Humans and rights

Pointing out that all humans have the exact same-- equal and identical-- rights isn't the same as saying all humans are exactly the same.

I notice "bordertarians" and other borderists making this nonsensical mistake over and over again in a desperate attempt to justify their anti-liberty position.

Rights don't depend on where a person was born, where they stand, or which State claims ownership over them. Rights only depend on their species and on them being alive.

Some cultures are better than others because some cultures (by which I mean the individuals who make up that culture from the "bottom up") "tolerate" liberty and respect rights better than others. This doesn't alter anyone's rights.

Some individuals are better than others because some individuals archate less often, and don't support archators as much as others do (they are more ethical than those who archate and support archation more often).

Some people are smarter than others, and everyone is smarter about some topic than just about anyone else.

Humans hold a variety of beliefs; often contradictory beliefs inside the same brain. It only matters what people do, not why they do it, or what beliefs led them to act. Some beliefs are better than others, and some are outright reprehensible-- those which convince a person it is right to archate being among the nastiest beliefs. Yes, some people believe it is OK to govern others; these people are holding a barbaric primitive belief. Everyone else has the right to defend themselves from the people with this belief if they try to act on it. No one has the right to govern because this is a right which can't exist. If it did it would contradict itself.

Humans come in a variety of sizes, shades, and shapes. This is irrelevant to their rights.

Humans are equal in the rights they have, and in nothing else.

This truth doesn't justify devotion to a theft-funded, anti-property rights, Big Government welfare/warfare program at "the Border". Nor does the intentional and dishonest conflation of political "borders" and private property rights. It's amazing to me how they can turn this around inside their own minds and call a rejection of their favorite type of communism "leftist". How can you twist your mind that much? I have no idea.

If someone who is otherwise libertarian believes something to the contrary, they are mistaken and internally inconsistent on this topic-- perhaps only on this one topic. They might be a fine person otherwise, but on this, they are wrong. And I would be dishonest if I failed to point this out.

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

Discrimination should be left legally alone

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 13, 2018)

Who would be desperate enough to eat a cake baked by someone who doesn't want to bake it? Would you want a wedding cake someone was forced to bake-- at gunpoint?

Even if the gun is hidden at first, every law comes down to "do as we say or we'll kill you".

At best, the newlyweds will get a cake they dare not eat.

So why follow this path? Perhaps they claim to only want things to be fair. Guess what-- fairness isn't a feature of the real world. You may as well accept the fact now. What you consider fair, someone else will call unfair. The reverse is also true; what someone else sees as fair you'll believe is unfair. The appearance of fairness depends completely on perspective. Dilbert's Scott Adams goes further, saying fairness is a concept invented so less-than-intelligent people could feel like they are participating in conversations.

Despite my skepticism about fairness, I'm in favor of everyone doing their best to make others feel as though fairness is real. There's really only one way to do this.

Just stay out of the way and let everyone exercise their right to choose who to do business with. Both as a provider and as a customer. Don't infringe anyone's right of association.

It's not only about religion. If you don't like someone's politics, the color of their skin, the way they speak, how they worship, or anything else, you have the right to decline to take their money, or to refuse to spend your money with them. It doesn't depend on the Supreme Court agreeing; this is simply a natural human right.

Someone will always step up to fill a gap if certain businesses choose to turn away customers. Think of all the willing and eager cake shops who never got the chance to show what an excellent cake they would have been happy to provide for the wedding which precipitated the recent cake ruling.

Discrimination goes both ways, and needs to be left legally alone. If bigots are out there, let them openly expose their bigotry. How else can you know who to reward with your business, or who to punish by going elsewhere?

There is one exception, of course: government doesn't get to choose who it serves until people are allowed to stop paying for services they don't want. As long as government exists as a monopoly, it is the only organization which can't exclude anyone for any reason other than non-payment.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

What's hiding beneath?

Statism has a thin, shiny scale of pretty-looking ethics hiding the evil beneath. It's sort of like nail polish on an infected, fungal fingernail.

Some statism shows its concern for the less fortunate while hiding its approval of theft. Other statism shows the world its concern for "family values" while hiding its family-destroying policies from casual view. And, the ethics don't hide just one evil, but a huge library of evils. All excused by the thin superficial layer of goodness.

The nice-looking ethics are good, but they stop short. They don't go far enough and don't redeem the evil that exists right beside them. It doesn't make you a good person to give the shirt off your back to one person while raping and murdering another.

All the aggression and theft is just below the surface, while the pretty, distracting scale of ethics hides it from view. But it only hides the corruption and evil from those who don't want to look.

The ethics embraced by any form of statism are only surface deep, used for less than ethical purposes, but the evil goes all the way to the core.

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

Delusions of "authority"

You know what strikes me as funny, pathetic, and arrogant... all at the same time?

Governments believing they can (or should!) impose "laws" which apply to people in outer space, on asteroids, and on other planets.

That's some serious delusions of grandeur, right there.

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

Childish, adult, or mature?

I recently heard someone who was making a distinction between the "childish approach" of the political "left" and the "adult approach" of the political "right". I believe he missed something important. He was so focused on "right" and "left" he forgot to consider right and wrong.

The childish approach: "That's not fair! It's hard. I don't want to do that! I just want to do stuff that I like."

His amoral "adult" approach: "This will hurt right now, but we need to do it anyway for a better long-term result."

The ethical mature approach (which he ignored because it is neither "right" nor "left"):
Don't do the wrong thing, no matter your justification or excuses. The right way might not feel as good. It might not bring the results you want as fast as some other ways. But if you can't get what you want or believe you need without archating, then you're just going to have to live with it. Unless you want to be a monster. You never have the right to archate.

As you can see, many times there are more than two choices (and there may even be more than three). Don't let people fool you into missing the best choice by trying to force you to choose between two contrived choices they prefer you consider.

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

Individuals and differences

Everyone is an individual. (Duh)

There are differences between individuals. These differences are real.

Some of those differences are affected by things which have been used historically to limit or deny natural human rights to some people. This is wrong.

Then there are differences which aren't as real. Even some totally imaginary things have been used as excuses to limit or deny natural human rights of some people. Things like nationality or "citizenship", for example.

Rights don't differ among individuals. Not based on any criteria. Not for any reason. No matter how you feel about it.

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

More options

And, I guess the buttons are way down somewhere at the bottom
 if you're on a mobile device

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

Cops-- Abusing your bosses

The fact of the matter is, if you are a cop, the lowliest crackwhore is your moral superior... and your boss.
And if cops don't like that they can always quit and get an honest job.

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

"Be realistic" = be a jerk

If someone truly believes it is "Utopian" to expect human interactions to be voluntary, how would you like being one of their family members, or a neighbor?

Do you think they'd be a good cow-orker or employee? (Be careful while orking cows!) Could you trust them at all if you weren't holding them at gunpoint?

Are they really that barbaric, or are they talking through their hat; not understanding the concepts they feel the need to preach at you about? Perhaps they are just saying what they feel needs to be said to justify archation. I suspect it's that last one, since they are apparently still alive and able to speak, so they must be choosing voluntary interactions the vast majority of the time.

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

Dear Badgescum...

How disgusting! What other molesters does the letter writer appreciate for their crimes?

If you fear "traffic stops", stop molesting and robbing drivers.

If you don't want to be filmed "doing your job", get a job that doesn't come with the obligation of letting your bosses see exactly what you are doing every single second you are on my clock, collecting a paycheck funded by money stolen from me and others who neither want nor need you.

The mainstream media can't crucify a character which doesn't exist.

Everyone gets tired at work. Everyone feels misunderstood. I promise you no one misunderstands you more than those deluded people who support you in spite of what you do.

