Defense for the incapable

A common tactic from those who want to at least appear to have an argument against abolishing the police is to either claim that they themselves are incapable of protecting their own life, liberty, or property, or to try to scapegoat someone else as being incapable.

Nonsense.

Plus, when you try to blame others for your desire to keep "employing" the gang, it's rude!

I've seen enough examples of kids, small women, the elderly, and the disabled protecting themselves and others from archation (and so have you) that I don't buy that anyone who isn't completely helpless is incapable. It's a coward's lie.

Maybe some don't want to accept the responsibility, but they can.

It's not your job to coddle those who refuse, but you can if you want-- at your own expense. It doesn't give anyone the right to enslave everyone else for their imagined weaknesses.

Yes, there are some who are truly incapable of defending themselves, feeding themselves, or wiping their own butts. Nice people take care of this kind of person, sometimes for money-- but society doesn't revolve around their inability. That would be like living in a prison established to make certain that no one could be any more capable than the least capable among us. I'm not going to live that way.

Refusing to consider abolishing the police based on the lie that people who are otherwise capable can't protect themselves is antisocial, unethical, and statist (but I repeat myself).

-

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.

Candace Owens, I thought you were better than that

Candace--

To observe that a murder happened and to point out that it was a bad thing doesn't mean someone imagines the victim was a hero. I never thought that.

It just means that at that moment he was doing nothing which required killing him to defend life, liberty, or property.

Why would a murder victim need to be a hero before I oppose the murder? It would be a strange thing to need to check to make sure every murder victim is a hero before objecting to his or her murder.

That he had "drugs" in his system is irrelevant unless you believe it's OK to murder a woman who's had some wine and then fights back against a kidnapper. I take that back-- it's irrelevant and wrong even if that's what you believe. The stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is prohibition propped up by counterfeit "laws". To excuse murder based on that Big Government program is wrong.

Yes, it is known that Floyd did some actual crime, too. Real archation. His victim would have been right to have killed him in that encounter. I would have cheered his death in that case-- it would have been self-defense and not murder. But not in this case, and not over what he was murdered for doing.

Your fawning support of government-supremacism and its jackboots seems like it would embarrass you. It would certainly embarrass me.

I really imagined you were better than that and I'm disappointed to discover I was wrong.

-

OK, I admit I've never followed her or even read anything but selected quotes of hers, but most of those seemed a little smarter than what I saw when she tried to make sure to tell people who protest the murder that Floyd had a criminal past. So does the murderous cop-- why not go into detail about that? Why not recognize that policing attracts thugs and turns otherwise decent people into thugs or at least into people who will stand by and allow thugs to violate life, liberty, and property-- all in exchange for a paycheck financed by theft. Government-supremacism makes people stupid... or hypocritical or both.

-

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.

People like this are why we can't have nice things

This was in response to a comment in which I posted a link to my suggestions for ethical alternatives to theft-funded Blue Line Gangs.

See if you can find the flaws in her complaint compared to what I actually suggested in that post. And, this time I'm not going to protect the identity of a dishonest statist.

I would have shrugged it off if she had addressed what I really said, and not only responded to the hallucinations in her head, instead. If you have a problem with my suggestions, address them honestly. Don't strawman it like she did-- my response, if you do, depends on how sorry I feel for you in the moment.

Is she only dishonest, or also pathetic, or just a copsucker? You decide. People like her try hard to ruin everything for the rest of us who aren't so pathetic.

I can't wrap my head around how emotionally attached most people seem to be to the occupying military force that infests America. Even people who (it seems) would know better. They are not essential to society-- they are society's enemy. They are the enemy of individual rights and liberty.

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.

Found: Those "good cops"

I'm always being scolded for insisting there are no good cops. "Of course there are good cops!" they'll say.

They'll even point to examples they believe prove their point. I look at each one carefully.

I've seen nice cops and even helpful cops. But no good cops. Not one. Not ever.

Yet the protests continue.

But I finally figured out where all those good cops are hiding.

They've been in Wishful-Thinking-Land all along, hanging out with the good rapists, the good IRS employees, and the good looters.

It's always the last place you look!

-

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.

Abolish the police (and then what?)

The completely rational idea of abolishing the police scares some people.

They think "But who would I call if someone is breaking into my house in the middle of the night?"
Chances are, if that's happening, it's a wrong-address police raid and you're about to be killed, and calling more police to the scene isn't going to help you. I'm sorry if this news upsets you, but you need to face reality eventually.

