"The right to not be shot"

The anti-gun bigots are busy trying to portray their activism as support for "the right to not get shot". They lie.

Yes, you have a right to not get shot (as long as you aren't archating, anyway) because no one has a right to shoot the innocent. That's not being disputed.

The thing is, your right to not be shot doesn't give you the right to violate other people's rights, and when you do, they have the right to shoot you. They may choose not to, but you're a fool to count on it.

If someone is not threatening to attack you, you have no right to use violence against him, including the violence of government, to violate his right to own and to carry any kind of weapon he wants, openly or concealed, everywhere he goes, without seeking permission of anyone, ever.

His mere possession of a tool doesn't threaten you, and if you feel threatened by it, you are a pathetic, weak coward. You repel me.

The right to violate other people's equal and identical rights can't be created. It doesn't exist if you repeal the Second Amendment. It doesn't exist no matter how many unethical, illegal, harmful anti-gun "laws" get imposed, enforced, or upheld by the Supreme Courtjesters. It doesn't exist no matter how cowardly you are, how loud you shriek, or how much the other anti-liberty bigots fawn over you.

By demanding that government violate your neighbors, you are threatening them with violence, giving them a right to shoot you in self-defense if they determine the threat to be credible. And if they do, I will not grieve over your corpse. I'm done with disgusting parasites like you.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

A cheap way to help

I've mentioned that I'm now also posting on Medium. Here's a little more of how (I think) that works.

For $5 per month you get access to everything I post there (which includes things I don't post here) as well as everything everyone else posts on Medium. All for that $5 per month. It seems like kind of a good deal.

Now, I think that in order for me to make any money off the deal you have to read my posts and also "clap" for my posts (which you can apparently do as many times per post as you want-- but I'm not really sure).
You can also be a "fan" and/or follow me on there, and maybe that also figures into how much I get paid.

It's a pretty affordable way to reward writers you like. The site leans "left statist", but you can help promote those of us who don't.

I do know that for the past month I got $14.86 from Medium, and every little bit helps.

.

Taking make-believe too far

Lawmakers are like authors of speculative fiction. They create imaginary worlds in their minds, then put them on paper for others to read. But their worlds-- their words-- are still only works of fiction.

Nothing they write can create the right to forbid tools of self-defense, or create zones where they are forbidden.
Nothing they write can make it wrong to grow or consume a plant.
Nothing they write can make it OK to require a license for any activity.
Nothing they write makes their fictional world real.

But, there we have a problem.

Cops-- which includes police officers, sheriffs and their deputies, armed federal employees, ICE agents, or anyone who works for a government and commits armed law enforcement-- are like cosplayers who take the fiction too seriously. Seriously enough that they take its cues to commit kidnapping, theft, rape, murder, and any other form of molestation they can get away with.

This is why no matter how bad congress, city councils, judges, presidents, or any other government extremist lawgiver might be, cops are always worse. Cops are the foundational problem-- well, that and the belief in "authority" that allows them to get away with it.

Cops take make-believe too far.

Cops are the real bad guys.
Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face.
Without them, the fiction of the lawmakers couldn't hurt anyone.
Cops can never be good guys, and must always be exposed for what they are.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Points of ignorance

There are many people I appreciate for their contributions in some areas, such as science or reason, while still rolling my eyes at their blatantly ignorant statism.

I actually heard one saying that he discarded his "woo" beliefs one at a time, until he had no more. Yet, he identifies as a "progressive"/"liberal" and he is an anti-gun bigot. So, he still has at least one demonstrably false "woo belief", and probably more (considering the correlation of "progressive beliefs" with other statist nonsense). So, while he may be credible in some areas, he is not credible when it comes to how people should behave toward others. Not in the slightest.

I don't expect a person to be an expert in everything, but when you are completely ignorant in some area, you have a responsibility to not open your yap and ignorantly preach at others.

It's why I respected Stephen Hawking's contributions to science, but discounted his opinions about government. In one area he was an expert; in the other he was as ignorant as any gutter drunk. And I could point out example after example.