So, you hurt when your fellow molesters die. If cops die, it isn't just because they are guilty of wearing a uniform and a badge-- it is because of the crimes committed by the gang they are announcing their membership in. A gang they would be kicked out of if they refused to commit the same crimes. You are guilty of the same things the dead armed government employees were guilty of. You can't show up for your "job" without violating life, liberty, and property. 

Yes, you are flesh and bone like me. And so is the rapist, the mugger, the serial murderer, and other people who make the decision to violate others. So?

The only thing you serve and protect are the politicians who give you the power and excuses to molest and steal, and the Blue Line Gang.

I don't want you or need you. Go away. Forever. Find an HONEST job and stop being a hired gun for the State. It's a mistake you could correct in less than a second, if you have a gram of principles and ethics.

It should HURT to be this much of a copsucker.

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

America's Sharia Law

(Updated for reposting-- originally posted 1/19/2011)

One of the reasons I hear coming from "conservatives" for invading and occupying Islamic countries is so "they" won't take over America and force Sharia "law" on "us". You know, kind of an extension of the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" excuse.

True, I have no wish to live under such a brutal and primitive, and painfully stupid, system. But doesn't that mean we should deal with the mote in our own eye and get rid of our own version of Sharia "law" too? Otherwise we are just being hypocritical. Again.

Sharia law is no more obscene than most of the counterfeit laws in America. Kidnapping and murdering people over plants? Or chemicals? Or because they refuse to facilitate their own muggings? "Laws" based on what people claim their god wants?

If we refuse to put up with being ruled by Sharia "law", why don't we refuse the US equivalent and refuse to tolerate drug laws, gun laws, sex laws, tax laws, seatbelt laws, property codes, obscenity laws... and the list goes on almost infinitely to embrace any and all "laws", based on a religion, which attempt to control or regulate anything other than actual aggression or theft.

Sorry, but if your god approves of the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, or government sanctioned (or prohibited) marriage, or 99%+ of the rest of the things that "The Law" concerns itself with, your god is a monster. And if you continue to follow your god (whatever name you call him) in spite of his monstrosity, then you are no better. And if you think it is a good idea to impose "laws" like this, and enforce them against your neighbors who may not share your religion, you should be happy with Sharia "law". As for me, I'll take liberty and respect yours as well.

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

Rule by majority unfair to minority

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 6, 2018- I don't write the headlines*)

Politics might be an amusing hobby, but it is a horrible basis for a society. One should never confuse government with society. Society grows naturally from the voluntary interactions of people, while government is anti-social; imposed by those who imagine themselves at the "top" onto everyone they see as beneath them.

Unanimous consent is the way to get things done without coercion or theft. Let those who agree work together without forcing anyone else to go along. If your idea relies on forcing people to participate, it's probably a bad idea. Anything which depends on force or coercion to survive should be allowed to die. Never use mob rule-- democracy-- to force people to do things they oppose.

Allegiance to a group shouldn't be assumed, mandatory, or dependent on where you live. Let people choose their own groups, and let the groups' territories overlap the way those of clubs or churches do. Let people switch between groups, or opt out, as their needs and circumstances change.

If your culture can't survive contact with a different culture, it may not be worth saving. Are you so dependent on the behavior and opinions of others that you can't live the way you believe you should if you don't have company? Yes, there is comfort in numbers, but you'll often find yourself in the minority over the course of your life. Embrace it. Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority you should re-evaluate your position. The majority is rarely right.

You have no right to enslave people for their own good, or what you imagine to be their own good. Let people find their own path, as long as they aren't stealing or attacking the non-violent.

You are responsible for yourself. You can take some responsibility for others, as long as you aren't imposing yourself on them. It's OK to allow others to make mistakes; to be wrong. It's usually how people learn. Don't let them drag you down with them, but realize when you need to back off.

You don't need others to live as you do, and everyone has the natural right to defend themselves from anyone who tries to force their way on them.

Remember that your ideas of what people should be doing may not be their ideas. If it would be wrong for them to force you to live as they want, then it would be wrong for you to force them to live as you believe they should.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

From the Ministry of Propaganda

It's no wonder people are confused about guns.

I was sent this in an email "news" alert. Here's an easy exercise... Spot the propaganda:

"Frustrated by state and federal lawmakers’ reluctance to address gun violence, local officials are starting a movement to control firearms within their borders. It’s an uphill task given that all but seven states have laws prohibiting them from doing so, but their work is slowly catching on.
In recent months, local governments have limited certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles, created “gun-free zones” and adopted zoning laws to keep out gun stores. “The failure of the Congress to pass policies that keep our communities and children safe means towns feel compelled to act,” Stephen Benjamin, mayor of Columbia, South Carolina, said

"Frustrated"? "lawmakers"? "reluctance"? "address"? "gun violence"? "officials"? "starting a movement"? "uphill task"? "their work"? "catching on"? "limited"? "created", "adopted"? "keep out"? "failure"? "policies that keep our communities and children safe"? "feel compelled"?

That's a lot of propaganda in only two paragraphs. I probably even missed some.

Why the dishonest phrasing? Is it because of the anti-liberty bias of the "news" organization? Yes. Yes, it is.

No matter your excuse, if you propose, pass, or enforce anti-gun "laws", YOU are a BAD GUY. YOU are as bad as the evil losers who shoot up crowds of ("legally") disarmed victims. You can try to veil your evil acts in all the glowing lies you want. It's still nothing but lies.

And when your lies warp people's opinions about something as critical as natural human rights you may actually be worse than the evil losers who shoot up crowds. Yes, "mainstream media", including the fly-by-night outfit which crafted this propaganda piece, I am looking at you and judging you. You don't measure up.

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

Statists: Blissfully unaware

How many statists-- even the flaming statists-- realize they are statists?

A friend's comment made me stop to consider the question. Her observation-- that the ones she knows are completely unaware of their statism-- is right on the mark.

They are like fish, unaware of the water they are immersed in. They can't feel it, taste it, see it or otherwise experience its existence. It simply "is". It is their "normal". They expect (if they are aware enough to expect anything) their experience to be universal.

I, however, can feel statism choking the life out of me sometimes. I'm drowning in the statism the statists can't notice.

Forget draining "the swamp"; their beloved cesspool of lumpy statism needs to be drained and dried and sterilized.

My life has been a case of learning to swim so that their filthy statism doesn't snuff out my life. It hasn't been easy. I think I'm getting better at it. And, I do what little I can to drain their treasured cesspool.

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

Follow your arrow

I don't know best how to run my own life most of the time; I certainly don't know best how to run yours.

I'm suspicious of anyone who claims to know how to run the lives of others; anyone who says they know what's best for you or me.

All I know is you and I have no right to archate. That leaves a lot of room for experimentation.

The path of archation isn't a good one, as it interferes with how others are choosing to live. Beyond that, you try your way and I'll try mine. If yours looks good, maybe I'll try to adopt some of it into my life.

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

Taking statists seriously

I know I shouldn't be mean to statists. I shouldn't ridicule them or point out that they are no better than molesters. Even though it's true.

That's not how you get people to listen and (possibly) change. This knowledge requires a change in me. And that change is hard and unpleasant and unnatural.

Statism-- the belief that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor-- is ripe for ridicule. This notion that people can't be trusted to run their own lives, so we need to have some (who can magically be trusted-- going against the original assumption) with power to run the lives of others is a demonstrable mess. It makes no sense. It is internally inconsistent. It doesn't work in the real world, with real people in real situations.

It's hard to not be mean to people who advocate something so stupid. It's hard to not point out how they promote evil acts. It's hard to not compare them to others who believed similar things with similar results.

I know I shouldn't, but it's not likely I'll stop. Too many people treat them with unearned respect and act as though they are actually contributing something to the human conversation. There needs to be another side to it. Someone needs to be pointing and laughing at their nonsense.

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

Not worshiping the State hard enough

I posted this to FB:

Hey..."great" job, Idiots. Declare independence from a state then turn right around and set up a new state which turns out to be far worse than the relatively weak state you rejected.
When you finally get rid of a tapeworm you don't rush out to swallow another one. Well, not unless you're an utter moron.
I reject your "4th of July" and embrace independence from all your states and other control freaks.

And was immediately graced with this comment:

You are totally lost!...I pray God for your salvation!.

And then she "unfriended" me. (I have no clue who she is, so I'll get over it.)

I find it interesting how some people tend to conflate their gods; confused over which one I'm not properly worshiping this time.
-

Related: Put independence back in the day

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

Archators-- we are watching you

Sometimes I get the feeling that my readers and I are a quiet, secret little conspiracy for liberty. Quietly undermining the status quo-- at least the rotten parts of it-- below the radar.

It's probably just a symptom of an inflated sense of self-importance. But it's kind of a pleasant one.

"Hey, archators. We are here; watching, working, and undermining you and your gangs. Laughing at your claims to "authority" and legitimacy. You can kill us, but you can't stop the signal. And, if we feel cornered, you might die in the attempt."

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

"Reparations"-- You can't owe imaginary debts

The odds are almost certain that some of my ancestors were enslaved by the ancestors of someone else sometime in the past. When do I get my "reparations" for this slavery?

Of course, the odds are just as good that some of my ancestors also enslaved the ancestors of someone else sometime in the past. I guess any "reparations" cancel out.

And I'm OK with that because I have never personally been enslaved (if you don't count the attempts to govern me) nor have I ever personally enslaved anyone. I'm against enslaving anyone for any reason... and always have been. Even the kinds of slavery the "majority" approves of.

Abolitionists like me carry no guilt over slavery which was committed in the past-- long before we were born-- and can't owe anyone for krimes (which were then legal and "moral", but never ethical) of the past which I didn't commit and don't support. It's ridiculous that anyone could believe otherwise.

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

'Nothing' is best government activity

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 30, 2018)

There is one thing government could do which I will support. One thing I believe it needs to spend more time doing. It's the one thing government can do best, the one thing government can do which will actually help, and the only thing which can justify taxation.
What is this extraordinary government activity? Nothing.

I support government doing nothing, and I believe it needs to spend more time doing nothing. Nothing government does is better than what the market can do. Government does nothing which helps, and nothing justifies taxation.

This doesn't mean I'm against everything government currently does; I'm against those things being done by government with money stolen from my neighbors who may not want such "services" at all. It's an important difference.

As long as people are going to imagine government is necessary or even desirable, I want it sitting in a donut shop day after day gossiping, eating, and drinking coffee rather than being out there meddling in our lives. I may still have to pay for it, but at least this would limit the additional abuses. If people are truly desperate to encounter government, let them go find it napping in its office, never running free in the community among the people.

It's why I favor gridlock. It's as close to government doing nothing as we're likely to get.

As lawyer, newspaper editor, and politician Gideon J. Tucker once observed, “No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” He noticed this fact back in 1866; the situation has only gotten worse since then.

Gridlock is a partial solution-- the one way, under the current circumstances, we can stay a bit safer from government's probing fingers.

As long as gridlock is paralyzing Washington, DC, neither side will let the other have a win, so new laws aren't being imposed.

While the politicians are at each other's throats, trying to prevent the other side from having its way with us, perhaps they'll be too distracted to find new ways of grabbing for our wallets, touching our bodies, and fighting against our liberty. It may be the best we can hope for until the people stop tolerating a distant gang of criminals always seeking new ways to control their lives.

I'm in favor of anything which helps government approach the ideal of doing nothing, even if it's only temporary and limited in scope. Gridlock is a good start.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium