Reopening isn't politicians' call

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 6, 2020)

To open or not to open; that is the question. But it's the wrong question. While there's plenty of debate and disagreement over allowing businesses to re-open; when and how it should be done, the discussion misses the point completely.

No one had the right to shut down businesses they didn't own. You don't have the right to tell someone they must shut their business and you can't delegate a right you don't have. Not to a governor or anyone else. This means the authority to tell businesses to close shop, even temporarily due to an emergency, doesn't exist.

The same applies to telling people they aren't allowed to leave their house or to gather with groups of friends. To forbid people to gather is a clear violation of the First Amendment even if you agree and even if government employees are allowed to get away with it.

Nowhere does the Constitution say "unless there is an emergency and people are scared". I know because I've checked.

Government employees can get away with making these rules because the people of America have been infected with a superstitious belief in political authority.

I understand the fears which lead people to accept such orders, even though I don't share them.

I still believe you should be careful and shouldn't do things which put others at too much risk.

Respecting liberty is always the right choice, but there are risks either way.

There is no policy which won't cost lives. That option doesn't exist, even in normal times. The best you can do with any policy is trade lives. Ignoring the virus would have cost lives; shutting the economy is costing lives; seeking some sort of middle ground costs lives too. It's time to stop this silliness.

The ethical thing to do is to remove government from the equation, let business owners decide when and how to re-open, and let individuals decide for themselves the amount of risk they are willing to accept.

If someone is not willing to accept risk to save America, they are perfectly free to self-quarantine inside their homes as I would assume they have already been doing.

This virus-- or any other-- is going to have to run its course, whether it happens in a month or in a year. It's time to accept this and let it. I think you'll discover the fear-mongering was overblown.

So, open or stay shut, but it was never the politicians' decision to make.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Libertarian tyrants?

If your argument is that "libertarians will never get into power because..." then you have shown you don't understand libertarianism. It's not about gaining power; it's about recognizing that no one has the right to archate.

It's the same sort of thing that happens when someone makes the statement that "if libertarians would use government power to force someone to carry a baby to full term, don't they have the obligation to have government support them afterward?" I actually heard someone make that case-- again, displaying an incredible lack of awareness of what libertarianism is.

Libertarians can disagree over abortion; they can't really disagree over the use of government/initiated force and still qualify as libertarians.

Objecting to this stuff isn't "No true Scotsman"; it's pointing out the nature of things.

-

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.

Censorship is a loser move

Censorship is running rampant, but I've seen people argue that it's not censorship unless government is doing it. That's not correct. Censorship doesn't only refer to government action.

While the First Amendment prohibition of censorship only applies to government organs, because those are the only ones who can use legislation to prevent someone from expressing an opinion (or telling an inconvenient fact) or hearing the same, it is still censorship if I prevent you from speaking or being heard. I'm not individually obligated to promote or "host" your message, but if I take action to prevent it from getting to those who want to hear it, I'm censoring just the same as if I banned you from expressing it.

If I deleted comments from my blog which expressed an opinion I didn't like, it would be within my rights... and it would still be censorship. I wouldn't feel right about doing it because, to me, censorship is never ethical, even when you have the right to do it.

The first definition of "censor" is "an official" who suppresses [things] deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. But the second expands that to be anyone who does something similar. That encompasses employees of Twitter, Google, Facebook, and all other quasi-governmental, pseudo-private, institutions.

As I have pointed out on the topic of "private prisons", if it's wrong to do something, it doesn't magically become right just because it's not being done by a direct government employee. It's wrong if done by a corporation or by a private company or by an individual. Murder isn't wrong only when committed by a cop, and censorship isn't wrong only when committed by a government censor. Even though the First Amendment only applies to the direct government employee.

Interestingly, just after I wrote this I ran into something very similar linked over at Claire's blog. I suggest you read that one, too.

-

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.

Why reform, and preserve, evil?

Should chattel slavery have been reformed instead of abolished?

So it is with the police-- legislation enforcement gangs. There is no acceptable way to reform that gang, they must be abolished, Totally. The institution is an abomination and can't be made otherwise.

Yes, the legislative fiction of "qualified immunity" needs to be scrapped. It's the Nuremberg "defense" as policy. I bet the Nuremberg defendants would have given anything to have been protected by that corrupt "legal" concept! And it's just as unethical-- as evil-- no matter who it protects. But it's still not the core problem. The existence of the "job" of police is that core, and it needs to be dug out and burned as a biohazard.

I don't need or want police. If you use them against me you are my enemy and a bad guy (since I will not have archated against you) and I don't want to have them used against you "on my behalf" [sic]. I'm not that much of a loser.

Abolish the police.

-

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.

This anarchist condemns rioting and looting

I am an anarchist.

I do not believe in the legitimacy of any rulers, politicians, political governments, or other non-consensual institutions. No exceptions. That's what "anarchist" means.

I condemn archation (the initiation of force and property violations) no matter who commits it.

Cops are the bad guys.
Antifa are the bad guys.
Looters, arsonists, vandals, attackers of any sort are the bad guys.
As are all who use the political means.

Defenders are on the correct side, but not everything claimed to be defense is. It's not "defense" if you use force (or politics) against someone who isn't currently violating your life, liberty, or property, nor credibly threatening to do so.

Those who protect the innocent and private property are doing the right thing, whether their actions are "legal" or not. Yes, that means it is right to shoot looters and vandals or anyone who is violating others.

Doing the right thing, without violating anyone, with or without "official permission", regardless of what legislation permits, is anarchy. Do anarchy right.

Don't claim to be an anarchist if you don't want to be burdened with the responsibility inherent in the philosophy, and especially not if you're a socialistic thug (or thug of any other variety) who violates the inflexible principles for sport. Or for your twisted notions of "justice". You can't get justice by being a non-anarchist.

-

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.

It's not about race, it's about police

A cop casually murdered a guy while his associates looked on and enabled the murder. Protests erupted, then turned into riots and looting, losing any moral high ground they may have started with.

And people are claiming this is about "racial injustice". As if cops of all "races" don't murder people of all "races". It's about cops, not "race".

Yet almost no one is pointing this out.

I guess it's safer to lie and say it's about "racial injustice" than it is to tell the truth and say it's about cops.

The "job" of policing both attracts thugs who enjoy bullying and hurting people, and it turns formerly decent people into monsters who live on stolen money, keep their "job" only by robbing, molesting, and killing people, and routinely look the other way while fellow gang members commit evil as part of "doing their job".

Get-away drivers are charged in the bank robbery committed by their associates. Robbers who didn't pull the trigger are charged with murder just because they were present as associates of the fellow thug who did. But cops who stand around while a fellow gang member murders a guy can't be charged with murder because... "reasons"? BS!

If you support the police in any way, you support tyranny. You support infinitely big government. Cops are where the boot heel-- or the knee-- of tyranny meets the neck of humanity.

There's no legitimate excuse. It's past time.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Trusting... what?

The blurb claimed: "A new study finds that trust in science predicts compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines"

False.

I trust science completely. However, science isn't what most people seem to believe it is. Science is the best method for figuring out reality and making it work for you, consistently.

Science mixed with politics isn't science any more than food mixed with poison is still food. 

-

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.

They don't care who's watching

Some government-supremacists who aren't terribly situationally aware argue that a cop wouldn't intentionally commit murder in front of witnesses and cameras.

How does this belief measure up?

Would cops murder someone while they know they are being watched and recorded?

Well, sure, if they believe they are immune from real consequences. In other words, if it's an average legislation enforcement officer who is aware of how this usually plays out for murderous cops committing the murder.

Cops aren't afraid to murder because they usually get away with it, no matter how blatant it is. Even if "charged" with a crime. Juries are stacked with copsuckers. Prosecutors belong to the same gang as the cops. As do judges. A murderous cop has to be really careless to suffer real consequences.

There are many dumb, pointless ways to "reform" the police. There's also one good way to solve the problem.

Abolish the police.

-

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.

Looters, cops, and other scum

The urban riots over a nasty legislation enforcement goon's act of murder are turning into bad guy vs. bad guy. As it stands, I can't support either side nor can I care what happens to the thugs on either side.

I would never rat on or condemn anyone for shooting a looter or a cop.

Both are examples of people engaging in acts of archation. Play evil games, win painful prizes.

No, you can't be an innocent cop. Putting on the gang colors is a declaration that you intend to archate. I understand that some people have an irrational need to pretend cops are something other than what they are and that they do something other than what they do. But, that's just what it is: irrational.

At this point, I don't care if both sides wipe each other off the face of the Earth.

-

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.

Smallest actions can have big effects

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 29, 2020)

It's a quirk of human nature that a crisis can bring people together, bring out our best, and give our lives meaning. Sure, it can also bring out the worst in some damaged people, but we can acknowledge their existence then continue to ignore them as insignificant.

A threat to life, liberty, and property is terrible, but you can find some good in it if you look. People love to unite against a common enemy, whether it's a virus or grotesque alien overlords from a galaxy far, far away, Washington DC, or Santa Fe.

Like them or not, the protests against the shut-downs are a show of unity between people who might otherwise have little in common. As are the hordes of people joining together online to complain about the protests.

There are others who ignore the political bickering; staying busy doing what they can to help. Legions of people are currently hunched over their sewing machines at home, whipping up face masks and gowns for those who want them. There are business owners all over the country exploring new ways to serve their customers, keep their businesses running and their employees employed.

What can you do?

Even if you don't quite know what to do, the smallest things can have big effects in your own life.

A walk in the sunshine and fresh air can make you feel like you're actively fighting the coronavirus. At least you're getting a little exercise, which is known to be one of the best ways to boost your immune system. Plus, letting others see you out doing something rather than cowering at home can encourage them that this is not the end.

Lending a hand when you find the opportunity has also been shown to help you while you help others.

I've been writing almost every day since 2006 to promote liberty and to encourage people to accept their responsibility to not violate others. Giving hope to those who value liberty, and trying to help people keep their heads together during these strange times, while others apparently want to stampede them, is something small I can do.

Do you feel as though your contributions to society are now more meaningful? If not, you may be missing out on something special. Something which will make you feel better while doing the same for those around you. It doesn't need to be something big. It's probably something you already know how to do.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Pointers for rioters

The biggest problem with riots is that the participants don't seem to have a clear focus. They just rage against everyone, no matter whose side they may be on. In order to help them express themselves in a coherent manner, I offer these pointers.

Not everyone is your enemy. Not every person of a different "race". Not everyone who has more money than you. Not every business owner. Some people who would be on your side will be alienated if you violate their life, liberty, and property, just as you were alienated by someone violating the life, liberty, or property of the person who inspired your riot.

So, let me help you with that problem by laying out the legitimate targets of your rage, as opposed to the illegitimate targets which will only hurt your cause.

If you want to burn, destroy, and loot, stick to the legitimate targets and avoid the illegitimate ones.

Legitimate targets:

• Police stations
• Police cars
• Police officers
• Police officers' private property (purchased with YOUR money)
• Courthouses
• City hall
• Federal buildings
• Anyone who expresses support for police, including their family members who are members of that gang

Illegitimate targets:

• Private businesses*
• Private property
• Individuals who are not copsuckers
• Anything not associated with government

There are also some targets that I feel should be avoided for various reasons which may or may not make sense. I'm not even sure it makes sense to me, but here they are:

• Libraries
• Parks
• Postal workers and post offices

*There's an asterisk beside "Private businesses" for a reason. A "private business" which goes out of its way to express support for the Blue Line Gang, perhaps by showing gang colors by flying one of those Blue Line Gang flags, or by posting signs which say "We support law enforcement"... those businesses have chosen to side against you and me.

Keep it on track and I'm on your side against legislation enforcers. And, I want to be on your side, so don't screw this up.

-

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 pantry

Since the beginning of the coronapocalypse, the other members of the household have become more cooperative with my prepper ways. That has made it easier to acquire the preps I believe are a good idea, but are a little inconvenient in some way.

To this end, today I picked up an old (actual wood) entertainment center to serve as a secondary pantry-- or, actually, I guess it's the tertiary pantry. 

I think it's going to work great. The 3 drawers in the bottom can hold a lot of lighter things, while the upper part with doors, which was made for the TV, and which had one adjustable shelf but will soon have 2, can hold a lot of other stuff.

I love prepping. 

-

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.

Yet another murderous cop

For those who haven't got a clue, and question whether the victim "resisted arrest" and thus "deserved what he got"...

It's no more wrong to "resist arrest"-- with whatever level of violence is necessary-- than it is to fight back against any other kidnapper, robber, or rapist. Yes, I realize it probably means the badgescum or his gang will murder you for doing so.

Badges don't create "special rights"-- but they do create monsters out of weak-minded, unethical people (the only kind of people who become cops). Monsters who benefit by membership in the Blue Line Gang.

When someone dies for "resisting arrest", the cop who murdered them should be treated like a rapist who murdered his struggling victim, or like a mugger or kidnapper who murdered his victim for not cooperating. 

Because, at best it is the exact same thing, ethically. At worst, it is even more evil because so many people have been brainwashed to believe the Blue Line Gang scum are the "good guys" and believe they should be allowed to murder those who resist their molestation

-

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.

Opening the churches

A church my grandfather built

In all the debate over whether the churches should be allowed to open during the coronapocalypse, the thing that keeps being ignored is that government has no right or "authority" to force them to close nor to demand they stay closed. Nor even to dictate how they are allowed to conduct their services.

Even if you irrationally believe the U.S. feral government is legitimate, the First Amendment doesn't allow it to have that power. In fact, it forbids it from more than one direction: freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, and probably freedom of speech. 

That it is mostly state governors giving the orders changes nothing. The 14th Amendment binds the state governments to obey the Bill of Rights.

I've heard some government-supremacists argue that no one is violating anyone's freedom of religion since they can still believe what they believe, they just can't gather in a church building.

That would be wrong.

Many people believe they are directed to gather, in person, with other believers. To forbid this is to violate their freedom of religion. It violates their freedom to assemble.

Statism is a religion. Government is its god. Government is a jealous god and doesn't like competition.

-

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.

Being neighborly

I don't meddle, but I do observe and get concerned. There's a line somewhere between not being nosey and not defending the innocent. I don't want to get it wrong.

A neighbor of mine has attracted my attention.

She hasn't been emotionally well for a long time. Her daughter was killed in a car wreck a few years before my daughter was killed in a car wreck-- both at about the same age. She hasn't done as well as I have in the years since. I get it, but I care.

She's about my age and her elderly mother lives with her. She has aged enough that I sometimes have trouble telling whether it's her or her mother I see. She goes through phases where she doesn't bother getting dressed but just wears a robe when out in her yard.

I've tried to reach out to her a few times, but she's not very receptive-- and it may just be that she doesn't like me. The dumpster we share is right behind her house. I speak to her when I see her. Sometimes she responds and sometimes she doesn't; she seems to be pretending she doesn't see or hear me.

What has me concerned is that a young couple moved in with her a few months ago. I've heard that this is another daughter or step-daughter and her husband. They brought small dogs-- which then had puppies-- and all the dogs run amok when they get out of the fence.

The young couple seems to be running the house and destroying the yard. I would be afraid to see inside the house.

In the past, this woman's yard would sometimes get a few bags of trash piled right beside the back porch. I guess she just didn't want to walk it to the dumpster. If it had gotten too bad I would have asked if she needed help, but it never did.

Now her yard looks like a landfill, with shredded trash and polyester cushion filling everywhere. I wouldn't care-- her property, not mine-- but I suspect she's being taken advantage of by the new residents. She never let things get anywhere near this bad before they came along. Plus, when I do see her she seems even less friendly than before. And I see her less often, too.

I'm just taking note for now. If I get a chance to speak to her I'll ask how she's doing and if everything's alright. I don't want to meddle, but I also don't want to stand aside while someone is used and abused.

And, no, I'm not calling "the authorities" because there's no situation so bad it can't be made worse by adding a cop to the mix.

-

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.

Be like Sherlock Holmes-- in the good ways

Those who know me know I really like the fictional character, Sherlock Holmes. The A. Conan Doyle original, specifically. The degree to which I like other versions depends on how faithful they are to the original. The original Sherlock Holmes was surprisingly libertarian for the time and place where he was created.

Of the most recent versions, I like the Benedryl Cabbagepatch Sherlock adaptation (ignoring the 4th season shark-jump) from England a lot more than I like the "woke" Left-Statist version from America called Elementary.

I've been watching Elementary on a streaming service for a couple of months now. But there are times its deficiencies are painful to me-- to the point that I sometimes realize I haven't been paying attention for several minutes. That version of Holmes just doesn't measure up very well. He is not abnormally intelligent or good at deduction/induction/abduction, and he is irrationally anti-gun and pro-police (as is the mood of the whole show). He's just not that impressive or exceptionally gifted. That's anti-Holmesian.

I'm not at all a fan of the movies starring Robert Downey Jr. and I couldn't even bring myself to watch the Will Ferrell version after seeing the previews.

Some of the old TV versions of decades past are pretty good.

I also notice whether the various versions actually use Holmes' methods, or if they are written by someone who doesn't understand what makes Sherlock Holmes what he is and flounders in vain trying to write something they don't understand. Or worse, if they don't like what Sherlock Holmes is so they try to make him something they like better (which feels like Elementary's problem).

I'm not generally a fan of "re-imagining" stuff that works, anyway, unless it is done carefully.

This is a roundabout way to get to a point.

In my most delusional moments of imagined grandeur I like to imagine myself as the Sherlock Holmes of liberty. I want to be able to think dispassionately about liberty and just go where the data leads me regardless of my feelings. I want to emulate the good characteristics of Holmes as they might apply to my own interests. I accept that I have flaws, as does the character-- although Holmes' addiction* to substances isn't one of my flaws.