If I want to know how to brain tan buckskin I don't go to the guy who is an expert computer hacker. If I want computer advice, I don't go to the guy who knows how to brain tan. I'm not necessarily saying someone couldn't know both, but if the brain tan guy tells me I need to cast the demons out of my laptop to fix it, I'm going to see that he might know buckskin, but he doesn't know computers. You need to evaluate the advice on its own merits, or lack thereof.

It's the same with someone who understands cosmology or any other branch of actual science, but still believes you need to molest each other to have a functioning society. Ignorance is ignorance.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Manipulated by "Russians"?

I am constantly amused by the concerns over "Russians" manipulating v*ters in the last (LOL. I wish) presidential election.

If you v*ted for a ruler, it is clear someone manipulated you successfully. Why is it somehow "worse" if it was "the Russians" rather than Google, FOX, Facebook, or MSNBC? Propaganda and manipulation is the same whatever the source.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Stand up for liberty, not slavery

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 21, 2018)

A defining trait of libertarians is our opposition to all slavery; we are abolitionists.

Libertarians were among the loudest of the Nineteenth Century's voices against the enslavement of people of African descent. Libertarians are the lone voices against slavery today, because most people believe slavery was abolished rather than realizing it was expanded to include everyone.

Slavery violates life, liberty, and property. No one can have the right to own another person. No one can have the right to force someone to work for the benefit of others. Not even if the laborer is allowed to keep a percentage. Even the most brutal slavers of the past fed, housed, and clothed the slaves if they wanted them to survive to labor another day.

Anti-gun laws are slavery. Slaves, not trusted to make their own decisions, must depend on the master for protection. Free people choose to take responsibility for their own defense and are accountable if they harm an innocent person. Supporting gun control-- which is, in reality, people control-- is to support slavery.

Drug laws punish people for exercising self-ownership. You either recognize every person owns her own body, or you don't. If a person isn't free to self-medicate however she wants, she is not free. Freedom is dangerous, and people will make bad choices. Sometimes their choices destroy them, and sometimes their choices destroy others. You can't have the right to control other people because tragic things might happen. This is slavery.

Taxation forces people to work for others; to hand the fruits of their labors to someone who didn't earn them. It doesn't matter how much the worker is allowed to keep if armed government employees place a prior claim on the earnings. Slavery and theft can't be made right by writing laws.

Those who supported slavery in the past justified their position by claiming the slaves wouldn't survive without masters. Those who advocate government intervention today make the same claim. They are still wrong. One tragedy of slavery is that, without practice, people lose their ability to think, plan ahead, and make good choices. Removing the chains might mean some people will make choices which will lead to disaster. This gets worse the longer their liberty is violated "for their own good".

Slavery of any amount is wrong. No one ever has the right to enslave another, no matter how they might justify it. Be an abolitionist and stand up for individual liberty, even when it scares you. End slavery now.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Common sense gun laws (on Medium)

Trying to "trick" the Medium anti-gun bigots into reading something sensible.

.

School indoctrinates and promotes ignorance

If you still need evidence of how harmful kinderprison ("public" [sic] school) is, the recent anti-liberty activism by "students" should convince you.

If you need more evidence, look at the percentage of former inmates who are die-hard statists.

Kinderprison kills minds. Of course, this is what government needs.

The lack of skepticism about kinderprison shows how damaging it is. Belief in the legitimacy of governing others is more clear evidence. You don't need anything else, but you still have the overwhelming ignorance (about every critical subject) and lack of literacy as icing on the cake.

Kinderprison prevents education and it needs to die. It is hundreds of years past due. Civilization can't afford to allow it to continue.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Follow me on Medium

Help me earn money while countering the anti-liberty, anti-gun nonsense being promoted on Medium. Follow me there and give me claps (plural... the good kind only, please!) And do the same for other pro-liberty writers who are struggling on the site.

Thanks.

.

Prisons are stupid and wrong

I hate prisons and imprisonment.

"But you don't want criminals running free, do you? What about the children?"

I don't want to be robbed to fund caging people who rob. That's stupid in the extreme.

Obviously, it is evil to cage a person who has only violated some counterfeit "law", but prisons, and the punishment fetishists who support them, make no distinction.

And what of those who legitimately harmed the innocent with an act of negligence or carelessness, rather than through ill intent? I don't see how this can be considered a crime, and I don't want them caged, either.

If you lock someone away as a result of an accident that the State has decided was a "crime", you've shut the barn door after the horse ran away. Worse than that, you've locked the horse out of the barn and thrown it to the wolves. The horse will either be eaten, or it will become a wolf in order to survive. This is why prisons are actually Criminal University; training facilities to teach the socially rejected how to commit more and worse actual crimes. Prisons are a net negative.

I don't even approve of caging actual murderers and robbers, thinking it's better to leave them in a society who knows who they are and what they did. And, yes, I mean letting their crime hang around their neck all the time for all to see, until they are either killed in defense, shunned to death, or have proved they learned their lesson and can live without archating.

I would much rather have criminals running free, and risking being shot by their next intended victim. Or, have them learn to behave due to fear of actual, real-world consequences. The way it is done now is a major load of FAIL. The prison guards are just as bad as those they guard, on an ethical and moral level. The prison administrators are even worse.

If you want to fund them, go ahead. Leave me out of it. Not on my behalf!

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Me, chipmunks, and a startled trail walker

I am frequently disappointed at how unobservant people are, but one time it was really funny.

On this occasion I was dressed in buckskins (as usual) and wandering around while my son was at a Cub Scout event at a park just outside of town. I had gone a ways down a trail and sat down against a tree to watch a family of chipmunks play.

There was a mother and several youngsters living in a stump. The babies were exploring while the mother kept watch over them. When I had walked up and noticed them, the mother chirped a warning, and they all disappeared into the stump. After I had sat for a while, they all came back out. The babies were very curious about me and were soon crawling all over me while their mother had conniptions. I just sat there, still and quiet, letting them explore.

After some time the chipmunks and I heard someone coming down the trail. They all vanished back into the stump. Soon a woman came up the trail and as she approached, looking right at me, I said "Hi".

She yelped and jumped a foot or so into the air. "I thought you were a statue!"

I apologized for startling her, and she continued on down the trail.

Why there would be a statue in the dirt, in full color, in such a place made no sense to me. I think she just didn't register me as human and her mind made up an excuse to explain it.

But I was accustomed to accidentally scaring people (and their dogs) if I let them see me in the woods. So I got to where I just never let them see me, unless I had a reason. It was, occasionally, hilarious.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Statism is weakness of character

Supporting government, and believing it is "necessary", is a sign of weak character. Moral weakness, perhaps-- ethical weakness, for certain.

Recently I saw where someone was told to "go live in the woods" when he said he believed all human interactions should be voluntary and this was why he didn't "do" politics. Really.

So the statist believes that in order to live among other humans, you must believe in molesting each other. Statism is insane, as well as being unethical.

How can a person with a decent character believe that way? They can't.

If you believe in governing others, you need to grow up. You need to face the reality that you are the one who needs to isolate yourself from society. You are the one with the serious psychological issues; not those you scoff at.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

The lies of anti-gun bigots

Lies are all they have.

Recently I saw an old "article" by some bigot who said there were some truths that gun rights supporters would never talk about. Then he started lying.

He correctly pointed out that the Second Amendment doesn't give people the right to keep and bear guns. But instead of recognizing that all it did was make it illegal for government to make up laws concerning guns, he went off on a tangent about "the militia", pretending it was something like the national guard. No, it isn't. That's not even speculative-- the militia is, was, and always will be ALL the people who can carry a gun in defense of their territory. It isn't an exclusive club, and it most certainly isn't associated with government permission. The people who came up with the Second Amendment made that much very, very clear, and the anti-gun bigot is lying when he says anything else.

Here's what someone who wasn't a lying, government-extremist anti-liberty bigot had to say about it:

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

He also shows his ignorance by not knowing what "well regulated" meant when the amendment was written. It doesn't mean what he wishes (tightly controlled by "law"), it means well-practiced. Sorry, Bigot. You don't get an effective militia by tying it to government. Sure, he tries to quote the historical anti-liberty bigot Alexander Hamilton to prop up his argument, but this is like quoting John Wayne Gacy on what it means to be a clown. You don't go to the enemy of truth to find enlightenment about the truth.

So, yeah, he is properly and completely refuted by the facts.

And, yet again, he ignores the fact-- the irrefutable historical fact-- that the right to own and to carry weapons predates the first government and will still exist unchanged long after the last government is forgotten in the mists of time. He still wants to believe it somehow creates a right to belong to a government-controlled "militia". He's an idiot and a liar.

He would probably get offended that I recognize his bigotry for what it is. Someone else recently did; scoffing that I called a spade a spade. Or a bigot a bigot, as the case may be. It is what it is, though. And anti-gun bigots, as a subset of anti-liberty bigots, are nothing but bigots, no matter how pure and enlightened they see themselves as being. They are just filthy bigots. Filthy bigots who lie.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

The responsibility of gun ownership

The human right to own and to carry weapons is absolute. No one has the right, and certainly not the imaginary quality called "authority", to violate that right. Anyone who advocates violating that right, whatever weasel-words they use, is an evil monster.

Of course, that right comes with an iron-clad responsibility: you are responsible for not harming the innocent or their property.

I accept that responsibility. Even the NRA, as weak and wishy-washy as they tend to be on gun rights issues, has always emphasized that responsibility. Anti-gun bigots pretend that gun owners shirk their responsibilities. Some do, but most do not. Very few gun owners avoid the responsibility that goes along with the right to own and to carry weapons.

All anti-liberty bigots reject their own responsibility to respect the rights of others; they reject and ignore their primary human responsibility. Every single one of them, just by "virtue" of being an anti-gun bigot. So what you see on their part is projection: they imagine gun owners are as irresponsible and slimy as they understand themselves to be. They simply can't imagine others are better people than they are, so they assume the worst. It's because they are the worst.

As a gun owner, you don't have the responsibility to surrender your rights just because some evil loser murdered people. You don't have the responsibility to act as though anti-gun bigots, or their demands, are reasonable. You don't have the responsibility to obey counterfeit "laws". You have the responsibility to not harm the innocent. I know you are already living up to your responsibility.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Hooray for smugglers!

Smuggling. What a funny little non-crime. I can't even wrap my mind around any possible way it could be wrong. It's just the act of going around a bully who's standing in your way, wanting to rob you or prevent you from getting products to those who want them.

Here's the "legal definition" of smuggling:

The criminal offense of bringing into, or removing from, a country those items that are prohibited or upon which customs or excise duties have not been paid.

The only wrongs I see there are prohibition and taxation. Those are the acts of the State, not those trying to get around the State. So, yeah, smuggling is an indication of a crime, but not a crime committed by the smugglers.

And there are a lot of other non-crimes like this: "money laundering", "tax avoidance", "evading arrest", "assaulting an officer", etc. "Crimes" that no one would even bother with, except that government and its "laws" have made them necessary as a way to avoid being violated by the State. To all those who commit this kind of "crime", I say Thank you for your service!

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Space thrilling despite government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 14, 2018)

Space exploration thrills me. I've followed Apollo moon landings, Skylab, various Martian landers and rovers, Space Shuttle launches, and every other manned or robotic mission I could watch.

So I got even more excited when private individuals became serious about going to space. The latest feat-- last week's launch of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket, carrying Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster and "Starman" to the asteroid belt-- was amazing.

Many people dislike Musk for making deals with government, and I completely understand their disgust. I share it-- tempered with a dose of harsh reality.

While I would prefer private space travel, free of the stain of tax money, I realize there is no such thing in the real world, yet.

Unless you keep your space project secret, government is going to discover what you're doing and demand you beg for licenses. Refuse, and they will kill you. Such a project is too big to hide, and any test flights will be shot down (if the military jets can catch them) and your launch facility will be invaded and possibly bombed; your other property stolen by government employees "just following orders".

The FAA has no "authority" but has power masquerading as "authority". Unless you can hide from or outrun the hired guns of the State, seeking government permission, for the time being, is probably unavoidable.

But, what about accepting "tax" money to help finance your project? This bothers me about Musk's endeavor.

Yet the part which disappoints me most is that he accepts government payloads, including US military payloads. That's just wrong. Yes, I realize the landscape of the real world in which he must currently operate dictates a certain partnership with those who believe they own the sky and everything above and below it. You buy government favors both by accepting the stolen money and by taking on government as a "paying customer". Otherwise, your business and your life will be destroyed. It doesn't make it right, but how could anyone manage to avoid this?

I would prefer this not be the case. I don't think I could enter into such a "partnership" with government, even knowing it might eventually result in people escaping the grasp of the State. This is part of why I'm not a billionaire, and why Elon Musk is.

Whatever you think of space travel, anything which helps people move off-planet, and out of the reach of governments, will greatly benefit the future of the human species.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Lies cause weakness

American culture, if there is such a thing, is weak and pitiful from decades (or more) of telling lies. And from glossing over lies that are told. Lies always cause weakness.

But the lies are understandable in a way.

Lies feel safe and cozy. Especially when they are told and retold. When the lies bring you together and make you feel a part of a community you have a special place to fit in.

Truth is often lonely and painful. I know.

I wish I could tell the lies and feel accepted and warm. But it wouldn't change the truth. I wish I could say that cops are good guys, that taxation is the price of a civilized society, and that it's good to support government because God tells me to in Romans 13. I wish I could believe in "authority" and that it is for my own good and the good of the children. I wish I could believe government schools are "public" centers of education. That citizenship is a wonderful thing. Those are comforting lies because of the beliefs of those around me. Telling those lies to myself and others would help me fit in and feel welcomed. But they are still lies.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Self-centered and entitled

People with an attitude of entitlement are a drain on the world. A net negative.

I know someone like this. She believes the world and all those in it exist for her convenience. If she wants someone to go out of their way for her, and they dare say "no", her response is "What are you doing that's so important that you can't?" She believes if someone has something they aren't currently using, she should be able to take it if she wants it. The world revolves around her, and yet she despises people she sees as needing to be the "center of attention".

Of course, this is the same attitude held by most government employees.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Fake "responsibilities"

Did you know there are fake responsibilities people will try to guilt you into accepting? It's true.

Such as your "responsibility" to v*te. Or to comply with counterfeit "laws". Or to "pay your taxes".

These fake responsibilities are handy tools for the control freaks. They give them leverage against people whose ethical foundation makes them want to accept their responsibilities while confusing them with lies.

You have the responsibility to not violate the rights of others; to respect their liberty. This includes keeping agreements you voluntarily took part in. You have no responsibility to prop up the State. You have no responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own evil behavior.

Sometimes it takes a lot of work living up to your responsibilities. You certainly don't need to be wasting effort on the fake responsibilities you have been tricked into believing you have. Stick to the real stuff, and leave the fake stuff to the useful idiots.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Armed and dangerous

I support the right of every human to own and to carry a gun. Period. That doesn't mean I trust every armed person. There are some people who simply can not be trusted with guns, even though they have the right to own and carry them and no one has the right to forbid it. Those are separate issues.

I've known some of those who couldn't be trusted with a gun. They are simply too dangerous or unstable to trust. With or without a gun.

A guy who comes to mind was very reckless, spastic, and impulsive. I went out shooting with him once. Only once. Never again. He had no muzzle awareness and wouldn't keep his finger off the trigger. He left town saying it was his intention to join the military-- they deserved the likes of him.

No one who would wear a government uniform can be trusted with a gun-- and that especially applies to cops. I don't trust them with a gun any more than I would trust an angry diseased monkey with a loaded and cocked gun with a hair trigger and no safety. Anyone who would demean themselves enough to become a government tool obviously has serious issues with authoritarianism and aggression.

This doesn't mean I'll ask government to keep guns out of their hands. It means I will consider them dangerous morons and always try to stay away from them. It means I will warn others to be alert around them. This sort of person deserves to be shunned to death unless they grow up and take responsibility-- which would begin with shedding the uniform and making an honest effort at becoming a good guy.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium