Accept everyone you can

I try to be accepting of everyone. This doesn't mean I'm accepting of everything everyone does.

Not every behavior is OK. There are lines in the sand I can't cross, and that when crossed by others, I can't support.

If someone continues to make crossing one of those lines an integral part of who they are, I can't keep accepting them. It's why I admit there can be no such thing as a "good cop", for example. There are some "jobs" which require-- as a condition of employment-- the crossing of those lines. Some "jobs" require archation. That's never OK.

There are also people who simply refuse to see that the line exists, and they'll cross it without noticing. Just because they are doing what they want, and no one else matters to them. They have no regard for the rights of others when respecting those rights would be an inconvenience.

I'm sure you know people like that.

I've never been perfect, and I never will be. But I do the best I can. Part of that is being civil to anyone who is making the slightest effort to live among others without being a thug or an overt parasite.

Yet, this makes me an extremist? I doubt I'll ever understand why this seems to be such a controversial, radical stance to some people.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Organize against organized threats

If you face an organized threat you probably need to organize (in some way) against it.

The state isn't a real solution. You can't protect property rights by violating property rights. You can't save liberty by destroying liberty. You can't protect your children from warlords by enslaving them to a warlord.

That the state has convinced so many people otherwise is scary.

Yes, an organized threat will kill you if you don't kill it, or scare them into staying away. Organization doesn't imply archation unless you are trapped in a statist mindset.

Government might look like organization, but it's really not. Organization is voluntary; government is coercive.

If you have to become the same as the bad guy to survive, what value is there in your survival? It would be just as well if your opponent survived instead. When it's archator vs archator I don't cheer for either side.

Now, if it's my survival we're talking about... Yes, I might become a bad guy to survive, but I'm not going to pretend it was the right thing to do. I have no illusions about the fact that if I violate rights because I believe I "need" to I still did wrong. Ethically, I'm the equivalent of the one who is threatening me. There's no net gain, except for me, personally. If I'm being selfish, that's OK with me. But there's no sense in pretending society is in any way better off due to my survival and my enemy's demise in that case.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Don't advocate against property rights

Libertarians who support the Big Government "border security" welfare program don't understand property rights. Property rights are the foundation of all rights, so if you don't understand and support property rights, how can you credibly claim to be libertarian... or to value liberty at all?

"Taxation" is a violation of property rights. If you advocate funding "border security" through "taxation" you advocate violating property rights.

"Eminent domain" is a violation of property rights. If you advocate taking property through "eminent domain" for "border security", so as to place a wall, fence, or other structure on this property against the true owner's wishes, you advocate violating property rights.

If you make up rules which prevent people from employing whomever they choose, trading with whomever they want to trade with, associating with whom they prefer, or renting to whomever they reach an agreement with, you are violating property rights. If you support these kinds of rules you are no friend of property rights. You are just as bad as any other thief or trespasser.

Respect-- or lack thereof-- for property rights doesn't depend on where a person was born. Those most threatening to my property rights have always been home-grown archators. This doesn't mean others can't also be a problem, but to focus on "others" while supporting those who are actually committing the violations right here right now is to miss the point. It looks statist.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

No one should control others' choices

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 1, 2019)

I'm sure there will be a final answer on the racetrack/casino any month now. Right?

Those who support a local racino must see by now how giving government the power-- permission from the people-- to approve and ration racinos is obviously a terrible idea. Tying anything to the government's wagon makes certain it won't be as good as it could be. Nor will it be timely.

Those who oppose the racino should have noticed that if you give control of such things to government it will drag its figurative feet, way beyond anything reasonable people would tolerate.

Allowing government to decide these matters is silly and destructive to society.

Let projects succeed or fail on their own merits, not on the whims of a gang of control-freaks.

If fewer people fell for the lie that it's OK to use government violence to force others to live as you would prefer, things like this wouldn't even be an issue. Those who want a racino-- or anything else-- could have it. Those who don't want it wouldn't have to support it in any way. The catch is they also wouldn't be able to stop others from peaceably doing what they want. Is that really so horrible?

I have no power to stop people from wearing orange-checkered polyester leisure suits, nor should I have it. If I believe their clothing choice is any of my concern I am lying to myself. Yes, you could make various arguments about why someone should have this power. The clothing might be a distraction and cause accidents. It might be environmentally harmful to manufacture. Some fragile people might be so offended at the sight they will have a mental breakdown. Those arguments are no better than the ones made for other things people want to control, individually or through government laws.

Such as that people might gamble too much, or that a racino might attract crime.

You have the right to not gamble and the right to defend against crime (even though government tries to ration this right). What you don't have is the right to threaten to use the violence of government to force your opinions on others. Even when politics is normalized to the point it seems this is a legitimate right, it isn't.

You have no obligation to save people from their bad choices.

You would be wise to worry about your own life and not try to force your choices on other people.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

"For medicinal purposes only"

Libertarians who support Big Government "Border Security" remind me of the Nigerian scammers who start their emails saying "Dear Beloved, May God's peace shine on you".

Maybe they are sincere, but I don't trust them. There's something "off" about them. Alarm bells go off in my head when they show up. There's always that appeal to the State's "protection"; lending an unearned air of legitimacy to the State.

They remind me of abolitionists who don't really want to get rid of all slavery, just the slavery they don't like.

Or teetotalers who drink moonshine "for medicinal purposes only".

Yet, I sympathize. It's scary to not have a dangerous Big Brother at your back when you fear you may not be enough to meet the threat. Even if the threat is mostly in your head, the fear is still real.

Borderism-- big government welfare statism by another name-- is apparently a very seductive cult, leading a lot of liberty supporters down into its depths, from which there seems to be no escape.

Statism, "for security purposes only", is still full-blown statism.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Statist "logic" #3

Referring back to the statist who brought up the "secure the border" "solution" to the programmable bullet killer drone issue, he says if government "needs" to do something to "protect" (control) the people, but it's not legal... well, the "law" is infinitely malleable.

If something isn't legal, just make up a law to make it legal. Simple!

Don't worry about right and wrong; ethics. Don't let the Constitution stop you (it never does, anyway).

Some people abuse drugs-- ban them.

Some people abuse guns-- ban them.

Government likes to control how people travel-- require licenses to be allowed to travel and set up checkpoints.

Some people use privacy to plot to harm the innocent-- eliminate all illusions of privacy.

Anything that would limit government power can be addressed by just passing a new "law" making it "legal". Right?

Statism is a religion. Government is its god, and this god's magic power is legislation and bureaucratic rules. Through "laws" all things are possible. At least, that's what government supremacists believe.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Statist "logic" #2

Going back to the programmable bullet killer drone issue, this particular statist claimed that only virtually unlimited government power could protect "the people" from these killer drones or other terrorist acts.

And, government can only protect you from terrorists when it sees all and knows all. So, trust government and don't worry about it getting more power and spying on everyone all the time. It's for your own safety.

That seems rather silly and poorly thought out. And dangerous.

Why trust government to protect me from terrorists when I trust government less than I trust other terrorists?

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Statist "logic"

Bzzzzzzzzz!!!

One of the dangers of the near future may be tiny, insect-sized drones-- much smaller than the "slaughterbots"-- which are essentially programmable bullets which can seek out an individual and kill him.

They can wait until someone opens a door, then go into a building, down halls, into a room and find their target. They would be small enough that no one is likely to notice them until it is too late. Supposedly, at the current time, they would be unstoppable, limited only by their flying time which limits their range.

I suspect their flying time wouldn't be much of a limit if there was a desire to increase their range. I can imagine them hitching a ride on a series of vehicles heading in the direction they want to go, switching vehicles until they are close enough to take off on their own. They could extend their flying time by not flying when they don't need to. There's no hurry.

Yet, a statist of the borderist variety actually claimed that this is a good illustration of why "better border security" is essential.

How would border security protect people from mini killer drones when there's no way to protect people from them anywhere else?

All these drone bullets would need to do is to fly over the "border"; over any fence, wall, or troops-- remember they are all but undetectable and could go as high as necessary-- and, depending on whether the flight time/range issue has been solved or not-- either go directly after their target or hitch a ride deep into the country until they are within range. They wouldn't depend on any vehicles, products, or people crossing the border at all.

When your brain is infected by the statism virus, it's difficult to think straight. A few do; most don't.

To me, this just shows that people need to have the freedom to experiment and find dangerously innovative ways to fight back and defend life, liberty, and property from all violators. If your drone is over my property, it's fair game. That you have a badge or a government "job" changes nothing.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Otherworldly debris with strange properties"

Mylar confetti litter in my yard

It's not a popular thing to criticize the "public" [sic] schools. No matter what they do. So, I generally don't (too much), especially considering my family are all fans of the abomination.

The anti-educational agenda is the big objection I have to government schooling, but it's far from the only one.

Last week the school across the street from me had a "fun day" for the inmates. They tried to launch Mentos and Diet Coke rockets, and they smashed confetti eggs over each other's heads.

Did I mention that this kinderprison is directly across a small street from my house?

Guess what has been blowing into my yard every day since then, being an eyesore. Mylar confetti. Yay. The picture above has 7 or 8 pieces of the stuff in it, although it's hard to see in the photo (it's all the light spots). I didn't move any for the picture to concentrate them in one spot.

Most of the pieces are an inch and a half or so across. Not tiny, but small enough they are hard to pick up, and so numerous it's probably pointless to try. I wish they were rapidly degradable.

If I went to the school grounds and intentionally littered this badly, do you think I wouldn't face consequences?

Today was windy enough it damaged my new shingles (grrr!!) so maybe some of the trash blew away while new trash blew into the yard from the seemingly endless reservoir across the street.

I suppose I could claim it's "UFO crash debris" and cash in. That would at least make it worthwhile and amusing.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Service"

Just, please... DON'T!

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Laws are creating immigration issue

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 24, 2019)

Imagine you have an antique car in your backyard behind a privacy fence. A neighbor climbs your fence, sees the car, and decides something must be done about it. How he decided your property is his concern is a mystery. Clearly, he's a bad neighbor who doesn't mind his own business.

Then it gets worse. He doesn't ask about the car, offer to buy it or to help you get it running. Instead, he hires the local crime boss to force you to build a shed for the car, paint it pink, give it square wheels, and pay an annual ransom for the privilege of owning it. Or else it will be taken from you and you'll be punished.

This is how government solves problems. Very often these problems shouldn't even be government's business, even if it's possible to apply a law or two to the situation.

If you are waiting for government to solve a problem you are wasting time.
If you imagine problems where none exist, you are the problem.

This is why most political discussion is, at best, misguided.

People debate how government should address health care when government shouldn't be involved in health care at all. Don't insist government come up with a health care plan, demand it gets out of the way.

Easily manipulated people panic over "climate change". Even if it's a net negative and your fault, don't ask government to make up laws to violate your life, liberty, and property to fight it. It's not government's business. Don't soil your own nest with pollution or laws.

People argue over immigration, border walls, and sanctuary cities when the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to keep people out of the country. Yes, it outlines steps for people already here to become citizens and regulates the importation of slaves, but those are not what people argue about.

Government laws create the immigration issue. Don't look to government and its laws to address immigration; insist government stop criminalizing private property rights, the right to self-defense, and the right of association. Everyone has the right to associate with-- or avoid-- anyone for any reason. Laws which force people together or apart are the problem.

Anything you ask government to address gives government more power. Government employees feed on this power like vampires feed on arterial blood. You won't solve a problem-- real or imagined-- by involving those who use problems as an excuse to gain power.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Scott Adams defends socialism

On a recent podcast, I noticed a bit of pro-socialism dishonesty from Scott Adams. I wasn't really surprised, because he is a government supremacist, after all. And you can't really have a state without embracing socialism.

It was hard to listen through to the end, but I did because I knew it would be important to refute the dishonest claims he was making.

He was first saying that it's meaningless to be against socialism because socialism is not a thing; it's multiple things and no one can explain why they believe it's bad. He attributed this to people being brainwashed by the "anti-socialist" media (FOX News?) they absorb.

But, no one can explain why they believe it's bad?

Challenge accepted-- Socialism is the attempt to base a "society" on theft (usually, by government); driven by envy and entitlement. Taking anyone's rightfully owned property from them when they'd prefer not to have it taken is theft, even if you like what the property is used for.  Even if the stolen property is used for "good" purposes. I believe this is bad. Pro-socialism people think it's OK. Who is being reasonable here?

Then he went on to claim that socialism didn't destroy Venezuela because other countries do fine with socialism. That it was because Venezuela had a tyrant (who imposed too much socialism) rather than because Venezuela was socialist.

He claimed that America does fine with the "little bits" of socialism the US government imposes, and that European countries do fine with the socialism they have. This is also dishonest.

Yes, the US is socialist. I've been pointing this out for ages. Democrats are openly socialist, and Republicans are socialists in denial-- they still want socialism, they just call it "national security", "border security", or whatever socialist programs they like. Am I OK, or better off, because of that "little bit" of socialism?  I'm more than willing to get rid of it to find out which is better.

But, he's almost right. A little bit of (antisocial) socialism won't destroy a society just like a small robbery won't wipe out an individual. But it's still theft and it still isn't good. You might survive it but you're better off without it. And, socialism and robberies frequently escalate into the thief killing the victim. Not always. You probably won't be murdered as long as things don't go off the rails in directions which shock, threaten, or thwart the thief, but your death is always on the table for thieves.

If you've convinced yourself that ethics aren't a real thing, that being pragmatic is the way to go, you can justify anything. I hope you don't follow anyone down that path.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

A "state" is a failed society

I've seen various places referred to as "failed states"-- Somalia being a frequent example. The term is used in an attempt to insult.

The most insulting part is that anyone tolerates those trying to impose a state on them, or that anyone is dumb (or evil) enough to do it to themselves.

If you have a state, you've already failed. You've failed to find voluntary ways to live among other humans and have decided you're going to cheat.

A state is a failed society.

To fail at something which is unnecessary is a tragedy which can bring disaster where none was inevitable before.

Yes, a failed state can be deadly. Any failure can be.

If a dishonest surgeon performs an unnecessary heart transplant on a patient, and it fails, the patient will die. Even if it doesn't "fail", it was a really bad idea. The patient has been harmed whether he realizes it or not. The heart transplant was not a good idea, nor was the one performing it a good guy trying to help.

A state is the same. It's unnecessary and harmful-- even if it doesn't fail. The state is antisocial; based on theft and aggression. It is your enemy. There will be consequences when it fails.  And it will fail eventually. They all do.

And when it fails, tragedy is likely. Once you've crippled a population-- trained them out of responsibility, competence, independence, and ethics-- by imposing a state on them, how do you expect them to form a functional society if your state fails? You've done the damage; own it.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The bare minimum

Yesterday was an oppressive, muggy day here on the Llano Estacado. And muggy is rare in these parts.

Plus, I was busy with social obligations that drained me of my life force. The Force doesn't seem strong in this one right now. Not at all.

On top of that, I'm trying to come up with next week's newspaper column and hitting a brick wall there, too.

I was not at my best. So I really have little to write and add to the world today.

But even with all that, I didn't violate anyone's life, liberty, or property. That's something. Some people don't seem able to manage that much even on their good days.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Sure it exists, but don't promote it

One of the most common excuses for statism is that we have to accept "The world as it really is". As if I've ever said otherwise.

Lots of bad things exist. I accept that they exist, and can do so without embracing or using them.

The whole "The world as it really is" thing is a cop-out. It doesn't justify evils. It doesn't work with statism, nor does it work with other bad things.

Rape exists, so according to this type of "thinking", we'd better not speak out or rally against it. That would be Utopian. Embrace rapists and work to make them safer and more efficient. Don't you dare point out that rape is a violation of someone's rights; that nothing can change this fact or make it OK. Just accept that it exists, will probably always exist, and find ways to use this fact to your advantage to get what you want.

Right?

Yes, statism exists. The majority even seems to like it. That doesn't make it right. I can accept that statism exists without contributing to it. Refusing to voluntarily participate in something harmful-- even if you can't necessarily stop it from happening-- is better than justifying propping it up, helping it continue, and criticizing those who won't go along.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Regulation of "Social Media"?

I'm not in favor of state regulation of private businesses. For that matter I'm not in favor of the state. How could I be in favor of the state regulating anything when it is the thing which most needs to be controlled?

However, I'm not sure how I could consider the big "social media" platforms or data controllers "private businesses" anymore.

I've never been convinced that a corporation is a private business. They chose to get in bed with the state for special favors. They frequently use government "laws" to stifle competition. And, recently, they sell out their users to the state. They look, feel, and smell state-like to me.

No, this doesn't mean I want government to "regulate" them. Nor do I want them "taxed". It just means I don't trust them. That some of them are agitating to be regulated by the state makes me trust them even less. It's a dirty move.

So far, I still have the option to not use their "services", although in many cases it means crippling myself "socially" to some degree. I recently put several social media sites on indefinite suspension for violating my terms of service and scaled back my use of others. I don't see them as friendly institutions. They aren't on my side. They collude with my enemy, so doesn't that make them my enemy?

Yet, as always, I don't want my enemy subjected to "laws", even if they'd happily subject me to the same because a more powerful state is always worse than the alternative.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

I love scofflaws

A conversation was happening around me about a woman who had no "Social Security" [sic] tracking number to provide as I.D. for cashing a check. The consensus among those discussing the matter was that she was an "illegal immigrant".

In my mind she was heroic.

Anyone who doesn't comply with counterfeit dictates from the state-- as long as they aren't archating-- is a hero in my eyes.

I want as many people as possible refusing to comply. Gum up the works. Sabotage the gears. Bring the Beast to a grinding halt, resulting in its death. This benefits everyone (other than the archators who work for government, that is).

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Gun laws far overstep their bounds

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 17, 2019)

"Validly enacted laws". This is how New Mexico attorney general Hector Balderas deceptively characterizes the new anti-gun "laws" he wants enforced against you.

They aren't validly enacted. They violate the Second Amendment, so they aren't even laws. You might imagine they don't violate the Constitution, based on cowardly and dishonest opinions of Supreme Court justices over the decades, but they do. The Second Amendment is clear. It's even clearer once you've read the discussions which surrounded writing the Bill of Rights. There was to be no question-- no laws concerning guns were to ever be allowed under any circumstances whatsoever.

The Attorney General claims to be the state's chief "law enforcement officer", yet he orders others to break the law which guides all legislation. He is entitled to his opinions, but not to making up his own facts.

No actions of a rogue governor, representative, or attorney general can make an anti-gun law constitutional, legal, or valid. They can make threats, send letters, or hold meetings to try to force their will. They can bully other government employees and the residents of the state. It doesn't make their lies true.

You and I both know government will do whatever it can get away with. The solution is to not allow these out-of-control officials to get away with any violation of liberty. This violation of their oath of office should result in the immediate loss of the position; dragged from their offices in chains if they won't leave peaceably.

If you believe I'm only passionate about gun rights, I'll remind you I am equally opposed to prohibition, border controls, and all other violations of natural human rights as well. If you value the Constitution you should join me. If not, you should join me anyway since anything which violates a natural human right is wrong, even when the Constitution allows it. It's a criminal act when public officials impose their wishes in defiance of what the Constitution allows.

Back in the 1920s, those who advocated alcohol prohibition at least passed a Constitutional amendment to make their laws Constitutional. They were still wrong, but they made the attempt to play by the rules. Those who target your liberty today don't even go through the motions. They do what they want, secure in the knowledge that the courts will not bite the hand that feeds them. Gang loyalty is powerful.

If government won't, or can't, control its appetites, it needs to be taken to the woodshed. It's past time.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Triggering a debunker

Diorama at International UFO Museum, Roswell, NM.
Photo by me.

I've had an interest in UFOs since I was a kid. In fact, I know exactly when my interest started: in 1973.

That year-- and I know what year it was because I moved a lot as a kid and know where I lived when this happened--  a classmate told me and others that his grandfather had told him of the time he saw pieces of a crashed "flying saucer" when they were brought to the military base he was stationed at in Ft. Worth, Texas, following its crash in New Mexico.

This was my first introduction to the story of the 1947 Roswell UFO crash... even though the kid never mentioned Roswell, but just said: "New Mexico" (I knew of the town of Roswell for other reasons).

Recently, including on Quora just a few days ago, the standard debunking approach has been the claim that after the initial buzz and headlines, the Roswell "crash" was satisfactorily explained and forgotten until the late '70s or early '80s. when it was revived and sensationalized to sell books and TV shows.

Back to the Quora "debunking". An ex-military guy was explaining away the story and dredging up the tale about it not being spoken of again after July 1947, for 30 years or so.

I replied that I knew, first-hand, that this wasn't true, and told what I knew from 1973.

The guy almost flipped out on me. He said this wasn't "first-hand knowledge" at all, that I had been fooled by the conspiracy theory like everyone else.

Never mind that I clearly stated that I wasn't saying the debris was extraterrestrial or anything, just that I knew when I had heard the story and it didn't match the debunkers' claims. Maybe it was a weather balloon test dummy mishap Project Mogul balloon. Or not. That wasn't part of my claim.

My first-hand knowledge is that I heard the story before the story was supposedly revived and sensationalized, so that specific claim can't be true. That's all. I have no first-hand knowledge of any other part of the event (or non-event). Yet this one small point triggered him.

I saw in his over-the-top reaction the same reaction I get from statists when I point out the errors in their thinking and claims. Any reality which doesn't match what they are desperate to believe is met with hostile denial.

Of course, the guy's Quora profile says he is "ex-military" so he may have an agenda to promote.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

No expectations; no disappointment

It happens all the time. There's someone I really like, but out of nowhere, they do something that disappoints me.

Believe it or not, that's not all bad.

One of the best compliments I can pay a person is to be disappointed when they don't live up to my expectations. If I don't expect anything of you, I can't be disappointed when you fall short of my non-existent expectations.

I don't expect anyone to be perfect (in my eyes) just as I hope no one expects perfection of me.

But if someone never disappoints me, they aren't really living. They must not have any opinions and must not be doing anything. What a sad life. I would be disappointed in them in that case. Oh, wait...

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.