If we all gardened and traded our surplus with each other, we could eat for free!"?

When I see that I wonder what the person's definition of "free" is.

I think of "free" as meaning "without cost"; something for nothing.

Even when I pick Rocket Mustard, purslane, or prickly pear out of the yard to eat, there is a cost. It takes labor. Both for harvesting and for preparing.

If I were to garden, the cost would be even greater. There's labor, supplies, and (around here, anyway) water. TANSTAAFL, you know. Maybe you can avoid a bit of "taxation" this way, though.

Anyone who thinks only in terms of money traded for the food is missing almost everything related to cost.

This doesn't mean I am opposed to growing your own and trading the surplus. I'm not. I think it's a great thing to do and I encourage everyone to try it. But let's not fool ourselves that the food produced is in any way "free".

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

"Filthy parasites"

A while back, someone got upset because I called cops "filthy parasites" and said I was just "name calling".

Well, let's see...

Parasite
par·a·siteˈperəˌsīt/ noun

• an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. 
• (derogatory)
• a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Let's look at this one part at a time.

Cops are organisms. I don't believe anyone disputes that fact.

Cops live on other organisms, perhaps not physically but certainly at their expense.

Cops benefit by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. When a cop buys food with his paycheck, he is getting nutrients at his host's expense, since the money used to buy the food was stolen from the hosts (you and me). His food purchase (and every other purchase he makes) reduces the amount of resources you have with which to benefit yourself. His existence costs you.

So, yes, a cop satisfies the first definition to a T.

What about the second part?

A cop is a person.

They rely on other people for their existence as a cop. Without other people believing cops are "necessary", the "job" wouldn't exist.

Cops exploit others. They "make full use of and derive benefit from" other people. This goes back to the first definition.

They do so habitually-- on a daily basis as a condition of holding that "job". If they stop exploiting people, they lose the "job".

Now, do they give "nothing in return"?

That depends. A rapist gives "something", but it is something unwanted and harmful. Of course, the same could be said of a tapeworm.

The lack of consent makes the difference. I don't consent to rape, nor do I consent to being policed.

In spite of objections to the contrary, the reality, by definition, is that cops ARE parasites.

I consider all parasites to be "filthy". If you don't, that's fine with me.

- 

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

They're here...

But, if they all looked like Liv...

The zombies, that is.

America is a Zombocracy- a region ruled by zombies. These mindless brain-eaters are also known as government employees.

Cops, politicians, bureau-craps, and all the rest.

I said they are mindless, but that's not quite true. They share a hive mind driven by the instinct to devour anyone who isn't one of their own. And their disease seems contagious.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Does that seem right to you?

Someone I care about is facing a sentencing on September 8, to plea bargain in an attempt to avoid a cage.

I don't know if she did what she is charged with doing. It seems completely out of character, based on what I know of her due to a friendship that has lasted 17+ years so far. And, it is completely irrelevant to my current objections, anyway. If she did what they claim, she owes someone restitution, and that "someone" isn't the State. The State's injustice system doesn't even have justice on the radar, but seeks only to punish.

So, on to my points:

Her lawyer told her that she has only two options-- plead guilty in a bid to avoid jail time, or go to jail. His reasoning? There is no evidence, and she confessed.

Seems to me "no evidence" should be in her favor-- innocent until PROVEN guilty is the lie we are fed.

Of course, when she "confessed" she was mentally ill-- in fact, this was so obvious to everyone involved she was immediately sent to a psych hospital and put on psych medication after she was booked. She has always had mental issues, and physical brain problems (epilepsy, for one). How is a confession under those circumstances even admissible?

Also, her lawyer admitted to her that he has become friends with the DA during the course of his "defense". Conflict of interest? Seems clear to me.

I don't know if her lawyer is a public defender or an actual defense lawyer. Either way it seems he wants to save his buddies in the DA's office some trouble, and is railroading his client into unnecessary trouble. Not ethical behavior at all.

If I had the money I would pay to get her a real defense lawyer; one committed to truth and justice, and not just pragmatic convenience and keeping his political friends happy.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

How to disappoint me

The fastest way for me to become disappointed in someone I care about is for them to take a government "job". That'll do it every time.

It doesn't matter how "respectable" others believe that "job" is.
It doesn't matter if the "job" is believed to be "necessary" or "helpful".
It doesn't matter how badly you need the "job".
It doesn't matter if it's a "job" also filled in the voluntary sector.
It doesn't matter if I still like you and think you are basically a "good" person.
It doesn't matter how much (stolen) money it pays.

If you side with government to get money, I am disappointed in you.

Whether that matters or not is a separate issue altogether.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Counterfeit "laws" create a market for lawyers

If a law is such that you have to look it up to see what it says; to see what it says you are allowed to do (or prohibited from doing), it's not a real law.

If it is written so that you need a lawyer to interpret it for you after you look it up, to tell you if something is "legal" or not, that "law" is even worse. In fact, it's an even clearer sign that the "law" is counterfeit.

The mere existence of lawyers is irrefutable evidence that the majority of "laws" are counterfeit.

Of course, who do you think writes those counterfeit "laws" to give themselves "job security"? Quite a racket, if you can keep getting away with it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

'Hate speech' protected after all

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 28, 2017)

Mark your calendars-- the Supreme Court got something right! Amazing, I know. What occurred on this notable occasion? They admitted the First Amendment protects "hate speech".

Of course it does! It's absurd to think there was ever any question.

They didn't go far enough and still managed to miss the important point, though. It's not because the Bill of Rights creates any rights-- it's because it recognizes that no government has the authority to violate rights, including limiting speech. It is a barrier which binds government, not a permit which applies to the people. As cogs of government, the Supreme Court Jesters don't like to face this painful reality, preferring to frame the issue in a way which preserves their feelings of grandeur. But truth is truth.

You have a right to say whatever you want, even to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, regardless of legal opinion. No law can ever change this reality. However, you have no right to avoid the consequences of exercising your rights in an irresponsible way-- especially if people are harmed. Even if you are a president or a congresscritter.

Yes, I have the right to call members of congress "critters", and they have a right to call me whatever they want.

Freedom of speech is meaningless if it doesn't include the right to say offensive, potentially hurtful things. But, if you lie about someone, or try to talk someone into attacking an individual, or advocate for a law which would violate anyone's rights, you open yourself up to restitution or even rightful self defense. Don't speak unless you are prepared to face the music.

The other side of this right to free speech is your right to shun anyone who says hateful things. In turn, you also have the right to say what you think of them, even if it offends. Even if you have no real argument, but focus on their skin color, their religious beliefs, or their lack of intelligence. You have the right to express your opinions, and no one has the right to force you to stop.

While you have a right to say whatever you want, even beyond the right recognized by the Supreme Court, no one is obligated to let you use their soapbox to be heard, and no one is required to listen to a word you say. Rights don't work that way.

So be careful of your words; they can end up hurting you more than those you were aiming at.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Statist projection

Anarchy doesn't preclude working with others; only ruling others or letting them rule you.

Yet, I can't begin to count the number of times a statist has said something to the effect of "anarchy is anti-social" or "anarchists can't get along with others".

As if statism-- telling others to do as you say or you'll have your armed thugs kill them-- is in any way civilized!

A huge part of getting along with others is living up to your responsibility to not force yourself on them. Government is based on the polar opposite. Government is the height (or depth) of anti-social behavior.

Statists claim that anarchists would fail because they would rely on contracts with each other, and people are unreliable. That we can't get along with each other, much less with those who want to violate us through government and "laws".

What an odd claim.

I make mutually agreed upon contracts just about every day with no problems. I get along with people very nicely. Partly because I don't try to force them to live as I choose to live. It would be nice if they extended the same courtesy to me, but that's not the nature of those who behave in a government-like fashion; muggers, government employees, rapists, kidnappers, etc. I don't expect bad guys to act as anything other than what they are, even as I give them every opportunity to do so.

So, yeah, anarchy works just fine in my personal daily life. I see no need to archate against others, regardless of how they choose to act toward me.

But what if some people can't handle anarchy-- i.e., being self-responsible people?

Well, if someone isn't suited for anarchy-- if they can't deal with others voluntarily-- they'll either learn and grow up, or they'll turn back to statism where they feel "safe".

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Rights and responsibilities again

Well, they are both fruit...

Somewhat related to yesterday's post is this odd notion I heard expressed recently: "Your rights are my responsibility".

Well, no.

Your rights are your responsibility. My only responsibility concerning your rights is to not interfere with you exercising them. I am responsible for not violating you, and if I do, I'm responsible for that, too.

As an example, you have the fundamental human right to own and to carry weapons. I do not have the responsibility to provide you with those weapons; I only have the responsibility to not try to prevent you from owning and carrying them.

For most people, being responsible for their own rights (among the other things they are responsible for) is a very heavy "burden". It's so much easier to demand everyone "give you" your rights than it is to recognize they aren't responsible for that.

The other side of the coin is that it's also so much easier to violate people than it is to respect their right to do things you don't like.

And yes, rights bring responsibilities along with them, even if most responsibilities have nothing to do with rights.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Responsibilities

For some reason I was just thinking about my responsibilities, and-- as I sometimes do with things I can list-- I decided to make a list.

My list goes something like this, although this is not necessarily in order of importance:

My daughter.
My son.
My parents.
The house upkeep.
The vehicle upkeep.
The newspaper column.
This blog.
To not archate against anyone.
My cats.
Keeping myself healthy enough that I'm not a burden on anyone.

Maybe there are more responsibilities I have that I can't think of at the moment.

I'm not sure it's a responsibility, exactly, but I do feel a desire to make the world a better place for me having been here. Whatever that's worth.

One common thing people say in order to trivialize rights, is that there can be no rights without responsibilities. That is probably true, but it doesn't make rights any less important, and most responsibilities don't seem connected to rights at all.

The responsibility to not archate is the one most related to rights; I have a right to do anything which doesn't archate.

But, what "rights" do I have to my daughter, for example? She holds the rights (as well as the responsibility to not archate), and I have the responsibility. She isn't my property. If someone violates her, they haven't exactly violated me-- even though I will take it personally. I hope to teach her to defend her rights, and to take responsibility, and I'll do what I can to defend her as long as I am around.

I'm thinking that rights and responsibility may not be as entwined as those who aren't comfortable with rights would have you believe.

Of course, those who exercise their rights but take no responsibility will end up archating and stepping beyond what they have a right to do, and they'll find themselves in the position of being someone their victims have a right to defend themselves from, and that won't be a fun place to be.

I'll look at this relationship between rights and responsibilities from a slightly different angle tomorrow.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

You've got to work for it

"Anarchy won't work, because it won't last. Someone will always come along and become a government and rule people."

Yeah, I've pointed out a flaw in this ... "argument"... before.

But here's another take on it.

Yes, anarchy would have to be maintained in order to last. It's not automatic. So?

Everything has to be maintained, even States.

If you are willing to work to maintain a State, but not willing to put effort into maintaining liberty, you don't want liberty very much.

I do. I'm willing to work for it. I'm willing to change the oil, rotate the tires, wash it off when it gets dirty, and fix any troubles that crop up. Because I LOVE liberty.

On the other hand, I'm not willing to lift a finger to maintain any State-- not by v*ting, not by pretending "laws" are legitimate, not by cooperating or complying, not by supporting cops, politicians, judges, courts, bureaucrats, prisons, border walls, or any other statist monstrosity. Statism isn't worth the effort to maintain, and I will not use my limited time and resources to help prop it up.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Making people mad

People are tired of me harping on cops. I know it. They've told me so. It makes them mad. It hurts their feelings. It makes them... uncomfortable. They don't want to hear it.

I understand why. But I'm not sure I want to stop. It's just too important for liberty to make sure to drive the point home, and to never let up. To never give an inch.

Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face. Without their active aggression, there would be no such thing as political power. The opinions of the bullies of the State would be nothing but a bit of hot air, quickly lost to the gentlest breeze.

Next to cops, presidents are nothing. "Laws" are nothing. Corrupt prosecutors (but I repeat myself) are nothing. Power-crazed judges are nothing. Bureaucrats are nothing. The State is nothing. Cops are the one thing that makes government a problem for Rightful Liberty and those who exercise it. Nothing else even comes close-- no matter how evil and reprehensible other things may be.

Yes, I understand it is tiresome to hear "Cops are scum" and "Cops are losers" again and again. But it is more important than anything else you can hear, with regards to liberty. It is absolutely crucial to understand why you can't support cops without polluting yourself; without being a part of the problem. It's just the way it is, and telling it the way it is makes people mad. And, yet I keep on.

I try to be nice about it. I try to not get profane and angry like so many others I see. Quite honestly, I am not angry; I am persistent in speaking this irritating truth. Truth is mistaken for anger when that truth is painful.

In my day-to-day life I don't worry about cops a tenth as much as some of the people I know who don't have a principled stance against policing-- simply because they fear being the target of police attention. Or because they worry that a cop will see them doing something "illegal" while driving. That's something I really don't worry about. It is what it is, and I'm not going to live my life worrying about those parasites.

As with any gang, I avoid contact as much as possible. I recognize what they are, and I don't sugar-coat it. And I go on with my life, knowing they are utterly irrelevant and worthless in the grand scheme of things.

But, I know it is something the population needs to keep being reminded of, because the cult is so ubiquitous and so generally popular. And because it is important.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Ride that bandwagon right over the cliff

If you live in America today, wave the US flag, and support the troops and "law enforcement", I have unhappy news for you.

If you had lived in Nazi Germany you would have almost definitely been an enthusiastic Nazi.

If you lived in a Muslim country today, you would almost certainly be Muslim (which is totally unrelated to whether you would be an Islamic loser).

You hop on the bandwagon too easily, and go along without thinking about what you are doing.

Only those who resist the dominant "culture" in America have a credible chance to have been a truly decent person in Nazi Germany or a non-Muslim in a predominantly Muslim country today.

If you are a flag waving, troop loving, cop supporting American in 2017, you simply don't have what it takes to resist the appeal of the bandwagon.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Satisfying watching parties fight

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 21, 2017)

Besides being an experienced negotiator, I'm beginning to suspect President Trump might be an excellent magician. Or, at least an expert in misdirection.

He gets observers to focus on one hand's flamboyant flourishes, while doing the work he wants to accomplish with the hand they aren't paying attention to.

If you don't believe this, notice how he says and does trivial, even silly, things which get all the attention. While people are laughing at him, he is doing things which could impact the future, for better or worse, mostly under the radar. Perhaps he doesn't do this on purpose, but I wouldn't bet on it.

His self-created caricature has become the focus of attention, probably just as he wishes it to be. After all, if no one takes you seriously, they won't pay attention to everything you're up to. If you can get them to worry about the wrong things-- things they have been tricked into worrying about-- you can get away with almost anything.

His posts on Twitter are a case in point. Not just the "covfefe" brier patch his opponents threw him in, but all the rest as well. People focus so much on the pointless things he writes there that he is able to work on his real agenda pretty much unseen by the population. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the particular bullies you prefer to have trying to run your life.

Those of us who prefer to keep all the bullies at bay, regardless of the particular flavor of their bullying, are a tiny minority.

He also manages to entice his enemies into doing things which show them in the worst possible light. Just by fanning the flames of their hatred, and by not being the president they had been assured they were going to be blessed with. To get your opponents to humiliate themselves without you having to lift a finger is almost a superpower. I wish I could do the same; it would save so much time and effort!

Maybe none of this is intentional on his part. Maybe he is just lucky. Maybe his opponents are simply incompetent. It's not beyond the realm of possibility.

For me, sitting outside this "Red State vs. Blue State" civil war, it's an interesting show. It's like watching all those who want to destroy your liberty tangling themselves in barbed wire while fighting amongst themselves. There is something very satisfying about it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Observation on observing

Most people don't observe. This observation (ha ha) has annoyed me all my life.

I'm not picking on other people; I constantly get annoyed at myself for failing to observe something I think I should have noticed.

People also fail to observe things they don't want to observe-- things that would make them uncomfortable.

This explains why most people don't notice that cops are bad guys, even with a seemingly infinite stream of irrefutable evidence being shoved in their faces on a daily basis by the behavior of cops themselves.

When the tendency to be unobservant is combined with the fanaticism to not see what you'd rather not see, it is almost guaranteed that people won't notice something really important.

Now, copsuckers might come back with the claim that I don't observe the good that cops do. If so, I have counter-evidence to refute their claim. I observe both sides, but to the copsuckers it appears biased against cops. That's because ethics itself is biased against cops. If you are observant, you'll notice this fact, even if you don't want to.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

An obligation to comply?

Do you believe you have an obligation to comply with "the law"?

How far do you believe your obligation extends?
Only to those "laws" you agree with, or all of them?
What about "laws" which would require you to do something you know is wrong, or "laws" which would forbid you to do something right?
Would you sacrifice your ethics, morals, or religion to "the law"? If not, what happened to your obligation.

I recently heard someone say they had an obligation to comply with the law, and it instantly sounded ridiculous to me. But, as with all ridiculous utterances, I ponder them to try to understand why someone would say something so ridiculous.

The "reason" I come up with is that it sounds "reasonable" to people who have come to mistake "the law" for what's right and good. It sounds civilized. It may even feed upon their belief in a "social contract".

But to me, it sounds like someone going along with evil for convenience and so they don't feel the need to actually think and weigh their actions.

I am freer, feeling no such obligation whatsoever. Yes, I'll "comply" when a cop is watching, just like I'll "comply" when a mugger has the drop on me. But that's just a survival strategy in the face of armed reality, not really compliance.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Why I (still) blog

The liberty-lover family is facing tough times. We will make it through; we always have throughout history. But the near future will probably be hard and not all of us will make it to the better times beyond that.

I write my blog to try to give you ideas, encouragement, inspiration and whatever else might help you  survive and thrive while living surrounded by rabid statism. So that, perhaps, you can increase your chances to make it through, and enjoy the circumstances as much as possible until times get better. I hope it helps.

Obviously not everyone will "get" my blog. Only a tiny slice of modern humanity could get it, even if they knew about it. Most are simply too entrenched in set ways of thinking to understand anything outside of their toxic little box. Some probably just don't like me, and would reject anything I say on that basis alone. It happens.

I appreciate you for not being like that.

I'll continue to stick my neck out, knowing you-- The Remnant-- are out there. Just as long as I can, as long as I still have something to say, and as long as I still feel I am doing some good.

I've also got to remember to do my best to balance no-holds-barred truth with compassion and being nice. And, for me, that's not easy. Statism drains me, exhausts me, makes me tired and short tempered, and I have an almost overpowering urge to mock statists of any degree. It's a struggle.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

If you support States...

If you preach ethics, but support States, you are being inconsistent. And unethical.

If you preach morals, but support States, you are either being immoral, or your morality is warped until it is unethical and evil.

If you are a genius, but you support States because you believe them to be good and necessary, you're either being dumb or you have a tragic blind spot causing you to be wrong.

You would do well to correct your errors.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Heroes wanted

I sure could use some monetary help.
If you can and want to, please consider it.
Here's the link to the fundraiser post, but right now Paypal donations would help the most.

Law vs "laws"

Natural Law is completely in sync with liberty-- the two are bound together and can not be pulled apart without destroying everything.

Through experience, over long periods of time, humans discovered Natural Law, which illustrated how to live among others. Society grew as these rules were discovered, and eventually this led to civilization growing from society.

Then some "genius" came along and decided it would be a good idea to write down the Law somewhere so it could be read and referred to. Which wouldn't have been too disastrous, if they had stopped there. But...

This motivated even worse idiots to write down their flawed opinions and call it "law", also. Trying to steal legitimacy for their dreamed up "laws" from the Law which had been discovered.

Unfortunately, none of these new opinions were based on anything but opinion, and were harmful to society. The more of these harmful opinions that were added and called "laws", the more damaged society became. Civilization won't survive if the tide isn't turned. Counterfeit "laws" must be tossed aside. Every single one of them. The sooner, the better.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)