Responsibility is your choice

It is your primary responsibility to not violate the rights of others; to not archate. Every other responsibility flows from that one.

I can't force you to shoulder your responsibility, but neither am I obligated to protect you from the consequences of ignoring it. Your choice; your mistake.

When you violate someone, you may face consequences you don't like. It could even result in your death.

It doesn't matter if you claim a "job" gives you the "authority" to do what you do. It doesn't. You are abandoning your responsibility if you violate anyone's liberty. You don't have the right to do so. That right doesn't exist. Nor does that kind of "authority". You are just a bad guy. An archator.

Responsible individuals respect liberty. They don't violate the rights of others. Responsible people don't govern or support government. Not ever.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Why not be a psychopath?

Those who believe there's no basis for ethics without a god, or at least a religion, can't see there's a downside to violating others absent a supernatural referee.

I understand why they might feel that way. It's the same sort of thinking behind acceptance of government courts and police. Why not be a thug if no one is looking over your shoulder and holding you accountable?

If there is no one keeping cosmic score, why not just go through life using other people as you see fit? A completely "me first" attitude in everything?

Because while it often works as a short-term strategy, it falls apart in the long-term. Living this way is unsustainable. In fact, governing is the only way to survive such a strategy beyond the short-term. Live completely free of regard for others, on your own, and you're soon dead. Not only will people defend themselves from you, not only will people soon refuse to deal with you in any way, but other people will adopt your strategy and use it against you. Society beyond the rudimentary would be impossible. This life plan is self-defeating.

Ethics is a real thing and doesn't require a god or State to enforce it. It arises spontaneously out of living among other humans who have the same needs, desires, and feelings as you do. Your behavior has consequences.

Nothing's perfect-- some people will always seem to get away with crimes against others-- neither god nor government will change that. In fact, government makes it more likely that they will get away with it longer than otherwise. Government protects the bad guys from the consequences of their behavior much more than it protects the innocent. It always has and always will.

This illustrates why government-- the State-- is the opposite of society, not a synonym.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Not all molestation is sexual

All cops are molesters. Not all of them are necessarily sexual predators.

Sure, that Oklahoma cop who was raping women he pulled over was a sexual molester. So were those New York City cops who raped the girl then tried to say it was consensual. And the Texas cops who "searched for drugs" inside the woman's vagina after she was pulled over. And... well, I could go on with thousands of examples. Probably not all cops have sexually molested people, but all cops are molesters. Worse, they are paid stolen money to molest people.

Your "polite" neighbors believe cops have a legitimate function: to molest bad guys by stopping them from hurting people or violating property. And if they actually did that without molesting the rest of us, I wouldn't be completely against policing. But they don't-- because they can't. Molestation is built into the "job" and is a result of every encounter with them.

"Molest" simply means "to bother, interfere with, or annoy". You can do that non-sexually. And that is most definitely what cops do. Cops are molesters. Not every cop is molesting at every moment, but all cops molest or they get fired for "not doing their job".

Traffic stops are molestation.
Drug "arrests" are molestation.
Weapon "arrests" are molestation.
Property code enforcement is molestation.
"Checkpoints" are molestation.
Having a cop driving down the road behind you is molestation, because it is a threat to your life, liberty, and property.
A cop walking up to you and demanding ID is molesting you.

Add that word to your toolkit of descriptors for police officers, along with "pig"*, badgescum", "jabbut" (JBT/jack-booted thug), "reaver", "Blue Line Gang member", "Popo", "Hero", "Registered Liberty Offender", "Barney", etc.

When you see a cop, think "Molester".

.

 *I don't like calling cops "pigs", because pigs are intelligent, sensitive, useful animals of value. Totally unlike cops.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Cornered by bigots

When someone threatens me, personally, I get angry. If they are within striking distance I may violently defend myself from them.

And, make no mistake, those demanding more anti-gun "laws" are threatening me personally. They are threatening to violently attack, rob, and enslave me... and murder me if I resist. That's what "laws" are: a threat.

