Governing right up to the line

All political governments are the ethical equivalent of the 9/11 terrorists. Or, probably, worse.

Since 9/11, airplane passengers-- at least in America-- know they have nothing to lose by fighting back against hijackers as hard as they can. Even if it means they die in the fight. Those hijackers ruined it for all the disgusting hijackers who come after them.

Since the coronapocalypse, some people may be realizing the same thing about political government.

Governments need to be careful to grab as much power as they can get away with, but not so much that the people decide they have nothing to lose by decorating lamp posts and barbed wire fences with the remains of the oppressors.

They have to be very careful to not make governing impossibly dangerous for those who come after them and from now on. I think it's a finer line than they realize.

Truthfully, I kind of hope they fail, even though it would mean some hard choices in the immediate future. I'm tired of tolerating the intolerable and would rather not leave that kind of world for my descendants.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Another liberty holiday: 4-20

I have never really celebrated "4/20", not even when I occasionally enjoyed burning the herb. And that was a long time ago. The memory brings a smile to my face and makes me think appreciatively of a long-lost girlfriend.

Where was I...?

Oh, yeah... 4-20. And this is a special 4-20 since it's 4-20-2020. That's a lot of 20!

I'm happy that smoking the stuff is the closest to not being a "crime" that I have ever seen. Although I would still rather it be "illegal" than have all the conditions and exceptions various governments seem driven to attach to its use. I'm not sure the trade-off is worth it.

The arrogance of believing that you are entitled to make a plant-- and using it non-aggressively-- a "crime" bewilders me. What kind of broken soul would follow such a path? No one I need around me, that's for sure.

Anyway, if you smoke (or otherwise consume) it, enjoy the excuse to do so-- as if you need one.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Keep healthy habits, help others

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 18, 2020)

How will you spend your time now that civilization has been canceled by executive command? Is it time to brush up on your stone-age skills?

This would be a good time to familiarize yourself with the edible wild plants growing in your yard and to learn the natural substitutes for toilet paper.

Learn to make and use an atlatl and stone-tipped spears in case you need to bring down a mammoth. Pool cues might be a good raw material for this sort of thing. Of course, the recent scarcity of mammoths could put a kink in this plan.

A bonfire in the backyard for roasting your kill would probably attract the wrong kind of attention anyway. This should be a last resort.

Perhaps you could choose to go to the opposite extreme and retreat to a virtual world for a fortnight or two, where your biggest dangers are ransom-ware and scammers promising eternal love in exchange for airfare to America.

Or will you ignore the hoopla?

I'm always in favor of taking precautions against unnecessary risks, but people can go overboard. There are times precaution gets replaced by panic. Politicians love taking advantage of panic since they rarely pay a price for being wrong. They claim the credit if people believe they got it right, but you pay the price every time they are wrong.

I'm going to hope you're a regular reader of this column and as such you've listened to my frequent suggestions to be a "prepper" and stock up on essential supplies in case of unforeseen circumstances. This means you were already prepared and didn't get caught up in the last-minute scramble for essentials... or for the luxuries some people consider essential.

Aren't you glad you listened?

The phrase "May you live in interesting times" is said to be a curse. I'm not certain it is. Would you rather be bored to death? Times can be interesting, but-- when you're ready for whatever life throws at you-- not cursed.

This too will pass. You'll be fine when all is said and done. There are lessons in all this. Smart people will learn and remember these lessons; others will stay clueless.

Don't let the hand-wringers and fear-mongers upset you. Do things you already know will help you stay healthy. Healthy habits haven't suddenly become dangerous. Lend a hand to those who, due to age or health conditions, may be more at risk. Together, but maybe not within coughing distance, we will get through this.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Patriots' Day- 4/19/2020

I've previously mentioned my skepticism about patriotism. Looking into the origins and uses of the word, I'm not the only one who has my doubts about its goodness.

However, there is a generally-ignored holiday called Patriots' Day which I've mentioned in the past, and it happens to be today-- "4-19" every year. As far as semi-political holidays go, it's not so awful.

Ammo.com has a little write-up about it you might enjoy. It's history, so you probably ought to familiarize yourself just a little so you don't accidentally end up celebrating the wholly statist, government-worshiping "Patriots' Day" (Blowback Day/Consequences Day) on September 11th of every year.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Viral thuggery

There's a phrase I've seen making the rounds recently: "No one has the right to infect others."

Sounds good on the surface.

But...

What does that even mean?

Beyond justifying coronapocalypse tyranny, that is.

For you to not have the right to do something means you are violating the rights of someone else if you do it. The above assertion doesn't distinguish between knowing you are doing it or not. It leaves no room for biological reality and "stuff happens". Nope. If you transmit a pathogen of any sort you have violated someone's rights. Nonsense.

This is almost like saying you have no right to breathe out carbon dioxide-- like certain segments of the population would claim.

If you KNOW you are contagious, you need to try your best to not infect other people. Don't grab someone by the ears and cough in their face. Don't sneeze on them or throw snotty rags at them. Don't spit in their food. Stay away from others as much as you reasonably can, take precautions, and be mindful of what you're doing at all times (something everyone should be doing regardless). Maybe even warn people to stay back if you believe that will help.

But to claim you are violating someone's rights simply by going about your business in a generally responsible way?

No one has a right to use force against you if they are just worried you might be infectious. Or, just because you aren't obeying the ignorant orders of known liars and power-hungry monsters.

And it seems that's what most of those who say you have no right to infect others are actually advocating. Not responsibility from you, but irresponsibility from others.

In making this claim they are supporting mandatory lock-downs, mandatory vaccinations, business closures, and antisocial nannying. They would use the force of the State against those who aren't following the edicts of the State, regardless of whether they are obviously sick or not, for a disease which seems to be much less deadly than government would like us to fear.

Plus, if someone doesn't want to get infected, they are free to sequester themselves in isolation from all humans. That's how to avoid being infected without violating the rights of anyone else. I'll even do what I can to help deliver supplies to anyone in my sphere who takes this approach (as I'm already doing) if they want. How they deal with what I deliver, such as disinfecting what I bring, is up to them at that point.

Please, don't act like the statists by cowering in fear that someone, somewhere, might have a virus you don't want, and that they are violating you by not pre-emptively dying in a deep hole for your convenience and safetyness.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

"Good" intentions propped up with archation

If your "good intentions" involve violating the life, liberty, or property of other people-- either through your own actions or by using or supporting political government-- you're not the good guy.

Not even a little.

If you imagine you can beat a pandemic by forcibly vaccinating people, by forcing their businesses to close, by forcing them to stay in their own homes (and sending members of the Blue Line Gang after those who refuse), or by promoting and supporting anyone who tries to do these things, you are part of the problem. I don't care who you are or how many people you've fooled.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

The $1200 "stimulus"

Don't assume everyone you know suddenly has an extra $1200. Some don't.

Receiving that money from Uncle Scam is contingent upon meeting certain conditions which many people, for one reason or another, do not meet.

I'm noticing an economic fact I hadn't considered before. If the "supply" of fiat money instantly goes up, but a few people are left out, it's like those people suddenly lost ground. Yes, I expect everyone else to catch up (catch down?) eventually when the piper must be paid, so the situation will be temporary.

That is, the pain won't always be limited to those who didn't get the money-- I expect the economic pain to hit everyone before this is all over. Those who didn't get the payoff will just be hit twice because they will still have to suffer the effects of the payoff without getting the payoff. Does that seem right to you?

I don't want that to happen-- I'd much rather the painful effects be limited to as few as possible since the payoffs are already a done deal. But you and I, not being fake economists, know that's not going to be the way this goes.

If you are one of those who received "stimulus money", I recommend spending it all on guns, ammo, and survival foods if you don't need it for more immediate necessities. It would be a good way to make that money last a bit longer and benefit you in the long run. Guns and ammo, in particular, are always a good digitus impudicus aimed at the State. Use it well.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Government-supremacist

A government-supremacist is an extreme statist. Not just someone who acts as though they believe governing others to be a legitimate human endeavor but someone whose behavior demonstrates the assumption that political government is superior to and naturally above society and the individuals in a society.

In fact, by their words, they apparently almost always conflate the State and society, even though those are opposites.

The government-supremacist uses phrases like "our/my president", "our government", "our military", and advocates that everything should be decided and controlled in some way by the State. They seem to believe government should always have a say and a plan. There is probably no aspect of life a government-supremacist would believe is always off-limits to government intervention or oversight.

A government-supremacist never expresses real doubt as to the legitimacy of the State even if questioning whether it sometimes goes too far in specific instances.

In any discussion of politics, government, legislation, or society, government-supremacists have the lowest possible amount of credibility. Their opinions can be dismissed-- other than taking note of them as a warning of what they'd allow government to do to society... and to you.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Politicians are NOT leaders

Hearing someone refer to politicians as "leaders" is like fingernails clawing at a chalkboard. It grates on my nerves.

I have written about why this description is wrong in the past. Some people who agree they are not leaders still balk at calling them what they actually are: rulers. I've never seen a reasonable objection to this characterization, but perhaps there is one out there somewhere.

Still, they are not, and never have been, leaders. Unless you follow them.

If you are dumb enough to allow yourself to be led by a politician you shouldn't complain about where it leads you.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Don't need rescue from everything

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 11, 2020)

I'm surprised at how seriously people are taking the coronavirus. I'm even more surprised at how many believe government can save them from it, or that it's even government's job to do so.

This is the same sort of thinking which has led to the recent plague of "red flag" legislation.

If you believe you need politicians to save you from a virus or from someone's gun, then you'll keep handing control of your life over to anyone who promises to rescue you. Whether they actually can or not.

It's not only diseases and guns. It seems almost everyone wants to be saved from something. Maybe they fear immigrants who don't comply with unconstitutional anti-immigration legislation. Or maybe they want to be rescued from "inequality", whatever they imagine it to be.

Others may want to be saved from weather, poverty, different political ideologies or other religions they don't follow, or from rich people. Some beg to be rescued from their student loan debt or their own bad choices.

Drugs, other drivers, people who might appear to be smoking but aren't, messy yards, backyard chickens, loud parties, tall grass, and more are all things someone out there wants government to save them from.

If this seems like a long list, you are right. Yet it barely scratches the surface. There appears to be no end to the number of things you could list which some people, somewhere at some time, have begged government to save them from.

Government encourages this pandemic of cowardice.

H. L. Mencken, a favorite writer of mine from early in the 20th Century, noticed this and called it out. He wrote: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

He's right, and it's working.

Were your hobgoblins listed above or are yours something else entirely?

It's not that these things don't exist, but making them into hobgoblins you fear irrationally is a path to slavery. You become so desperate to be saved you'll accept those fanning the flames of fear as your self-proclaimed saviors.

Fear is the reaction to feeling you won't be able to cope; of suspecting you aren't enough. It's a lie. You are enough. You don't need to be rescued from every little thing. I know you can do it without depending on government or its legislation. To conquer fear, get busy doing what needs to be done.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Essential people and their essential jobs

You are essential.

Your job or career is essential. (As long as you aren't a politician or a politician's hired thug, anyway.) If it weren't, you couldn't afford to do it because no one would pay you to. Every job in the market is essential to someone.

Never let useless government tools tell you you aren't essential. They are lying-- it's what government does best. (Even better than murdering, stealing, kidnapping, etc.)

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Padding the pandemic statistics

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

To block is to admit the facts don't support you

Have you ever noticed how fast statists are to block anyone who questions their toxic, childish world-view?

I have and I find it amusing. They have no real arguments to support their beliefs, so they block. If they can block all other voices, they can feel safe (and confident) in their delusion for another day.

My first experience of this was some guy-- who portrayed himself as quite the "progressive" journalist-- who wrote a post calling libertarians racists and "white separatists". I politely pointed out how that wasn't accurate, giving examples and showing how racism, as he described it, would violate libertarian principles. He reacted by throwing a fit in comment form and then blocking me. Not long after this, his entire blog vanished entirely. So much for his journalistic career (I've searched for him over the years and never found a trace online).

I've had disagreements with lots of people (shocking, I know!) but only those disagreements which were due to me pointing out the error of statism to a statist resulted in me being blocked. To me, it shows their weakness and exposes that they know their position is weak.

I have never blocked anyone on my blog. No matter what they said about me, or how nasty they were toward me. And certainly never due to them having a difference of opinion or saying I'm wrong.

Statists are too insecure to do the same. This indicates they know they are wrong-- perhaps only subconsciously. Statism is a weak position, even if it's popular.

(I have deleted 2 non-spam comments over the years-- once when the commenter demanded I delete his comment after he posted it and once by accident while trying to read the comments from my phone.)

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Government-supremacist assumptions

You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes with a magnifying glass. Government-supremacists are easy to spot by the bad assumptions they naturally make and wave around in public.

They've always argued over how to spend "tax" money; they won't consider the fact that "taxation" is theft.

They've argued over what should be taught in government schools, but never questioned government control over (and destruction of) education.

And now they argue over whether it was the right move to issue stay-at-home orders and cripple the economy, but they never consider that no one has the right to do so.

It's not government's place to decide to shutter the economy to "save" lives from coronavirus or anything else. They don't have that right and they shouldn't be allowed to have the power.

It's never an "adult decision" to govern other people (the political means) rather than letting them work it out for themselves (the economic means/the market). It's the most childish thing anyone can do. No one should be allowed to make those decisions and decide for you what you will be permitted to do with your own life.

They also substitute government-supremacism for thinking in other ways.

If you are making the dishonest argument that to fail to sufficiently cripple the economy on account of the coronapocalypse is going to kill 50,000 additional people (or whatever your number might be), without taking into account those who will die because the economy is being destroyed, you aren't contributing anything useful.

You can't know how many the virus will kill, nor do you know how many will die from the effects of a shut-down. The number of dead from the shut-down could well vastly outnumber those who die from the virus, making the "net deaths from coronavirus" being tossed around a completely fake number. Any discussion of "net deaths from coronavirus" without taking those a shut-down will kill into account is-- as of now-- a lie calculated to limit the discussion to government-supremacist answers.

To pretend that someone has sufficient information to make such a decision, or the right to impose it, is to be dishonest. It's what makes one a government-supremacist.

Government edicts and orders are the opposite of responsibility. You have the responsibility to not violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else. Government-supremacy is explicit irresponsibility and is shameful. No matter who exhibits it or what excuse they grasp at to justify their violations. I have no respect for government-supremacists; they deserve none. They've worked hard to prove that.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Reject Hate

Government is a hate group.

If there's any such thing as a "hate crime", supporting government-- in any way, shape, or form, at any level-- has to be the main one. Anything else pales by comparison.

Reject hate. Reject political government.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

You'll have to stop them

At some point, it always comes down to people having to use violence in self-defense against those seeking to violate their life, liberty, and property.

This is a reality that can not be changed. I wish it could. But if you intend to keep your life, liberty, and property-- and if you live long enough-- you will eventually be forced to fight those who want to violate you. Most of those will probably have badges and/or government titles.

It seems that government-supremacists are trying to rush that day. They imagine they'll be on the winning side. I suspect no one will really win. I just hope the oppressors lose harder.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Hysterics are usually wrong

Image credit

When one side of an issue is hysterical or panicked and the other side isn't too upset, the side that's not hysterical is almost always correct.

This is true even if I'm the hysterical one.

There will be rare times which are the exception. You won't know ahead of time-- or even during the event-- whether this time is the exception or not. How's that for a nice bit of news?

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Glad someone finally said 'enough'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 4, 2020)

As much as I appreciate sheriffs who refuse to enforce the latest blatant violation of the Constitution-- so-called "red flag" legislation-- I wonder where their courage to not do the wrong thing has been hiding until now.

Unconstitutional gun legislation-- which includes every "law" concerning guns-- has been enforced by those in these same offices since 1934. This newest violation isn't worse than the others. This is an arbitrary, theatrical line-in-the-sand.

If they have ever arrested someone for carrying a concealed firearm without a license, or insisted a gun shop needs permission from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives before selling guns, then they've broken the law which applies to their job by enforcing legislation which was illegal to impose or enforce.

If they would help arrest someone for mailing a gun, after selling it through an advertisement on the internet, to someone in another state who lacks the "proper license", they have violated the Constitution in the exact same way they now say they won't do.

If they would arrest someone for possessing or selling a fully automatic firearm without the government paperwork, they're willing to violate the Constitution. As they are if they'd enforce the rules against shotguns with barrels declared "too short" or against safety equipment like suppressors (incorrectly called "silencers").

How can anyone take these scofflaws at their word?

Even the Supreme Court ironically recognized the right to ignore unconstitutional "laws"-- which they declared to not be laws at all-- in the same ruling in which they unconstitutionally decided they have the final say on what the Constitution means: the Marbury v. Madison ruling in 1803.

Neither the Supreme Court nor anyone else associated with the Federal government has the right to decide what the Constitution means. The same is true of state officials deciding what the state constitution allows them to do to the people. This would make no sense. You can't let someone decide how the rules which limit their job's power will be applied or what they mean. It's like letting the accused murderer dictate how his trial will be carried out and what evidence to allow.

Speaking of trials, the federal government won't allow the Second Amendment to be used as an argument in favor of the accused when there is a "gun offense" in question-- yet it is the only relevant factor.

I'm glad someone stood up and said "Enough!" I'd be more impressed if they'd be consistent and stop breaking the law entirely.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Don't be controlled by government

I drink water. I've done so all my life. If government passed legislation today ordering me to continue to drink water, would I stop drinking water just because they ordered me to drink it? No.

Would it be hypocritical of me to continue to drink water while pointing out that the new legislation was evil? No.

I would be smart to be suspicious of the reasons behind any legislation ordering me to drink water, and perhaps I would seek out my own sources. I'd wonder what they had put in it if they were ordering me to drink it (I know some people already do).

But water, and drinking it, doesn't suddenly change into the wrong thing to do just because government orders it.

Well, trying to avoid exposing yourself or vulnerable people to a potentially harmful disease-- even when you don't know the true risks-- is the same thing. It's strange that I feel the need to point that out, but some people actually don't understand that reality.

If you stop doing something you've been doing just because government tells you to do it, you are letting government control you every bit as much as if you stop doing something you know is right just because government makes it "illegal". Don't do that.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

The cowardocracy

More and more I'm seeing all statists-- those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human endeavor-- as cowards.

This coronapanic has exposed them better than anything in recent memory. Probably better than anything since the Blowback Attacks of 2001-- which, I admit, almost drew me in.

Cowards always want someone to save them from dangers they exaggerate.

It's not about your risk of getting coronavirus-- you'll probably get sick with something in the next few months regardless-- it's about your chances; your risk of dying from the illness. No one is being honest about that risk, because they don't know what it is and won't admit they don't know.

But cowards don't care, they want reassurance and they want someone else to take care of them. Even if what is being done is the wrong thing-- possibly making things worse. Even if they are being lied to. As long as someone else seems like they are taking charge.

And you and I are paying for their cowardice.

Depending on someone else to hold your hand through the pandemic is probably not the healthiest way to respond. Allowing someone else to herd you like cattle is the worst way to respond. Life shouldn't stop just because you don't know what's happening or what will happen next. If you think you know what the future holds, at any time, you're fooling yourself anyway.

A police state is a symptom of widespread cowardice.

But I know you aren't the one who's the problem. The problem is those people who only watch MSNBC, CNN, or FOX news. They are being misinformed and it is making them cowards (if they weren't before). It's absurd. But they v*te. And they "support" the Blue Line Gang's villainy. And they bleat and plead for government to "do something".

Why should cowards control society? Why should they have power over your life just because of their superior numbers? You know the answer: they shouldn't.

-

Another voice of calm in the midst of this panicdemic is that of Jim Davies over at "the anarchist alternative", with his Wuhan Bug Blog. Check it out.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.