To the extent this delusion helps make me a better person, it's useful. If it knocks me off-course, then it isn't.

-

*As pointed out in the comment by R R Schoettke below, Doyle's Holmes was an occasional drug user, but not an addict. A critically important distinction.

-

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 likely to make itself hero

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 22, 2020)

What have you learned from the coronapocalypse so far? Has it changed you?

The experience has shown me where my preparedness was good and where I could make improvements. I discovered the need for some supplies I hadn't considered before. I'll work to fix those areas, but it's hard to prepare for everything when you can't know what "everything" might include. Next time could be completely different.

I have become more appreciative of the freedom to simply be around other people. I'm not excessively sociable, but I like being able to choose to socialize when I'm in the mood. It will be nice to go to a fast food place and sit inside and eat among other people again, even if they are loud.

I'm not afraid of the virus, but out of consideration for those who are-- and those who have more risk if they do catch it-- I've changed my behavior during this pandemic.

If I had any trust or faith in government, this experience would have destroyed it for good. Of course, that ship sailed decades ago, so watching the incompetence and tyranny from those who imagine they know best how to run your life hasn't affected me much.

I'm suspecting the differences in how people view government's response will further divide America between those who imagine government saved the country from certain disaster and those who realize everything government did in response to the pandemic harmed the country worse than the virus. Those in the first group will want government to have even more power over our lives from now on, and those in the second group will want to take back our rightful liberty which was stolen over the last couple of centuries.

This isn't a huge change, but the disagreements may get more heated unless one side backs down. I don't see that happening.

I've become more skeptical of the sanity of those cheering the police state tactics justified by the virus, the intelligence of those begging government to do more, and of the morals of those who became snitches, reporting anyone they suspected of not complying with unconstitutional orders.

Speaking of learning-- I'm curious how this time will look when it's history. Unfortunately, government gets to decide what the history textbooks will say about this event, so its version will be taught to generations of children in its schools. Expect government to make itself out to be the hero of this story, regardless of the truth.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Liberty is the best path

I try hard to find cases where respecting liberty is NOT the best thing for society (by being best for individuals). And I never have. Not once.

I've found lots of cases where someone is confused over what liberty is, or is in denial because they want to pretend their imaginary exceptions are somehow legitimate. But not one of those has ever held up to scrutiny... and I give my best shot at seeing if it can.

I've been in long debates with those who are pushing their own favorite exception, and I can usually see where their feelings are coming from and where these feelings tripped them up. I've been subjected to some pretty harsh insults as a result of these debates when "my best shot" doesn't result in me adopting the other position.

Insults don't change reality, though. That doesn't matter to those who don't want to fully respect liberty. They are going to make the exceptions they want to make, regardless of anything else. It's just good to weigh and measure all their arguments for your own sake.

Who knows, I could be wrong. I'm surely wrong about a lot of things. I'd rather find out I'm wrong and work to fix it than to be stubborn. But it will take a lot to convince me that slavery is ever, in any circumstance, better than liberty. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

-

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.

Nice "but"

I notice people's buts. Not their butts (well, in some cases...); their "buts".

They advocate liberty, but... and I notice.

"Liberty is good, but..."

...they believe government schooling (including vouchers, etc.) is necessary for education, and will discuss twiddling the dials, but never abolishing it.

...they still think the cops or military are somehow "good guys".

...they imagine it's OK to have government control who comes or goes, what you do with your property or body, etc. "For your own good."

...they believe "taxation" is necessary for some things that no one wants bad enough to pay for voluntarily.

...they want to be protected from all the things they're scared of.

...they insist you obey legislation, even if it's unethical, until someone changes the "law".

...they can't imagine living without government telling them how they should live.

...and on and on and on.

It's as though they are desperate to be taken seriously by government-supremacists for some reason. Maybe to be allowed a place at the table.
Or for a patronizing pat on the head.

Liberty doesn't come with any buts. It just is. You either accept it as it is or you reject it.

-

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.

Freedom plus responsibility

Liberty is freedom tempered with responsibility.

Remind anyone who whines about freedom being dangerous because it doesn't mention responsibility-- it was never intended to.

They're just focusing on one facet of liberty and pretending that because it isn't what they want means this invalidates the whole thing. Any isolated part is going to be flawed and missing something essential.

Responsibility without freedom is meaningless and is just as flawed as freedom without responsibility. Liberty is the solution.

-

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.