On the off-chance it's a freelance thug breaking in, you have better options than calling the police even now.

Take responsibility for your own defense-- you ought to be doing this first anyway. Calling someone else should always be a last-ditch response. You are there now; they aren't. What could happen before someone arrives to save you? Almost anything. You are the first responder, and you always have been. Act like it.

If you still feel the need to call back-up: Call your neighbors. If any of my neighbors called in the middle of the night, I'd respond.

If that doesn't work for you, there are still options better than inviting the Blue Line Gang to your house and facing the very real possibility they'll shoot you by "mistake".

Use Cell411.

Or call a crackhead.

Or, use the money you should be saving by not being "taxed" to fund those badged tax junkies to hire private security-- ones who will actually be contractually obligated to protect you, individually ... unlike police.

Or think of another option that suits you better.

The thing is, to imagine that abolishing the police would leave you helpless is what the police would like you to believe, but it's not even close to reality. The "reasons" to not abolish the police are as flimsy as the "reasons" people once used to say it wasn't possible to abolish chattel slavery. In hindsight, those "reasons" look stupid, dishonest, or evil.

You have options; better options. You can create new options. Police must be off the table to free you to find better solutions.

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.

Defund, dismantle, and disavow-- Abolish the police

Minneapolis is "threatening" to defund its police department? It's a good first step... if they are serious. I have my doubts.

Abolish the police!

Isn't it odd how an idea which has been around less than 200 years is now imagined by so many people to be essential for civilization. Especially when that institution is utterly antithetical to civilization and society. This societal cancer (or is it a virus?) is said to have begun in London, England in 1829 and spread from there. It should have been smothered in its crib.

Abolish the police!

But, yes, defund the police. Not only in Minneapolis but everywhere. And then refund the money to the victims of theft ("taxation") so they can provide for their own security if they so choose.

Abolishing the police would get rid of the police union, too. A valuable bonus. Government employee unions are a lie anyway.

Dismantle the whole institution until not one stone remains stacked on another. And don't replace it with anything. You have to disavow the whole concept of government police. Otherwise, someone might try to establish a new legislation enforcement gang later.

Abolish the police!

If people want to hire security-- and pay for it without the ability to force those who don't want to chip in to pay anyway-- that's their right. They don't have the right to hire enforcers and force everyone to pay for them-- they never did.

Government-supremacists are terrified of abolishing the police. They are afraid of what would happen next. Sure, some are probably afraid of rampant crime, but I'll bet more of them are even more afraid of people finding out they never really needed the Blue Line Gang in the first place. Once you figure this out it's not that far to realize you don't need politicians, either.

Abolish the police! It will be OK. I promise.

(Abolish the police, and then what?)

-

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 murder of George Floyd

George Floyd may have had some drugs in his system at the time he was attacked by the Blue Line Gang.
He may have resisted arrest.

So?

To those who think this matters, how do they feel if a woman who had a glass of wine is killed while fighting off a kidnapper? It's the same thing.

Once I discovered Floyd was originally molested by legislation enforcement thugs because he may have spent a counterfeit Federal Reserve Note (FRN) I was even angrier over his murder.

I have no idea how many counterfeit FRNs I may have spent over the course of my life. Every few months some of them turn up in this area. I know cashiers who have been fooled before the counterfeits were discovered by management. If they were good enough to not be noticed before the cashier got them, should the cashier be kidnapped or murdered over this mistake?

Is a phony piece of phony money-- a counterfeit of a counterfeit-- worth killing over?

The Federal Reserve [sic] makes trillions of counterfeit dollars. That's what a Federal Reserve Note is. And that's the real crime.

Those cops should never have approached George Floyd.
They should not have escalated the situation to a kidnapping.
They should not have murdered him.

Police are where the knee of tyranny meets the neck of humanity.

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.

Legislation and the responsibility gap

When someone looks at-- or imagines-- evil behavior and says "This is why we have to have laws" they are usually admitting they are not responsible enough to avoid doing the wrong thing. It's an admission of their own ethical weakness.

I don't believe you suffer from that particular weakness-- you don't "need" legislation to keep you from raping, murdering, looting, etc. I feel bad for those who imagine they do, and you probably do, too.

Or alternatively, if they lack the inclination to archate, the claim that "we need laws" is an admission that they don't feel they can be responsible enough to defend themselves (and others) from bad guys. They fantasize that legislation can bridge their responsibility gap.

Either way, it's a failure of personal responsibility and as such is kind of pathetic. Don't be like 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.

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.