Butterscotch the cat

I know it will seem trivial, but I need some donations so I can take my daughter's cat to the vet.

She's sick and my daughter is upset, and I don't know what else to do.

I really hate to ask, because I know it's annoying. If you care to help, thank you.

Added: I started a GoFundMe, just in case you want to follow the updates.

Don't assume others are so pathetic

If you don't like liberty-- if you're scared of it, don't trust it, or don't trust other people with it-- that's fine. Go your own way.

But don't for one second believe that your shortcoming gives you the right to violate the liberty of others. It doesn't. Don't project your flaws on others who may not share them.

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

The cost of dependency

Apparently 5 NYC taxi drivers have recently committed suicide. This is being blamed on Uber and other ride-sharing innovations.

Instead of dropping the taxi business and its precious "medallions" like a rotting gopher, the drivers are killing themselves. Can they not imagine a way of life without their expensive government monopoly? If liberty is killing the taxi monopoly, as they claim, why not adapt and start driving for one of the other options? Why demand a place on the sinking ship?

Government tries to outlaw liberty, but liberty finds a way. You can either adapt or die. And, in some cases, I guess those who don't want to adapt will kill themselves.

"Waaaa! Our government-promised monopoly is dying! I might as well kill myself instead of giving up the teat!"

One of the whiners demonstrated his lack of ethics by saying "... [Uber, et al] should be regulated like taxi cabs." Yep. "I had to do it this way, so I want everyone else violated in the same way I was." It's the statist faith in action.

How about this instead: taxis and ride-sharing services should both be unregulated, except by customer choice.
Anything less is pathetic and statist.

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

The truth about forest fires and Smokey

It seems I have confused or bewildered some people with my comments about Smokey Bear.

The problem is that through Smokey Bear people came to see forest fires as only bad.

And it's simply not true. In fact, this bit of ignorance almost destroyed forests.

Small, frequent forest fires help clean up forest debris. As long as the debris is cleaned out regularly, the fires stay small, fast, and relatively "cool". The bark of healthy trees would get scorched, some dead branches would burn away, and the loose branches and dry underbrush would burn. But the fires wouldn't get hot enough, or stay burning long enough, to burn through the bark of healthy trees to seriously injure or kill them. The fires would keep infestations of tree pests under control, as well, plus many other benefits. Forests evolved under pressure from frequent fires, and recover quickly from the natural renewal process which naturally frequent fires represent.

Then the Forest Circus came along, with Smokey Bear as their anti-fire spokescritter. By focusing on human-caused fires, they convinced people that all forest fires were bad. ("Only YOU can prevent forest fires!")

Well, the truth is human-caused fires serve the same purpose as lightning-caused fires. Not only that, but the Forest Circus actively fought all fires, since "Forest fires are bad, Mmkay?".

So forest fires were artificially reduced in number, but nature finds a way. This allowed flammable debris to build up on the forest floor. Fewer in number meant greater in intensity. When the inevitable fire started, whether caused by humans or something else, the fire raged. It burned hotter and longer due to more fuel available. It burned through the bark of healthy trees, killing them and often adding them to the fuel. The forest fire fighters then airdrop chemicals on the fire and bulldoze firebreaks.

This is all quite a bit worse for the forest than what would have happened if they had just minded their business and let forest fires occur naturally as needed.

Also, pests were able to attack trees unchecked, so more chemicals were used to try to save trees.

The "solutions" are worse than the original problem.

Now, because bureaucrats are so wise, they set prescribed burns, and sometimes let forest fires (which are more deadly due to bureaucratic policies) burn, in the name of healthy forests. Too little, too late.

If they had simply stayed out of it to begin with, it would have just been a lot better.

As always, the solution involves property rights, not government policy or "laws".

This is why Smokey Bear is a government propagandist, not a friend of nature.

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

Navigating around the robots

It's your responsibility to not violate anyone's rights, but beyond that, your responsibilities aren't my business. Certainly nothing I should be lecturing you about. I can't make anyone else accept what I imagine to be their responsibilities no matter how much I might wish to.

If I'm out riding my bike it is my responsibility to not let the cars run over me. I can say it is the other drivers' responsibility to watch out for me, but where will that get me? Dead.

It seems smarter to just imagine all the cars are robotic and unaware of my presence; just moving randomly in some unpredictable way. So I'd better watch out for myself. This is what I try to get my 10 year-old daughter to understand, as well.

It's the same with the rest of life, too. I know I have the responsibility to not archate. I also realize other people have the same responsibility, but may not be aware of it. Even if the knew they might not care. They might enjoy being a mugger or a cop or a "public" [sic] school teacher [sic] and place their feelings, or the money, above their responsibility. I can either get upset that they won't live up to their responsibility, or I can accept it as it is and do my best to navigate around these mindless (from my perspective) robots. Which is likely to enhance my life more?

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

Smokey Bear- enemy agent

When I was a kid I loved Smokey Bear. I had a Smokey Bear pillowcase (which my parents donated to the Smokey Bear museum a few years ago). I had a Smokey Bear bendy rubber toy with a mediocre paint job, probably bought in a tourist trap in Colorado.

I also fell for the propaganda Smokey Bear was created to spread. I love animals and nature and wanted them to be protected. I didn't yet know the forests were being "protected" to death by preventing a natural, essential process. A process that when interfered with makes the problem worse and more destructive. It was quite a shock when I learned the truth.

Smokey Bear and his propaganda campaign illustrate the danger of government perfectly.

Use a memorable way to promote bad policy. The bad policy then causes damage which makes the original problem worse, which causes people to believe government (and its bad policy) is necessary to protect from the consequences of government policy. It's a snake swallowing itself. But it remains effective.

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

Anti-Trump posturing gets old

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 2, 2018- I promise it's not pro-Trump; it's actually anti-anti-Trump while being anti-president in general.)

How can anyone ever be disappointed in a president? It shows unrealistic expectations. Don't people realize that getting to the top of the political heap takes a certain kind of person, and it's not a particularly good kind?

Some presidential actions irritate me more than others. It is the same with anyone, president or not, who believes he has some mystical authority to tell others how to live and backs his opinions with the threat of violence. I won't tolerate such behavior in friends or acquaintances, why would I tolerate it in people I don't even know?

Presidents matter so little to my day-to-day life; I have to go out of my way to notice the new political threats being made against my life, liberty, and property this time around. Each new law or policy is just another link in the "long train of abuses and usurpations".

Still, the posturing of those who make an effort to signal their elitist disdain for President Trump gets old. Especially when they haven't shown every other president the same disdain. It is terribly hypocritical when they screech about the liberty-crushing agenda of one while fawning over the liberty-crushing agenda of the other. You've got to crush liberty in the politically correct way, I suppose.

The "progressive" Trump haters want you to believe they are the sensible ones, while in their minds, the "yokels" who voted for Trump, many of whom still support him, are "ignorant rubes". This is their mantra, to be chanted until they get what they want.

I chuckled recently when I heard a self-identifying liberal refer to liberals as society's "intellectuals". When it suits them, perhaps, but not so much when it doesn't. Supporting bigger, more powerful and intrusive government, in spite of evidence, doesn't reflect well on a person's intellect. It's even worse testimony against their ethics.

I'm also amused at liberals' reactions to Trump's behavior. The "progressives" suddenly became Puritans.

I'm hoping the "get Trump at all costs" crowd has opened a can of worms they'll never be able to close. One good thing which might come from this melodrama is a whittling away at the illusion of legitimacy which has too long surrounded the office of president. If every future president gets the same treatment, or worse, maybe people would stop wanting the job. It could be a path to better times ahead; where people stop looking to politicians as role models, and start taking responsibility for themselves.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Let them think what they will

Someone recently asked a rather personal question about a particular form of resistance, and whether or not I pursue that path. I'm not going to be more specific.

I foolishly answered, but then immediately deleted the response (I know- too late).

I doubt the person is a snitch. Maybe trying to find something to criticize me on. Or testing to see whether I "walk the walk". Those are valid reasons to ask, but that's no excuse to answer. Let people believe what they want about you-- it's nothing to you.

The question made me stop and think, though. I don't generally consider my "contributions" beyond writing, and I simply don't talk about such things in public.

I do my best to live as I believe I should live. Why would I put it out there, trying to make others see why such a course is the right one, then go off and live some other way? I have room for improvement, but I expect that to always be the case.

But don't go around answering questions that shouldn't be answered just because you don't want someone to think you might be a hypocrite. There's no benefit.

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

"Reasonable" statists

It amazes me how reasonable some people can make slavery sound.

They can play the part of the "adult in the room" while advocating mass murder conducted "constitutionally". All they have to do is to mention that it's the law, or that we are obligated to follow the "social contract" or "pay our fair share" and gullible people will nod in agreement and praise them for being so reasonable and responsible.

It is frustrating to me because they aren't being reasonable at all.

No matter how sensible statism sounds, no matter how many people accept it without question as "how the world really works", no matter how "adult" they pretend it is, it is the opposite of reasonable.

Statism is insane. Statists who seem reasonable are like the serial killer who seems rational and calm when they befriend you-- but then makes a stew from your skin and eyeballs.

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

When you mix your religions

It seems to me there is an unacknowledged religion being widely followed in America. It's actually a combination of a couple of very popular religions.

Just as African slaves in the American south may have combined native African religion with Catholicism to create Louisiana Voodoo, all over America many people are combining Christianity with statism and practicing the hybrid religion which results.

It's not really a pure form of either religion, but a horrifying chimera with features taken from both.

I know many of the adherents personally, and see many more of them online and in the media. They are the ones praying for "the troops", with Holy Pole Quilt on display in their churches, urging respect for the police, and excusing any manner of tyranny with Romans 13.

My first instinct is to call this hybrid religion "Patriotic Voodoo", but maybe it should just be shortened to Poodoo.

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

"Rights are just a mental construct"

People who claim rights are "just" a mental construct without any external reality often use that idea to lead into a lecture-- with their very next breath-- promoting their ideas of responsibility; often based on their interpretation of morality.

It goes both ways. If rights are meaningless because they are a non-real mental construct, then so are responsibilities.

Humans are-- more than anything-- the mental animal. That something is a mental construct doesn't mean it isn't real. For humans, nothing is more real. In fact, physical things which people can't fit into a mental construct are often ignored; having no "reality" for most people.

So, yeah, rights are nothing when removed from the human mind, but the same is true for responsibilities. Neither a rock nor a corpse has any rights or responsibilities.

I understand why some people are so opposed to rights while being so adamant about responsibilities, but, like it or not, your primary responsibility is to not violate the rights of others.

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

The Missing Link

If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself.

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

Falling short and missing the mark

I fell short.

In frustration I called a statist a parasite. 

Really, he is much much worse than a mere parasite. I was being gentle. But I still shouldn't have lost my composure with him.

He was making the argument that a cop was right to ticket a man who didn't have a front "license plate", and that the guy deserved it because he broke the "law" and was being a jerk to the nice cop- who then lost his temper.

I had nicely pointed out that such a "law" is counterfeit, and I asked where the cop got this supposed right to stop and molest people over a bit of metal, and where the State got the right to require you pay for and attach this piece of metal.

The guy started in with saying "we" have a Constitution and "laws" that we are required to follow, and ... "we"/"our" "society" "social contract" blah blah blah. He was justifying every kind of law, and any amount of violence to enforce them, with his superstitions and collectivism.

And this was in a liberty-oriented, individualist group.

I should have just walked away and ignored the vermin. But, no, I called it a parasite. Which is true: all statists are parasites to some extent. But it's probably not helpful (in most cases) to point this fact out to them.

So, yeah, I failed. I strive to do better next time.

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

Statists' greatest fear

I can no more imagine being afraid of liberty than I can imagine a Canada goose being afraid of heights.

But that's just me. I know many people are scared out of their minds at the thought of liberty. They fight against it every way they can think of, and work hard to try to make others as fearful as they are.

They misrepresent liberty.
They define it incorrectly.
They dream up all sorts of "what if" scenarios to justify being afraid.

They have a right to feel as they do, but... They are wrong.

If they stopped at having feelings, no one would be hurt but themselves. Yet they never do. They are so cowardly that they use the aggression of the State to enslave everyone else because of their own fears. This goes beyond being pathetic into committing evil. I pity them, but I also understand I can't allow them to have their way with people who aren't as pathetic as they are.

No, I don't think it's OK to shoot every statist you encounter, claiming "self-defense", but I can envision a day where that might end up being the only way to survive and stay out of a cage. I hope these cowards don't keep getting so much of what they want, because if they do, that dark day will eventually arrive. It won't be a good day for anyone if (or when) that happens.

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

Yes, rights can be violated. So?

In a recent podcast, Dilbert's Scott Adams claimed rights are not inalienable because "we can make a law against anything we want".

Partly true, but mostly wrong. You can make a law against anything you want, but if that law violates natural human rights, that "law" is counterfeit. Rights can either be respected or violated. There is no third option.

It is obvious he sees rights as something coming from government; as privileges. Subject to the whims of the majority, or of a minority with deadly power.

Yes, rights can be violated, but that doesn't mean that violating them is a "collective right".

If your desire is to make up laws which violate natural human rights, then of course you are going to promote the idea that rights can be created, doled out, or canceled by law. But this is a lie.

He hates analogies, but one which illustrates the absurdity of his position is that in his world, murder can't be wrong-- you have no right to not be murdered since a murderer could kill you anytime he wants.

"Can" doesn't dictate "should".

His is a superstitious belief about laws and what they are. This is why you judge ideas on their merits, not by who came up with them.

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

Maybe it's time for libertarian countries

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 25, 2018)

Why have there been no libertarian countries? It's a popular question from those skeptical of libertarianism.

On the face of it, it seems a reasonable question. Until you understand what they're asking; then it makes less sense.

How can there be geographic, forced collectives based on voluntary associations and unanimous consent? Coercively voluntary? Enslaved freedom? Where one exists, the other can't. It's like asking why there are no frozen fires.

While libertarianism is essentially personal, there is a political version of libertarianism which would allow government to exist, as long as it is vastly less intrusive. In this case, some historians would dispute the claim of there never having been libertarian countries.

The more individuals respecting life, liberty, and property in an area, the more libertarian the country, regardless of government. Early America, as one example, was pretty libertarian, but inconsistent. Too few residents sufficiently respected the equal and identical rights of all people. The Declaration of Independence is a reflection of better intentions, but just over a decade later they messed up a good thing by writing a constitution; imposing an anti-libertarian government on America. There went the potential.

Libertarians are responsible and don't try to govern, or otherwise violate, their neighbors. When enough people are this responsible a tipping point is reached where the country is largely libertarian. The more libertarian a country is, the more resilient it becomes. Fewer things can go wrong enough to damage it. Alternatively, the less libertarian a country, the more brittle. A foreign or domestic bad guy only needs to seize and use the institutions of governance already in place to defeat the entire country. When none exist to be taken over, every individual must be defeated. It's not worth it.

Contrary to the fears of the skeptics, a libertarian country could provide anything people want. There could be roads, parks, and libraries. The poor could be cared for and people kept safe. Everything provided voluntarily instead of at the barrel of government guns. If you want to make sure only those who paid for a service use it, charge user fees or sell memberships. It would be more ethical, and probably cheaper, than the current system.

Why have there been no libertarian countries? Why have there been no cities on Mars? The time wasn't right. The technology didn't exist. Times change. Whether or not they've existed before, maybe it's time for libertarian countries to happen. I don't know about you, but I'm ready.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Holy Pole Quilt or else!

A guy who lives across the street from my parents assumed I would be on his side.

A new convenience store/truck stop in the area apparently doesn't fly Holy Pole Quilt. This offends the man.

He told me he's going to go in, fill up a basket with expensive items, and when he gets to the register, ask why they aren't flying "The Flag". Then when the cashier says they "aren't allowed to", he's going to leave the full basket and say he can't spend money with them if they can't fly the flag of the country he "fought for".

Ugh. Seriously? Does he only spend money with businesses which prominently display Holy Pole Quilt? I don't remember one flying over most of the grocery stores in the area, Walmart being the exception.

This guy is a die-hard statist and militarist. He was sent to Vietnam as a youngster to murder (or support murderers) for the US government's interests. Unlike many others, this experience only deepened his worship of The State. He has a flagpole in the middle of his front yard, with Holy Pole Quilt illuminated by lights at night. He told me he's making soldier cut-outs to put in front of the pole, along with a big sign of statist propaganda about soldiers and "freedom". There's no doubt where his loyalties lie. And yet, he assumes I agree with him?

He reads my newspaper columns and often tells me how much he enjoys them. Is he reading into the columns what he wants to see, or am I really that bad at communicating?

Just so you know, I don't go around looking for fights. I didn't say a word to the guy about his misguided assumptions or horrifying religion. I may not have even rolled my eyes. I also didn't encourage him or agree with him in any way.

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

Public service notice

If I cuss, you'd better run.

😜

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

Karma? Nah

I don't believe in karma nor anti-karma (what some express as "no good deed goes unpunished").

This frees me to do the right thing for the right reasons without the taint of selfishness or unnecessary fear.

I'm not expecting reward or punishment for doing the right thing, and if I do the wrong thing any punishment is deserved. It's somewhat liberating.

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

Wrongness is wrong because...

Murder is wrong because it violates an individual's rights.

Rape is wrong because it violates an individual's rights.

"Gun control" is wrong because it violates an individual's rights.

There is really no difference in the wrongness of those wrongs.

These things aren't wrong because they are illegal and aren't right when they are "legal".
They aren't wrong because people agree they are wrong.
They don't stop being wrong if a majority stops believing they are wrong, because individuals are still being violated.

If an act violates the rights of an individual, then you have no right to do it. If you do it anyway, you did wrong. You committed evil. That you believe your act is "necessary" changes nothing.

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