But no one has had the guts to do it to my face, even when directed at me. As is the nature of these anti-liberty cowards, they do it while hiding behind screens, hundreds of miles away. They still make me angry and trigger my "fight or flight" response.

The danger to them is there is nowhere left to fly to. The anti-liberty bigots have closed off the entire freakin' planet. "Pro-gun" places like Texas impose anti-gun "laws" no civilized place would ever tolerate-- and the anti-liberty bigots whine that it's not enough. It's never enough. That leaves fighting as the available option.

I understand the sentiment of "Kill 'em all" even though I disagree with it in practice.

I'll continue to use my words to try to show them the error of their ways and to make it clear I gave them every chance to do the right thing and get their filthy government off my rights. But I know what it's going to come to. Sooner or later. It's only a matter of time.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Prescription for curing mass murders

I've said it in the past, and I'll say it again:
If you want to decrease actual crime, particularly mass murders, you've got to raise the cost. You need to raise the cost high enough that almost no one decides it's worth the trouble, since they'll not get what they want out of it anyway.

You can't do that with "laws"; bad guys never believe they are going to get caught. The most effective way to raise the cost of being a bad guy, in a way the bad guys will actually understand, is to make it more likely they'll die during their attack-- before they accomplish their goal of killing others.

You do that by doing everything you can to encourage everyone-- and I mean EVERYONE-- to be armed and prepared to stop an attacker in his tracks wherever one strikes. Yes, that means you will have to ignore counterfeit "laws". Or you can try to force the anti-liberty bigots to abolish their anti-gun "laws", but good luck with that.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Valuing collective above all unsustainable

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 24, 2018)

Like most people, I enjoy fiction; books, movies, and television programs. Fiction can be entertaining, educational, and inspiring as long as you don't confuse it with reality.

As a child I loved re-runs of "Gilligan's Island" and dreamed of being marooned on a deserted tropical island.

The older I became, the less realistic their situation seemed.

The lack of variety in their diet, the constant parade of accidental transient visitors who never sent back help, the clothing which never wore out, and the near magical technology built from coconut shells by people unable to build a simple boat. The better I understood reality, the more I needed to suspend disbelief to enjoy the show. Eventually it became too much.

Now I prefer things which are a bit more realistic, unless I want to let my brain snooze.

This is why I can't buy into politics. Especially the socialism promoted by both of America's "mainstream political parties".

Socialism-- which comes down to the belief that people with political power can dictate how, or if, individuals will be allowed to use their property and the products of their labor -- isn't realistic or sustainable. It is based on poor understanding of how things are connected, and a denial of human nature. It can't work without violently forcing everyone to comply and forbidding anyone to opt out; an idea so good it must be imposed by threats of death.

One popular idea currently pushed by one faction of socialists is what they call "Universal Basic Income"-- money paid to everyone for simply being alive. This ignores basic universal economic reality in favor of wishful thinking.

Where does this money come from? Coconuts? Is it stolen through acts of taxation, or is it counterfeited by the Federal Reserve? Either way, it will make the economy worse and hurt the people who believe they will benefit. It will cause greater inflation, because eventually-- and probably fairly quickly-- this basic income level will become the new "totally broke" as prices rise in reaction. People will then demand more and the cycle will repeat. That's without even taking into account the economic damage of new taxes or the accelerated influx of debased money.

Any ideology which places a collective-- be it a nation, society, or political party-- above the individual is the same. It is unsustainable; based on a happy fiction which can't work in the real world, no matter how desperately people wish it could. Welcome to Gilligan's Planet.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Government "ethics"

That's a phrase that amuses and bewilders me: government ethics.

How can a criminal gang have ethics? Now, I would argue they can have morals-- worthless, harmful morals. But, actual ethics? No.

What kind of "ethics" leaves room for "taxation", kidnapping, mass murder, prohibition, slavery, and other forms of archation? Only government "ethics".

You might as well be talking about the ethics of muggers or child molesters.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Why "archation"?

Why create and use the word "archation"? Why not just say "aggression"?

Because aggression is part of it, but not the whole of it. There is also theft or other violations of property.

Archation is anything you don't have a right to do. Anything that someone looking to rule you might feel entitled to do to you.

As you can see, aggression doesn't cover it all.

Some people have tried to tell me that theft is aggression. I don't believe it is, partly because others have argued against this, and I see their point. You can steal without resorting to physical force, which is what aggression is to me. You can defraud. You can peacefully trespass. Those are violations of property rights, but not very "aggressive" ones. You still have no right to do them. It is still archation.

Many people try to justify government by saying it isn't aggression because you could leave, or they'll resort to the silly "consent of the governed" thing. I guess I am not governed because I don't consent. Right? I might be murdered for my rejection of being governed, but I am not governed. I might do some things that those who govern-- those who archate-- want me to do. But that's not being governed. If I hand over some money to a mugger because I have weighed the costs of complying or not complying and found compliance to be the smart choice this time, then he has archated. If I choose to comply with a particular "law" because I have weighed the options and decided that complying is the smarter choice in this moment, I have been archated against.

You have no right to initiate force or violate property rights. You have no right to govern, murder, rob, rape, trespass, defraud, or kidnap. Those acts are all the same, ethically. You have no right to archate.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

School, not guns, is the problem

Allowing government schools to continue to exist is a safety nightmare.

First of all, you are putting your kids in the hands of cowards and ethical cripples. They ban the decent people from being armed, which encourages evil losers to treat the school as a shooting gallery. If you work for or in a school, and you don't fight against the "no guns/weapons" policies you are part of the problem. If you help those policies be enforced you are so much worse.

Schooling is not synonymous with education, and it's long past time to banish that religious delusion. Calling for government schools-- kinderprisons-- to be abolished completely isn't speaking out against education; it is placing education over indoctrination.

But, if someone wants their kids to be indoctrinated into the statist religion in a state-administered shooting gallery, that's their business-- as long as they don't force others to pay for it, and they don't try to impose compulsory attendance "laws". Truancy is not ever wrong and can't be a real crime.

"School shootings" are only a symptom of a destructive government program which has been destroying individuals and families for much too long. It's past time to make them go away, or at least limit the damage they do to those who are too ignorant to care. Death to kinderprison!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Now, on Medium (too)

Just a heads-up if you are interested.

I've started blogging over on Medium.

I will recycle some of my posts from this blog, I will share some (maybe all) of my new posts from this blog, I will write some new content which probably won't be shared here, and I will write about things other than liberty over there. You've been warned!

This will remain my main blog unless I start making so much money on Medium that it makes sense to make it my main blog. I don't see that happening, but I've got to try to find a way to make this whole writing thing pay a little more, and this is just my latest attempt.

Wish me luck (or follow me over there, too).

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Government- a deadly dead end

A representation of a fitness landscape

Government works. Sort of.

It's not the worst thing to happen to humans, but as a "success" it is a local, less than optimal, situation. But it was good enough that humans who governed each other were still able to survive and reproduce.

Government occupies what is known as a "fitness peak"; a local area of "good enough" (for now) in a range of possibilities.

Following the path up the mountain that signifies government leads to a dead end. You get to the peak, and you think it works, but you can't go any higher. You can't do better by doing more of the same. Maybe it even worked better than where you were. But as the sea rises, you realize you are trapped on an island that will soon vanish beneath the waves. You need to abandon your disappearing peak. And you can, but not without doing something which fearful, cowardly statists refuse to do.

You have to move from your suboptimal peak to a higher peak, and you can't get there without coming down from your mountain and crossing a valley. A valley which may already be flooded, and if not, will be flooded soon; maybe even before you can fully cross it. But you have no choice-- the human species has no choice.

Doing what is necessary is scary, especially to those whose blinders prevent them from seeing that they are at a dead end, and there are higher peaks, offering greater fitness, just a short journey away.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The Little Engine that could, but chose not to

There once was a Little Engine.
It wasn't the biggest or the strongest engine, but it was a good little engine. It loved being useful and it loved helping when it could. This didn't pay well, and the Little Engine often ran short of fuel.
The Little Engine was told about a job for which a train was needed. A job that paid well. A job that was said to be helpful; hauling government troops and their equipment over a steep mountain to their next destination.
It wouldn't be an easy job but would push the Little Engine to its limits.
All its friends encouraged the Little Engine to do what they knew it was capable of. They knew it could get that job hauling troops over the mountain, even though the mountain was very steep, and usually only much more powerful engines did the job. They knew the Little Engine had heart, and a reserve of strength. The engine's friends kept saying "We know you can do it! It's a respectable job; supporting the troops! It pays well! You can do it! You can do it!"
But the little engine knew that the troops were armed government employees, used to impose the opinions of political bullies on others, by breaking things and killing people in places they have no right to be. The little engine knew that the troops were paid by a type of theft called "taxation", and that the pay for hauling the troops over the mountain would be obtained the same way.
The Little Engine had ethics and principles.
The Little Engine knew it could, but knew it shouldn't.
The Little Engine refused the job and was shut down by the federal government for being a suspected terrorist sympathizer.

The End.

Paraphrased from Jurrasic Park's Dr. Ian Malcolm:
"Humans were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Umbridges galore

Dolores Umbridge-
famous fictional pecksniff

There is no difference between those who use their distaste for some forms of consensual sex, drugs, or "immigrants" [sic]-- and their drive to "protect the culture" or morals from those things by way of government or "laws"-- and those who do the same thing with guns. None.

The "cost to society" excuse is a handy tool for both types of anti-liberty bigot to use against rights they don't like.

It's just a game of justifying being a control freak.

And I see it a lot. One type of statist wants to protect society from some liberties, while other statists want to protect society from the other liberties. Until there is no liberty left-- and the moralizing bullies still will never be content. It's never enough for them.

I realize they believe they are protecting fragile order from the chaos of people just "doing whatever they want, with no regard to consequences". They'll admit as much. The problem is "just doing whatever they want, with no regard to consequences" applies identically to the control freaks and anti-liberty bigots. They are what they rail against. Too much order is as deadly as too much chaos.

Liberty is never up to their approval. Thank goodness!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Governments are a net negative

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 17, 2018)

A great many people are upset because President Trump is claimed to have observed that many places around the world are, shall we say, "less than ideal". Of course, being Donald Trump, he is claimed to have used a colorful metaphor to describe those places. It is honest, but not polite.

His detractors see racism in this observation, which isn't surprising since they are the same people who see racism around every rock and hear it in every word. I don't see racism, but I do see denial.

The harsh truth is there are many places around the globe fitting this description. They can have a negative effect on the ethics and intelligence of those who live there.

Trump is, however, unlikely to admit what usually creates those conditions. It isn't the people who live there. In almost every instance, the horrible conditions are primarily the fault of the governments the people in those places are burdened with; the states they live under.

Obviously, in some cases the residents chose the government, but normally they didn't. Did you personally choose any of the governments-- not just people who hold some government positions-- which impose themselves on your life? I didn't think so. How much blame do you want to accept for the actions of any of the governments around you? How much should you accept? Unless you support one or more of those governments or their policies, I don't hold you personally responsible for the atrocities they commit, or the conditions which result.

This brings up another guilty party, largely responsible for the conditions mentioned..

In many cases a place is "less than ideal" because of acts committed by the U. S. government (usually through its military) against the people, society, infrastructure, and resources of the foreign land. It's extremely dishonest to wreck up a place, then insult the victims over the mess you made of their home. And to then complain when the people leave and look for a new home is downright evil.

Of course, governments thrive on chaos, and refugees create chaos, so creating refugees is a win for government. No matter which side of the issue they pretend to be on.

This illustrates why governments shouldn't have "immigration policies" to begin with, and shouldn't be able to get away with going around the world killing people and breaking stuff. Governments are a net negative on the world. Don't add to the misery and chaos by supporting any of them.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

To "advocate"

No one has the right to advocate the initiation of force or property violations. If you are libertarian, this is something you know. But, what exactly does it mean to "advocate" something?

It doesn't just mean to believe it, or to even accept it. It doesn't mean to discuss it with others as a hypothetical possibility.

Dictionary.com says to advocate means "to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly"

It means to try to convince others to do something you want them to do. This can be good or bad.

It's not a "free speech" issue once you start advocating that someone do something they have no right to do.

In spite of "legal" opinions to the contrary, you do have a right to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but you have no right to light the flames and then claim you didn't do anything wrong, it was the fire's fault. Advocating archation is lighting the flames of archation in weak hearts and minds. You have no right to do so.

Sure, if you are trying to talk someone into violating life, liberty, or property, and they actually do it, the bulk of the guilt is on them for being the ones who chose to archate. However, you had no right to advocate what you did, so you share the blame.

If this weren't the case Hitler would be innocent of any wrongdoing. After all, he probably never killed anyone himself, he simply advocated that others do so. Rather effectively. So did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Bill Clinton, George Bush (both of them), Obama, and every other tyrannical mass murderer throughout history. Even if any of them did personally kill some people, the numbers of those killed because they advocated it is orders of magnitude greater.

This doesn't mean I want "laws" used against you, or to see you punished if you advocate archation. It means I am warning you that people have the right to defend themselves from you when you are out there advocating their violation. You are warned.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Substituting passion for reason (abortion)

I've said in the past that I don't "like" abortion, but I'm not passionate about the issue. People who are passionate about it make me uncomfortable, and anytime I write about it I know I'm inviting passionate people to descend upon me. Thus I don't mention it often.

I do not believe a zygote has rights-- you can't violate it. I believe a full-term baby does have rights, even though it isn't capable of exercising many of them yet. I believe those things as strongly as I believe gravity is a real force which I can depend on to be consistent, but I can't think of a way to prove it so I can't be 100% positive.

That means I believe somewhere along the path from zygote to blastula to embryo to fetus to baby, this living tissue- the zygote into the future, undergoing continual cell division- becomes a human. Not just human tissue or a unique human genetic thing, but A Human with human rights no one has the right to violate. And I don't know how to know where that happens so my position would be to err on the side of assuming rights earlier rather than later.

I do absolutely believe pregnant women have every human right.

It seems to me that rights could probably be said to correlate to nervous system function in some way. Yes, I know this opens the door to debating how functional a human's brain must be before I would say they have rights. And, like all the rest of this, I don't know.

This lack of knowing is why I can't be passionate about it. It's why I'm not going to go hard against others for their opinion, whichever way they believe. I'm not going to argue very hard for my opinion on the topic. Because, no matter how passionate you are on either side, it is an opinion (not based on enough facts) you are passionate about. You don't know, even if you believe you do. No one does. It depends on subjective definitions and assumptions. It leads to absurd declarations from both sides when passion gets involved.

And, usually, it leads to calls to make something "illegal". I don't believe it's ever right to get government or its "laws" involved in anything.

If you are passionate about the topic, on either side, do what you feel you must. Just don't expect much support or attention from me.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Rights" you can't have

You don't have the right to archate. No one does. No one can. Nothing can create such a right. Not wishes, not public opinion, not a "need", not fear, nothing.

This means you have no right to murder, to steal, to govern, to "tax", to rape, to commit prohibition, to enslave, to commit acts of "gun control", to shoot up a crowd, to set up "checkpoints", to trespass, to legislate, to do anything which in any way violates someone's property rights or initiates force against them.

If you do any of those things, people have an absolute right to defend themselves from you. Again, you can't get rid of that right just because it makes you unhappy.

This doesn't change due to your "job", popularity, position, or any one-sided government document.

I will never knowingly or intentionally advocate anything which would be archation. I am human, and I have feelings, and I sometimes might let feelings get the better of me. But I have no right to archate, nor to advocate for archation. It's just the way it is, like it or not.

And I'm OK with that.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

I want school shooters to die

I want school shooters (and library shooters) to die.

Not by lethal injection or other types of ritual revenge, but in the act. Killed by an armed bystander. And I want it to happen every single time. I want them to die.

And not only them, but anyone who tries to murder. Regardless of whether they wear a hoodie or camo or a badge or a chicken suit. I want them to die.

I want them to die whether they are using a pistol, a rifle, a knife, a brick, a fist, a 2X4, or a "law" as their weapon of choice. If they attack anyone with the intent to cause serious harm or death, I want them to die.

I don't care if they are killed while shooting at innocent people in a crowded place, or while kicking in the door of a home at 3 A.M. with guns drawn while looking for "drugs" with or without a warrant. I want them to die.

Anything that makes it less likely that they will be killed is something I can't support.
Anything that makes it more likely that their victims can kill them and stop the attack is something I can probably support. I want them to die.

Those who advocate "gun control" are on the side of the murderers who I want to die. They are protecting the bad guys.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Dawkins' religious error

And I'll go further than that, since I was severely limited by Twitter's character count. Here's the link to the tweet, in case you're interested.

Taking away someone's "Comfort Blanky" is also something you have no right to do. For the same reason you have no right to take someone's gun, house, car, money, or any other property. You have no right to violate the property rights of others. Period. It's a right that can't exist. Not seeing this is a blind spot caused by religious belief.

I'm sorry if you are offended that I said "thoughts and prayers" are useless. I know that's not quite true-- at the minimum they make people feel better when there's nothing real they can do about a bad situation. And, they can let a hurting person know (if they are informed about them) that someone cares and wishes they could help. I'm unconvinced about any usefulness beyond that, but would love to be proved wrong But I needed some common ground with Dawkins here.

I know Dawkins is famous for his atheism, but you and I know he isn't an atheist because he still believes in The State due to his superstitious belief in "authority" (new link, hope it works now). You can't be an atheist, by definition, if you believe in any gods whatsoever and believe in any religion. Statism is not only a religion, it's the most popular religion on the planet by a wide margin.

I already see people agreeing with Dawkins because they don't understand rights in the slightest, and one guy even believes someone once took away my "right" to own slaves- a right that can't exist any more than a right to steal can exist. People are dumb. I am an abolitionist. I know slavery is always wrong, no matter how you dress it up. It is a violation of life, liberty, and property. Anti-liberty bigots (and theft advocates) are the ethical equivalent to slavers. No, that's not quite right. Statists ARE slavers.

Religious beliefs can make you advocate atrocities if you refuse to think critically. Don't make Dawkins' error.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Character"?

Someone sent me a video recently, extolling the "character" of a few individuals. On a couple of the cases, I completely agreed. They had character, and showed it.

On one, though, I'm confused as to why it was claimed he had "character" worth celebrating.

What is the definition of "character"? Well, here are those that seem relevant:

3. moral or ethical quality 

4. qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: It takes character to face up to a bully.  

5. reputation: a stain on one's character.  

6. good repute.

The person in question is going through terminal brain cancer, and has survived years beyond his "expiration date". And in apparent good spirits due to his religious beliefs. But that's where I have a problem. If he lacked those comforting beliefs, yet was still in good spirits, I would be more inclined to praise his character. As it is, it seems to be his beliefs sustaining him, not his character. Or am I wrong?

Are your beliefs the same as character?

In any case, I wish him well. I wouldn't wish his disease on anyone who wasn't violating the innocent (but I wish it on all who do violate others as a matter of course, especially when a consequence of "just doing my job").

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit