Sneaky lying cheaters who archate

The person I know who is the most concerned with whether other people are being sneaky, and sees (and condemns) sneakiness in everyone, is also the sneakiest person I've ever met.

This is a pattern I've noticed in many things.

The person who hates cheating the most is probably the biggest cheater.
The person who believes everyone else is lying is probably a liar.

So, recognizing this in others makes me examine myself more closely.

I don't like archation in others. Does this mean I am prone to archate?

I know I have the capacity. I've done it more times than I want to admit. I do believe I am getting better at not doing so. When I feel the urge to archate, I notice and stop myself-- in almost every case. Sometimes, I notice after it has already happened, and then I am ashamed of myself. If I can, I apologize.

I know I am capable of being a monster, and life is a constant struggle to not act it out. I suspect that is just part of being human.

If I do archate, I want people to call me on it. Unlike the sneak, the cheater, and the liar, I am willing to face my flaws. That doesn't mean it's not uncomfortable, or that I will take it well when it is pointed out. But I try. I want to be better than I am.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Those thieving thieves and their schemes

I know practically nothing about the most recent tweaking of the gang's theft conspiracy. I hadn't been keeping up with developments, details, or news about it, and I don't care enough to research it.

Some people claim it means they will be stealing slightly less. (I sort of doubt it, because they always seem to manage to make up their theft quotas elsewhere, but I can pretend for a moment.)

Some other people are having a conniption because some people are happy if it's the case that slightly less will be stolen. What?

I am against theft. All theft. That being said, in my opinion stealing less is always preferable to stealing more (or the same). Right? How can anyone object?

If I get mugged, and manage to not have the thief steal as much as he might have stolen, I'm not going to be happy about the mugging, but I will be happy to have retained what he didn't get.

I oppose the self incrimination ritual that occurs when people have to ask for some of their stolen property to be returned. I understand it's not really about giving back the money, but about social manipulation to give it back. "Incriminate yourself and jump through these flaming hoops, and we'll see if you deserve to have the property we stole returned to you."

I also understand whiny statists complaining that without the stolen money, government can't "provide" as much. Good!! I don't want anything from government except to be left out of it.

But, really, complaining that a mugger will possibly get less money than he did previously seems misguided.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Overprotection brings irresponsibility

I think the current overprotection of children is harmful. I know I'm not the first to point this out, but I don't think it can be said enough-- until it stops.

No one can learn responsibility without being given the opportunity to be irresponsible. And unless they've been given this opportunity in small doses all along, just suddenly handing them a lighter, a knife, or a loaded gun might bring disaster. This is the fault of those who have restricted their access as much as it is theirs.

Because yes, kids should have easy access to lighters, knives, and loaded guns. And they need to learn that actions have consequences.

It helps if responsible adults, who have good familiarity with guns, knives, fire, and all sorts of dangerous things, are there to provide guidance at first. But keeping kids away from guns, knives, fire, etc., means there will not be any adults qualified to fill this role before too long. This won't end well.

Yes, there is the risk of kids maiming or killing someone if they have access to dangerous things. The problem is, keeping them away from dangerous things doesn't make anyone any safer, it just changes the nature of the risk that you are practically guaranteeing.

The current way has been an utter disaster. Keeping guns "away" from kids leads to mass shootings. for one thing. This world is full of dangers. You aren't doing anyone a favor by raising a generation of ignorant people who are unequipped to deal with reality.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Statism is...

Statism is lazy.

Statism is unethical.

Statism can be cowardly.

Statism is irresponsible.

Statism is dishonest.

Statism is archation.

And statism seems to be everywhere.

Growing up statist can have consequences. Once you learn to justify statism you are prone to self-justify or excuse any archation. They aren't different things.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Imagine...

Imagine a world where people don't fight over their imaginary friend.

Imagine a world where people don't kill each other over disagreements about how their imaginary friend is worshiped, or how the holy symbols of the imaginary friend are treated.

No, I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, or any of those sorts of belief systems. I'm talking about statism: the world's largest, most popular, and most deadly religion.

The State is an imaginary friend. It only exists in the mind, and there is nothing friendly about that belief. Belief in the State is expressed in many ways, but people don't usually want it expressed in opposing ways and continually kill each other over their differences. The belief in this imaginary friend is very harmful. It would be better to give it up. In fact, it is suicidal to not give it up.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Living within rights grave responsibility

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 15, 2017)

How different the news of recent weeks would be if more people understood their rights and responsibilities.

Some say people who care about rights are trying to downplay responsibilities. For anyone who actually understands what rights are, nothing could be further from the truth.

A right is anything you can do without crossing the equal and identical rights of others. If it violates someone or their property, or obligates others to provide you with something at their expense, it isn't a right. However, no one has the right to not be offended. If you are only offended, you haven't been violated.

No one has the right to violate other people. This is what responsibility is: to avoid violating rights or preventing people from exercising their liberty.

Rights can be expressed better by pointing out what you don't have a right to do. You do not have the right to use violence against people who are not being violent nor harming private property. You do not have the right to take or damage property which belongs to someone else. Nothing can change this reality or create the right to do those things.

Look at recent news in this light.

You do not have the right to coerce someone into sexual acts in exchange for a job, no matter your position.
You do not have the right to make up laws which authorize you to take money or property by calling it a "tax"-- not even if you promise to use it for good.
You do not have the right to vandalize cars, houses, or businesses.
You do not have the right to shoot people who aren't violating others.
You do not have the right to send people or devices around the world to break stuff and kill people-- not even if you call it "spreading democracy" or "peacekeeping".
You do not have the right to vote to limit or eliminate anyone's liberty in any way, even if it's on the ballot.

Living within your rights is your most grave responsibility.

You have the right to resist any violation of your rights, or the rights of others, with whatever force it takes to stop the violator. This is why those who make a living violating the rights of others despise rights and pretend rights are inferior to responsibilities-- and they also insist on defining "responsibilities" in a way which protects them from their victims. They deny their greatest responsibility.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Freedom- I won't.

There are some things I simply won't voluntarily do.

I won't participate in Nazi/socialist rituals, even if everyone around me gets bent out of shape by my refusal. Nor will I sing or "honor" national anthems.

I won't socialize with cops. Not anymore. Nor will I pretend they can be "good" people, even if they are nice.

I don't demand everyone else stop doing what I won't do. Even if people demand I join them in doing those things I refuse to do.

Beyond that, I won't pretend "laws" are legitimate, that "taxation" is anything other than theft, that government employees are anything other than bullies, or that "public schools" (kinderprisons) are about education.

You aren't required to think the same, nor will you earn a Browncoat badge by thinking the same way I do.

These things are just me.

-

(The title comes from this story, which you probably already knew.)

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Confusinitions

I think it's really unfortunate, and confusing, when one word is used to speak of two concepts which are totally unrelated-- or even at odds with each other.

Sometimes, such as with the word "ring", no one confuses one definition for the other, and even if they did, probably no harm would come of it. But sometimes the completely unrelated meanings are extremely dangerous to confuse.

Such as with the word "authority".

The word can mean "expert" or "competence". This is a positive concept; the good kind of authority. This is the kind of authority which deserves respect.

But, when used in the political sense it refers to a bully or an act of bullying. There is nothing positive about political "authority". This kind of "authority" deserves nothing but contempt. Being competent at bullying isn't a good thing at all.

With the same word being used for both, and the confusion being encouraged, most people get very mixed up and wind up believing political "authority" means the same as the other meaning of "authority", or that they at least overlap. It doesn't, and they don't. Not even close. But political "authorities" would love for you to fall for the deception-- it's a very useful lie. Useful to them; devastatingly harmful to you.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Making people unhappy

I need to stop having such high expectations for other people (in general). I'm completely serious. It makes them uncomfortable or unhappy.

It's not that I would ever do anything to anyone who didn't meet my unreasonable expectations, but they don't like hearing what I expect of those who call themselves "libertarians" when they aren't willing to live up to it. I'm not even talking about calling out specific individuals-- I don't usually do that-- just pointing out what libertarianism means, and pointing out things that don't meet the criteria.

I'm actually harder on myself than I am on others. I usually know the right thing to do, even if I don't manage to stay on course. I suspect others are the same.

I guess I shouldn't point out ways in which people who call themselves "libertarian" don't live up to the label they claim in certain areas. I shouldn't point out inconsistencies in what they advocate that could lead observers to the wrong conclusion.

Just like Christians should be quiet about some guy who worships Satan while claiming to be a Christian. Who are they to say he's not acting like a Christian? He may be doing the best he can, in the society and circumstances in which he finds himself. Expecting that he pick a side and either stop claiming Christianity or stop worshiping Satan is unreasonable. Right? How much Satan worship can a Christian engage in without tainting the label "Christian"?

Well, how much State/State employee worship (or apologetics) can a libertarian engage in without tainting the label "libertarian". I'm thinking none. Maybe that's just me.

If there could be a State that wasn't built on theft and aggression, and if there could be State employees who didn't advance the agenda of the State in any way-- not even by giving it a veil of legitimacy-- and who NEVER participated in the State's theft and aggression, and never supported those State employees who do, then maybe a little Statism would be OK. But that's a magical unicorn of a different color.

As I see it, if you are OK with some aspects of the State, that's between you and your conscience. I'm not going to excuse those parts of the State you like just because I like you or agree with you in every other area. If you truly believe you are right, then don't worry about my opinion on that point. I'll be disappointed, but I'll survive. It's my problem, not yours. As long as you keep your filthy government off my life, that is.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The re-education of Kent

The people have spoken: Not all rapists are bad people. I have been shown the error of my wrongthinking ways. I'm sorry!

Some rapists never rape (never mind that the identifier comes from that particular action and nothing else), and besides, I'll alienate the people who love them if I can't see that they can be good people, and necessary for the functioning of society. If I don't allow rapists to do what they do, other rapists-- who might be even worse-- will have free rein to prey on innocent people.
I shouldn't have condemned them collectively, based on the acts a rapist, by definition, commits. Until I've sat down and talked to one, walked a mile in his athletic shoes, I can't know his motivation for doing what he does. He may have become a rapist with the best of intentions- truly seeking to help people who need it.
We probably all supported rapists and what they do at one time-- so I should understand those who support them now, and those who want to praise them for the dangerous job they do. I mean, would you be willing to do what a rapist does? I thought not!
Besides, in a free society, some people would still demand to be provided with rapists.

It's not nice to think of people as only what they do. They shouldn't be judged solely on the basis of the actions from which they get their identity. They are so much more than that. They are individuals first and foremost-- they have families and friends. Just because I don't like what they choose to do doesn't mean they are wrong. It means I was wrong for judging them.

I'm just being unreasonable when I expect people to stand against archation. I'm truly sorry for my hardline stance, and for refusing to think of the children and widows before staking out such an unforgiving position. Rapists are people too, no different from anyone else. Certainly no worse.

But it is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. I have won the victory over myself. I love rapists.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Embarrassing borderism fail

I just read what should have been one of the most embarrassing justifications for borderism I've ever seen passed off as thought. I won't mention the particular thinker who squeezed it out.

It goes like this:

• People have property rights, including the right to invite or exclude whoever they choose onto, or from, their property.

• The State violates this right by prohibiting its full exercise by property owners. 

• The State then substitutes its idea of collective property rights for actual individual property rights via "national borders".

• Therefore, the only way left to defend your property rights is by demanding the State enforce its "borders" even harder.

The 3 points are dead right. The conclusion doesn't logically follow.

He even tries to base his jumping off point (that people have property rights which they have a right to defend forcefully), correctly, on the "non-aggression principle", and then ignores how it invalidates his conclusion.

Apparently "collateral damage" is acceptable.
Apparently, there's no point in striking at the root when it's easier to make the State bigger and more powerful.
Apparently, only "immigrants" can trespass, vandalize, or steal (or, are the only ones you need to defend your property from)-- there's no need to defend your property from US "citizens" or government employees.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Delusional support for cops is EVERYWHERE

Most of my posts of the past few days have been inspired by my frustration over a discussion in a liberty-oriented forum. Where I am the only one apparently willing to admit there can be no such thing as a "good cop".

It's a little disappointing, I'll admit. I expected more.

I can give all the reasoning which leads inevitably to the only rational conclusion. Those who disagree with me give feelings, anecdotes, objections, and whatever else, but have nothing to contribute to make an actual argument to the contrary. They just engage in wishful thinking.

Which leads to one inevitable conclusion: People desperately want to believe cops are good. Even those who are otherwise "pro-liberty".

By pointing out the logical, inescapable reasons why cops can't be good, you threaten their beliefs. By pointing out that "cop" isn't a person so much as a set of behaviors which violate life, liberty, and property-- exactly in the same way "rapist" is-- you offend them.

Not only this, but in order to bolster their "argument" they put words in my mouth, they make assumptions about my motivations, and they leap to conclusions as to what I propose doing about the situation.

Why this childish attachment to a set of destructive behaviors and the gang members who commit them? Is something akin to an "archation culture" being exposed here?

I guess it's a pointless battle, even among the pro-liberty crowd. I'm still right, but I will walk away from the discussion. You can't get through to those who are so desperate to not understand.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Remember 'innocent until proven guilty'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 8, 2017)

The current witch hunt swirling around accusations of sexual misconduct and rape in the entertainment industry exposes the worst in people. Both those who may have done wrong, and those excited to join the dog pile to tear the accused to shreds.

I understand that few people want bad guys to get away with their crimes. Neither do I, although I probably have a different idea of what "justice" means. I probably also have a different idea of what constitutes a crime.

Those calling for the figurative heads of the various accused on a platter seem hysterical in their vindictiveness and in their certainty that all accusations are true.

As for the less vindictive people out there, I see some of them saying everyone is innocent until proved guilty. This is also a mistake.

Innocent until proved guilty is the standard you want any justice system based on. It should be the default assumption of every juror and judge. Unfortunately, the current American justice system has gone astray by assuming guilt. Anyone caught up in the court system is considered guilty of something, otherwise they wouldn't have been arrested. This has rarely been as dangerous an assumption as it is now; possibly only rivaled in legal miscarriage by actual witch trials and in the treatment of recaptured runaway slaves.

If you are on a jury you have an obligation to listen to all sides, to decide who is telling the truth, and also to consider whether the law which may have been violated should even be a law in the first place. If you've already made up your mind and aren't going to consider that your first impressions may have been mistaken, you have no business being on a jury and holding a person's fate in your hands. The seriousness of the charge doesn't change this. Neither do your personal feelings.

For the rest of us, when you know someone is guilty you are under no obligation to pretend otherwise. Expecting people to pretend a person is innocent when they know he isn't is promoting dishonesty. If you are not on the jury, it's also not your job to decide restitution or, heaven forbid, punishment for anyone accused of a wrongdoing .

It's also quite likely you simply don't really know what happened and never will; not having enough information to form an intelligent opinion. This may be the hardest thing for most people to accept, but it's vital.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

There is no "right to archate"

I think most people believe they have the "right" to archate; a right which can never exist.

At least, it sure seems that way to me.

Because of this delusion, they form governments. They let those governments hire cops, bureaucrats, clerks, and so forth. Then they participate in elections to hire even more parasites from the pool of politicians.

But, that's fine with them because they also believe they have a right to share in the fruits of your labors, and don't mind dividing the spoils among the parasites they hired (as long as they also get some crumbs).

All these parasites they hire and elect believe they have a right to assert "authority" over you. They believe this imaginary "authority" comes with the "job".

Cops even believe their imaginary "authority" gives them the right to murder you if they don't feel like you cowered sufficiently before their almighty "authority".

So, yeah, people have a right to believe what they believe, and to live by their beliefs... but only to a point. There is a limit, and that limit comes when they move beyond belief into acting on it by archating. No "job" can move that concrete boundary by even a fraction of an ångström.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Reading minds

Yes, I believe I can sometimes read minds, and I'm willing to bet you can, too.

If you see a guy climbing in your teenage daughter's bedroom window in the middle of the night, with rope and a butcher knife in his hand, do you believe you have a pretty good idea what he's thinking? Or should you wait and ask him before making any snap judgments?

At the risk of triggering those who misapply Godwin's Law, do you have a good idea what was going through the mind of some random guy in Germany around 1940, who joined the Nazi Party, proudly wore the regalia, and enthusiastically participated in the rallies, and never objected to what was being done by other members of his gang (and never tried to stop it and didn't quit in disgust)?

In the same way, if someone voluntarily joins the Blue Line Gang, wears the uniform and other identifying items, do you know his mind?

Do you honestly believe he could keep the "job" without violating anyone, ever. Or, is that a condition of employment? Even if he never commits a traffic stop, never steals money with a parking ticket, never kidnaps or robs anyone over drugs, guns, gambling, or prostitution, is he still guilty?

That's ignoring the fact that the money he "earns" is stolen.

Maybe, when he first decided to be a cop, he had only good intentions. (You'll need to read his mind to see if this is true.) But as soon as the realities of the "job" intrude, he has a choice to make: Keep doing the "job" and remain a member of a gang which only exists because it exercises the power to aggress and violate property rights, or quit and find honest employment. What is going through his mind now? Is he consciously making the choice to remain a cop?

And really, what does it matter what is going through his mind?

Back to the guy climbing in your daughter's window, isn't the fact of his actions enough to make it right for you to defend your daughter from him? What he's thinking-- what he believes about what he's doing-- is irrelevant. Why should cops be treated differently than anyone else on the planet? Why do I have to prove that I know what they are thinking while they are molesting people?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Yes, I'm a "purist"

I don't believe there are any legitimate justifications for believing a person has the right to archate. I am told this makes me a "purist". I don't see that as a bad thing.

Yes, in some cases (pushing someone out of the path of a bus, trespassing to rescue a child who wandered onto private property and got trapped or hurt, etc.) I think you probably need to go ahead and do what you think is necessary under the circumstances, and accept the consequences, but that's different than saying you have a right to initiate force or violate property.

But in many cases, such as with governing others-- personally or by imposing a State on them-- you have neither the right nor a "need" which can excuse you. You need to be shamed if this is what you advocate.

However, purist that I am, I probably won't do much beyond disagreeing with you in most cases. All bets are off if you credibly threaten so that I feel the need to defend myself (or others).

Minarchists give me a sour stomach. But as long as they keep their filthy governing hands off of me and my property, I probably won't lift a finger against them. Most of their victims also believe in governing others, and often, believe in doing it even harder. There are consequences for believing governing others to be a legitimate human endeavor, and sometimes they are unpleasant, but if that's what a person believes it isn't my place to "rescue" him from his foolishness.

So, really, other than hurting minarchists' feelings by pointing out where-- and why-- they are wrong, I won't do anything to them. I don't even believe in punishment. But the way they squeal, you'd think I was proposing setting up re-education camps to make them think correctly. It's kind of funny, considering they, not me, are the ones willing to use violence against the non-violent and against people who are violating no one's property. Projection must be a horrible experience.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Don't act on it

It's a bad thing to hold certain desires or beliefs in your mind, but as long as you don't act on them, bringing them into the real world, they only hurt you.

You can be positive that your "race" is superior to all others, and believe some "races" aren't fully human, but as long as that belief doesn't cause you to violate anyone else, who is it hurting?

Your private desires can be those of a pedophile, but as long as you don't act on it and harm any children, you can't have done anything wrong.

You can be full of authoritarian and statist delusions, but as long as you don't use violence against non-archators, nor send others to do so on your behalf, the malware in your mind isn't violating anyone.

But, can anyone honestly believe something without acting on it? It is hard to hold a belief without putting it into action. It would be best, by far, to purge that kind of thing from your mind altogether.

But, if you can't, the next best thing is to make certain you never act on it.

The problem is, if you truly believe something, you're not going to be very motivated to not act on it. You'll believe you are right and those who oppose your beliefs are wrong. You'll see yourself as the victim if you get caught putting your beliefs into action and have consequences. Your only motivation will be to avoid the "unfair" consequences of being caught.

And this is why criminalizing self defense is always wrong-- it empowers those who believe they are right to violate certain people in certain situations. It is also why no one has the right to violate the right of association for any reason-- if someone holds beliefs you don't like, you should be able to choose to avoid them.

Ultimately, it is why it is best to not hold beliefs that justify violating others in the first place. They damage your mind, they will convince you to act on them, you'll believe you did nothing wrong when you do, and (hopefully) there will be consequences, regardless.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Year-end subscriber-raiser

Many sites and blogs are doing year-end fundraisers, and I guess I'm ready to do the same. Just a bit differently, though.

I'm looking for 5 new subscribers. I'm not setting a dollar amount goal, just a goal of 5 new subscribers of whatever level: Paypal or Patreon.

If you'd like to join with me, please do. Or, if you know someone else who might be interested, pass the suggestion along to them.

And, as always, thank you to my subscribers, my donors, and all my readers.

Progress report:     5 to go to meet the goal.

Progress report 2:  4 to go to meet the goal.

Progress report 3:  4 to go to meet the goal.

Progress report 4:  4 to go to meet the goal.

Final report: Thank you to my new subscriber. I had hoped for more, but I appreciate what I get.

How are they good? They aren't.

(The video linked in the picture, just in case you're interested: link)

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Back to the library

After my daughter's friend was murdered in the library, she has not wanted to go back. It's just not the library without Miss Krissie there.

But this weekend we did go back for their annual Christmas program.

Last year, the Library's Christmas program was so pitiful that I wondered if they were losing interest in continuing the tradition. This year they put a lot of effort into it, probably in an attempt to draw people back.

My daughter was still not comfortable there. She wasn't the only one.

I wasn't comfortable because of the heavy police presence. It's nothing but security theater, and is worse than useless. No one is made safer by having cops are around.

I was disappointed, although not surprised, by their new "We don't care if you die!" signage. Why do fools always ramp up the failure after suffering the consequences of their failure? It's a discouraging human trait, I suppose.

I love libraries. I hate that they are so often funded through theft, rather than voluntarily. They could be so much more than they are allowed to be if they were freed from the burden of government control. And, although almost all "private" businesses in the area also fall prey to the superstitious belief that signage empowering murderers is somehow "helpful", government facilities are the only ones "Constitutionally" prohibited from doing so. A lot of difference it makes.

All in all, going to the library just wasn't a positive experience.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit