Private, to Friday's donor

You've donated 3 times now (if I remember correctly), including the latest one on Friday, but my "thank you" notes always bounce as undeliverable. It always says that email address doesn't exist.

So, on the off chance you see this-- Thank you!

.

Truth from liars

Joss Whedon is, politically, a horrible wreck. Just an awful guy. But somehow he managed to put the right words-- words of truth, wisdom, and ethics-- into the mouth of his Malcolm Reynolds character. Words which basically go against everything Whedon personally stands for.

How does someone even manage to do that? I guess it's talent, and I admit he has loads of it.

It's why you should never reject the truth just because a liar happens to have said it, and why you shouldn't accept a lie that comes from someone who usually speaks the truth. Who knows, maybe someday even Maxine Waters might accidentally say something smart.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Stand your ground, but don't start trouble

There was a recent shooting, which is being promoted as a"stand your ground" incident, in Florida. It has turned into one of those "big things" on the internet, with people picking sides.

In some ways it seems like exactly the sort of thing anti-gun bigots warned would happen-- trigger-happy bullies looking for a fight (because they can and because they feel confident they can win)... and finding one.

To others it seems a clear case of self-defense.

Personally, I'm torn.

Without more information I can't come down definitively on either side. The information it would take to make this clear-cut either way is unlikely to ever find its way to me.
So, let me tell you what I see from both sides.

Yes, it looks like the guy who got shot initiated force-- it seems clear he was the first to touch the other. But to me, it also looks like he was backing away and was no longer a threat when he was shot. "Stand your ground" wouldn't apply if that's the case. But maybe he was just staging for a charge. Or maybe he was de-escalating at the sight of the gun. I don't know. Without knowing what each person was saying it's not possible to know for certain what was going on.

It is known that the shooter first approached and exchanged angry words with the soon-to-be-dead guy's girlfriend. (It is claimed that the shooter has a history of confrontations over handicap parking spaces, but who knows if this is true.) What did he say to the woman, and was he making a credible threat to initiate force? If so, then he's the one who started it, even if he wasn't the first to actually use physical force. You don't have to wait until someone takes a swing at you to rightfully defend yourself if he's telling you he's going to swing at you.

How can you tell if a threat is credible or not?

Some random blowhard on the internet saying he's going to come to your house and kill you, when he doesn't know where you live, is hundreds of miles away, and has no real way to carry through with what he's saying is not making a credible threat.

Someone in your face screaming that he is going to beat you (or your friend) to a bloody pulp is making a credible threat. He is clearly saying he intends to initiate force, and due to his proximity, he is able to carry through immediately. You have the right to believe him and to use force against him in that case, even before he actually touches you. The Zero Archation Principle isn't a suicide pact.

Now, since I wasn't there I don't really know all that went on. Parking in the handicap space was a loser move, not because of the state's permit system, but just for the human decency of healthy, capable people leaving the close spots for those who need them, blue paint or not. Getting bent out of shape because someone parked there without the "required" permit is also a loser move. After those two things, I can't have much sympathy for either combatant, even before admitting I think fighting over such trivial things as a parking space is always a loser move.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Letting reality upset me

I shouldn't let myself get upset that there are bad people and injustices. Those things are just part of reality and aren't going to go away just because I don't like them.

On the other hand, I shouldn't pretend they don't exist just so I feel better. Refusing to see reality as it is, or refusing to speak up just because it's not what "polite society" does, isn't healthy. It's not honest.

Turning a blind eye to those things would make me a part of the problem. It takes away any possibility of being part of the solution. If there is a solution.

I will not pretend archators are good people or are doing right. I can't. I would be lying to myself and others, including to the archators. That's doing no one any favors even if it spares "feelings" and makes me a welcome part of society.

Finding a way to recognize the bad stuff without letting it get me down is a balancing act I've not perfected.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Evil in the pew

If you attended a church where an admitted serial killer often showed up, or even attended faithfully, with no intention of ending his murderous hobby and no admission he did anything wrong by murdering, would you speak up?
Would you find the church leadership credible if they didn't point out the guy's evil ways?
Would you continue to attend this church?

How can church attendees sit approvingly, or at least silently, while cops attend? At the very least they should be asking them to repent and police no more.

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide if I get paid.

Krimes which didn't happen

If you get mugged, your home gets burglarized, or your car is stolen, you would be right to say the Blue Line Gang (the armed government employees often known as "police officers") didn't prevent that krime.

But cop supporters would point out that you can't know how much of something was actually prevented since it didn't happen. Maybe you avoided being robbed multiple times rather than the once, just because cops exist. And they do have a point.

It's impossible to say how much theft doesn't happen because cops exist. It's impossible to say anything meaningful about events which didn't happen. "Alternate history" is "alternate" because it isn't history.

But it is possible to know exactly how much theft is committed openly in order to fund police, and through them just doing their "job" because they don't generally hide it. It's a huge amount of krime caused by cops, but the relative amounts of each type of krime is irrelevant. One doesn't justify the other.

I don't want cops infesting my surroundings no matter how much you feel you need them. I'm perfectly willing to take my chances because the theft that comes with cops being cops is too expensive. They aren't worth it to me.

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide if I get paid.

Libertarian criticisms miss mark

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 20, 2018)

Recently, I read a rant describing libertarianism in unlibertarian ways. This is normal. I've never seen a criticism of libertarianism which hit the mark. The point is usually that libertarians are selfish and don't care about other people; a claim which only works on those who are in the dark.

It is said we don't care about the poor because the taxes and regulations we're against are for their protection. Yet taxes and regulations hit those hardest who are least able to afford them; much harder than those with a stable of lawyers standing ready.

Detractors say libertarians don't believe in altruism and would destroy the "social safety net". They are mistaken. Altruism never involves robbing some for the benefit of others. The truth is, instead of relying on a safety net bought with the anti-social practice of taxation, libertarians prefer to help people voluntarily. This is true altruism and is safer for everyone than today's system.

Libertarians are scolded for heartlessly refusing to admit the protection government provides society against bad guys. Except when those bad guys are politically connected, hold an office, or run one of the thousands of bureaucratic positions used to rob and control members of society in the name of governing. You can't protect society by sacrificing the individuals who comprise it. I refuse to admit this "protection" for the same reason I refuse to admit the health benefits of cancer.

Libertarians, we are told, should realize not all politicians are out for themselves; some have the best intentions. We shouldn't blame them for using institutionalized theft and coercion to impose their good ideas on others. It's the system's fault... but don't question the system's legitimacy either.

Finally, libertarians "only care about their own freedom", despite the fact I spend more time trying to inspire others to exercise their rightful liberty than I do worrying about my own.

The list goes on, never getting close to the truth. Every criticism is the equivalent of saying how much I dislike people who collect stamps because they sit on a boat baiting hooks all day. It's total nonsense.

Which brings me to the most dishonest anti-libertarian statement of all: "Libertarians believe that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." Replace the word "libertarians" with any other political stance out there-- Democrat, Republican, socialist, whatever-- and I couldn't have summarized the pro-government position any better myself.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Serving up hot coercion

If you work for the State you are not "serving".
If your "job" comes with a paycheck extorted from people who didn't value your effort enough to pay for it voluntarily, you are not serving.

You don't "serve" in the military, in congress, or "on the bench". You prey on people's life, liberty, and property, but you don't "serve" anyone beyond the political bullies who hold your leash and steal money on your behalf.

If you really wish to serve, provide a service which people will be willing to pay you for. One which they won't have to force their neighbors to chip in for. Be a good guy like Ross Ulbricht, not a bad guy like Donald Trump or Barack Obama.

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide whether I get paid.

Pigs... in... Space!

Can we engineer liberty in space by designing "just the right kind" of government?
Can we achieve liberty with just the right amount of slavery?
How does anyone imagine that would work?
Why build failure right into your plan from the start?

And yet, that's what some people believe is needed. Government and its "laws". In space. What other types of pollution are needed out there?

Some people are crazy, and not in a good or amusing way.

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide whether I get paid.

Political poisoning

I don't talk "politics" at home much. If at all.

I certainly don't talk about politicians. So it's interesting how my daughter has picked up on the Trump hate from... somewhere. Maybe the Roblox gaming videos she watches on Youtube, I suppose. I can't think of anywhere else.

There might be several reasons for this just showing up now. Her age might be part of it. She wasn't old enough to be aware of what was going on with the rule of Barack the Great. I do know her "teacher" at kinderprison a couple of years ago worked very hard to indoctrinate Hillaryism into the prisoners at her disposal. I did have a little talk with my daughter about evil politicians-- specifically evil politicians I knew a bit better than most-- over that episode.

I have a yardstick that I use-- if someone is having fits about Trump doing something they would have ignored (or even praised) Obama for doing, I see them as a hypocrite in the throes of Trump Derangement Syndrome. And I see this a LOT!

There are no good presidents; no good politicians.

I have no problem with her hating politicians. I see it as the beginning of wisdom. But, in the post-Trump years, if she doesn't express the same feelings for the next Bully in Chief, I'm going to have a sit-down and see why.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide whether I get paid.

Encircled, enclosed, and trapped

Someone recently brought up the scenario of being encircled and trapped by other property owners so that you can either not access your surrounded property or you can't escape from it. At least, not without giving in to the other property owner's demands, whatever they may be.

Specifically, his comment was:

...Curious what your current thinking is about the problem of locking people out of their property, or the property to which they are invited, when one or more people acquire all the surrounding property and then deny you ingress or egress. Example: someone acquires the property rights to all the roads surrounding a subdivision of houses or businesses, and then either flatly refuses to allow anyone to cross their property, or charges extortion tolls (say, $100,00 to cross the road -- or demands that you hand over the property you own for $1 in order to leave the trap they've created).
Clearly you have to right to stay alive. Is that aggression if someone locks you into your own property by buying the surrounding property, and thus you have the right to self-defense to use whatever force is necessary to leave it?

Somewhere I have written about this before, but I can't find it now, and my opinions may have changed since the last time I discussed it, anyway. So... time to delve into this again.

As I have come to see, "aggression" isn't the whole picture, which is why I now prefer the concept of archation. Imprisoning someone on their own property is archation. Keeping someone from accessing their own property is archation. Even if they would have to cross your property to use theirs.

If someone bought property with the intention of blocking someone's access to their own property, I definitely see this as blatant premeditated archation.

I firmly believe property rights are essential (but not sufficient). But that doesn't mean you have the right to use your property to injure others who are neither initiating force, nor violating property. Equal and identical rights for all. And simply crossing your property may or may not count as "violating" it, under the circumstances.

As I have opined several times over the years, you don't have the right to enslave someone as a condition of them being on your property, and you don't have the right to use your property as a prison. You have no right to say "Well, you're in my house, so I am within my rights to force you to have sex with me".

Even in cases where you are within your rights, sometimes it's not the right thing to do to exercise your rights in certain ways at particular moments. This would be one example if you were within your rights to imprison them on their property, or keep them off their property.

If I were to arbitrate such a case, both sides being non-archators otherwise, I would decide in favor of the trapped property owner, even if I felt he owed a reasonable* access fee. Any such fee would depend on the impact of his passage and probably on his ability to pay.

If someone is crossing your property to use theirs, they have no right to damage your property as they pass through, be it by taking things, leaving trash, destroying things, or whatever. They have no right to make a nuisance* of themselves, by screaming or otherwise impacting the property they are crossing. Their passage should be as light-footed as possible, and any damage or nuisance would create a debt subject to restitution.

I would expect the encircling property owner to designate the path of least impact, and not make it unreasonably* difficult. If more than one property owner were part of the encirclement, I would probably suggest a path along their property lines so neither would bear the full burden, unless one volunteered a path.

I would probably encourage a permanent easement agreement, maybe through the purchase of a small strip, or just the right of passage along a certain path which is non-revokable.

Of course, there is air travel, tunneling, and Star Trek transporter technology (just kidding) which can be used to reach an agreement for access to encircled property. And possibly things no one has thought of yet.

Sometimes, too, there's just not a good solution that works in the real world to everyone's 100% satisfaction, but I really think this is a solvable problem. Do you have any better ideas?


*Subject to arbitration, if need be.

Here is someone else's take on it.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide whether I get paid.

Cops don't stop

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide whether I get paid.

Balance

Between too much chaos and too much order, there's anarchy. Balance.

Between aggression and pacifism, there's self-defense. Balance.

Between a locked-down prison state with militarized "borders" and mass invasion of hordes of handout seekers, there are property rights. Balance.

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

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