Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Sunday, September 06, 2020
Let's adapt to something positive
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Debating a commie-- Part 3.1: Fencing off the water
Part 2
Part 3
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.
Saturday, September 05, 2020
Debating a commie- Part 3: Kobayashi Maru Island
The commie wanted to put me in a hypothetical scenario to show that property ownership is a bad idea.
His hypothetical scenario was this: I am stranded with one other person on an island. He hoards all the coconuts-- the only food source on this island-- and says the price for one is a specific sexual favor. He says property rights would make this bad situation possible. He also wanted me to say whether or not this was a voluntary exchange.
I don't believe in the no-win scenario. There are always alternatives you can try, even if they don't work. I pointed out that it's an island, so there would be fish and other seafood, and you could eat the core of the coconut tree (a short-sighted solution, for sure). He says this isn't allowed. No other food is available.
I say "No deal". I also said that only the people involved could say whether the exchange was voluntary or not, and that I couldn't really say for myself since I am not in that situation and can't really imagine any real situation being so lacking in alternatives.
I have survival skills and can make fire without modern cheats. I can collect and make water safe to drink-- possibly even desalinate seawater using plastic debris. I can make shelters, tools, and weapons. Is this not worth a trade? His chances of survival go up if he cooperates and down if he refuses to.
Having me alive is to his benefit. Self-interest-- if he's not insane-- should encourage him to keep me alive.
But, what if he doesn't see it this way?
Finally, I know I have no right to violate his life, liberty, or property. But... if backed into a corner to the point that I was desperate enough to ignore my principles, I might just kill him in his sleep. I have no right to do so (if you imagine that intentionally starving someone to death isn't aggression), but I might anyway. Because I'm human and I'm flawed.
The commie kept trying to equate this to a "trolley scenario" and even though I posted a link to how I believe such a problem could be handled ethically, he ignored that reply completely, other than saying my solution would just be to tell them to get off the tracks.
I think I've done exceptionally well in avoiding violating my principles over the years. I've been in situations where many others would abandon any principles. I'm not perfect. I can imagine scenarios that would make me archate, but imagining them gives me time to work out alternatives. I hope.
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.
Friday, September 04, 2020
Debating a commie-- Part 2: Free food, water, and shelter
The commie insisted that since food, water, and shelter are necessary for life, and life is a human right, those essentials must be free for everyone.
But they can't be.
"Free" doesn't just mean you don't use money to obtain them-- money is a placeholder for value, and that value is usually a proxy for some work that was done. "Free" would mean you get them without anyone working for them.
If you get food, someone had to work to, at least, collect it. It was probably also planted, harvested, processed, prepared, and distributed, or some combination thereof. All of that is work-- a cost. Whether you do the work or someone else does, it is never free.
Water must be collected and filtered, sterilized, stored, and distributed. That's work. If you've never had to work for drinking water even when water was all around you, you may not be aware of the work involved, but I have. I know.
Shelter-- housing-- must be built and maintained. Someone has to do work to make it.
If you expect someone else to do the work to provide these essentials, and for you to get the benefit of their work without compensating them, you're advocating theft. Or slavery.
Food, water, and shelter are never free. Even if they don't cost any money. I know because I've done the work to provide them (in primitive form) for myself from scratch before. There is always work involved.
You do have a right to food, water, and shelter-- but this only means no one has the right to prevent you from doing the work to provide them for yourself using property you have a right to use through ownership or an agreement with the owner. It doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to provide them for you at their expense.
This also means no one has a right to forbid you from planting crops in your front yard, collecting rainwater that runs off your roof, or living in a brush hut on your own land. A government position can't create such a right because such a right is a lie.
Part 3: Kobayashi Maru IslandWriting 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.
Thursday, September 03, 2020
Debating a commie- Part 1: Right to life
I recently got into an online debate/argument with a communist. Yes, a real self-described communist.
It began with a reply I made to someone who was claiming that since food, water, and shelter are essential for human life, those things were a human right and must be provided "free" for everyone. My response elicited a response from another commie who began by harping on the "right to life" thing.
I'll get into more of this in upcoming posts, but for now...
The right to life.
Yes, you have a right to your life.
The communist says this means your life must be guaranteed. Of course, sensible people know there is no guarantee.
He also claims this means you have a right to take whatever property-- even if it doesn't belong to you-- is necessary to stay alive. Need food? Steal it. Need water? Steal it. Need shelter? Steal it. You need it; it's yours to take.
I'm not sure how this works for the person you took it from, since he is now going to need whatever you took. Does he steal a replacement from someone else, or take back the property you now possess? A "society" based on theft doesn't seem like much of a society to me. But then, I'm not a communist.
Your right to life means simply that no one can have the right to murder you-- to kill you for any reason other than in defense of life, liberty, or property.
It doesn't mean anyone other than you is obligated to work to keep you alive. And it does take work to obtain the necessary property to stay alive. More on that next time.
Part 2: Free food, water, and shelter
Part 3: Kobayashi Maru Island
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.
Tuesday, September 01, 2020
Statist wrongness
- they support police,
- they want government to regulate/control "immigration",
- they want government to ban abortion,
Left-Statists ("liberals"/"progressives" [sic]) are wrong when:
- they support Antifa,
- they want government to import people from other countries and give them stuff,
- they want government to use stolen money ("taxes") to pay for abortions,
That's just a tiny list; it could be expanded to the size of Wikipedia.
The wrongness comes from advocating archation or supporting those who commit 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.
Monday, August 31, 2020
The penalty is always death
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.
Sunday, August 30, 2020
Tired of political drama over virus
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Cops: Not extra rights, not fewer rights
I hate it when logic and consistency demand I defend cops from poorly thought-out criticisms.
Cops are not special. They don't have extra rights-- but they don't have fewer rights, either. Even if this doesn't always sit right with me.
If it is right for you, it is right for a cop. If it's wrong for one of you, it's wrong for both.
As I have pointed out before, "police officer" is a description of what someone does-- their actions-- not the human being himself/herself. "Cop" (or "police officer") in this sense is exactly like the term "looter" or "rapist"-- it is a description of the acts the person commits against his fellow humans in specific circumstances. A person who loots is a looter; a person who commits rape is a rapist; a person who commits acts of legislation enforcement is a cop. Regardless of what they do with the rest of their time. It's why there can be no such thing as a "good cop", a "good looter", or a "good rapist".
And it's why admitting you like or support cops is a really disturbing admission. Even if you imagine they make you "safer" in some way, or can't imagine how society could function without them.
A cop doesn't lose the right of self-defense for policing, just like a looter doesn't lose the right of self-defense for looting. Not even "in the act".
In each case, however, I hope the cop and rapist lose the fight if they are the ones archating-- are in the process of committing the acts that give them their label. They still have the right to defend themselves from their victims' self-defense attempts since rights can't go away, I just hope their intended victim prevails every time. And if they do survive I hope it is a short-lived victory. I never grieve a dead archator.
If the fight is archator vs archator, then whoever is the one defending himself from the aggressor at the moment is the one I hope wins. Even if I wouldn't like him in other circumstances.
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.
Saturday, August 29, 2020
Being a good drone for your side
Good DemoCRAPublicans are expected to say the right things-- "right" according to their particular branch's ideology. Unfortunately, it's the same with good libertarians.
To be a "good libertarian" you've got to say the right things about woodchippers and "pedos", about commies and helicopters, about "gender", and about other things that aren't necessarily very libertarian-- that aren't about recognizing the absence of a "right to archate".
You've got to say the right things about shootings where the shooter may not be anyone to hold up as a hero... and some libertarians see this as relevant for some reason.
I don't always say the "right things", but I don't usually harp on the topics where I think others have gone off the rails because I don't enjoy infighting. I've said my piece and it is documented on this blog somewhere. If I change my mind I'll blog about that, 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.
Friday, August 28, 2020
Special birthday
Happy birthday to my youngest, who turned 13 today. Her birth was announced on this blog all those years ago. I can't believe she is now a teenager. She doesn't like her picture being taken these days, so no follow-up picture.
Why statism?
Why would anyone be statist?
There are several reasons, and you'll find one or more of these traits at the core of every statist: Weakness, cowardice, laziness, greed, envy, hatred. Probably some others I didn't list.
Sure, you'll find those same flaws in libertarians as well, but the difference is while those traits are fundamental to statism, libertarians are likely to be unlibertarian when they display those traits. You could theoretically be libertarian without having a single one of those traits, but those traits are what makes a statist what they are. They are core characteristics of statism.
I can't imagine anyone basing their worldview on such negative traits.
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.
Thursday, August 27, 2020
Shooting in self-defense
If you are being chased by people who are presenting a credible threat and you shoot and kill some of them, you didn't commit murder. You didn't do anything wrong.
If the reason they started chasing you is that you were standing guard over some property they wanted to destroy, you didn't even need to start to run before defending yourself from them.
If you are "arrested" for defending yourself in this manner, anyone involved with the kidnapping is siding with your attackers-- they are admitting they are bad guys.
If someone criticizes your act of self-defense by calling you a "white boy" with "white privilege" they are admitting they are vile racists. Those are purely racist terms. I don't know the guy who did the shooting. He may be a nasty character I would never get along with in person-- I've even heard he is pro-police! That's not relevant.
Of course, new information may come out and change my opinion, but as it stands this is how I see the Kenosha, Wisconsin riot shooting.
Even if he started it and was completely in the wrong, only a complete moron would continue to pursue him and threaten to use violence against an armed person. You're going to back him into a corner so that he believes he has no choice but to shoot you or die at your hands.
Play stupid games; win painful prizes.
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.
Tuesday, August 25, 2020
Police killings-- the only thing you need to consider
All killings committed by police can be evaluated by considering one thing: Was the person who the officer killed currently archating before the police approached him? If not, there was no reason for the police to approach him in the first place. If they chose to do so anyway and it escalated to the person being killed; it is murder.
If I walk up to a person on the street who isn't doing anything obviously wrong and I start molesting them and they shove me away, making me "fear for my life", and I then choke or shoot them, who is the bad guy? Not my victim. It's the same with cops. Badges don't create an exception.
Eric Garner was not archating. He was engaging in consensual trade with willing partners. Cops approached him using the excuse of "tax rules"; he resisted the kidnappers; they murdered him.
George Floyd was not archating. He supposedly passed a counterfeit bill (as most of us have probably unknowlingly done at least once). Cops approached, he refused to cooperate with the molesters; they murdered him.
I see this play out over and over. People criticize what happened after the police approached someone they should never have approached in the first place. They ignore the fact that cops shouldn't have approached the victim to begin with and focus on how the victim reacted to being molested and threatened by gang members. Then they excuse the gang for murdering someone they should have left alone.
I don't criticize police killings when the person who was killed is archating. But that's almost never the case in the killings that get the most publicity. Cops are scum. People who defend and support police are either weak, cowardly, or supportive of evil. Defund, dismantle, and disavow the gang.
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.
Monday, August 24, 2020
Placing the solutions off-limits
![]() |
| Found somewhere on the internet |
"How can we solve this or that problem? Oh, and you're not allowed to change anything that matters! That would be crazy!"
How often do you see this kind of thing from statists? All the time? I do.
They'll ask how "we" can end government corruption, but only without ending political government.
How "we" can fix education, but only without ending government schooling.
How "we" can solve crime, without eliminating anti-defense legislation or ending prohibition.
How can "we" end police brutality without abolishing the police?
The solutions are obvious, but off-limits.
They don't want a solution; they want a pat on the head for being so concerned about the issue.
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.
Sunday, August 23, 2020
Government should follow rules too
People seem confused about what role-- if any-- government plays in our lives. This misunderstanding causes problems.
Government was never intended to be the master, but the servant. Your servant doesn't tell you what you are allowed to do, nor punish you for not obeying him. The servant isn't allowed to do things in secret with the master's money, nor to keep any job-related secrets from the master. Your servant is accountable to you; never the other way around.
If someone takes a government job, they either accept their subservient position in society, or they can take a job-- without such strings attached-- in the productive sector. Forgetting their place should result in immediate unemployment with no chance of ever holding another government job.
Government wrongly claims to have the right to track everyone, spy on everything we do, collect all our information, and punish us for doing things we have the natural human right to do, but which government forbids. Nothing can trump natural human rights, not even the opinions of the vocal majority legislated and enforced by government employees.
Police across the state object to a requirement to wear body cameras so they can be held accountable to their bosses-- the people of the community. If they can't do their job under this condition, they are free to find other jobs. No one is forcing them to be police.
Locally, people are begging government for permission to re-open their restaurants, when government never had the legitimate authority to shut businesses in the first place. This illustrates the danger of allowing the servant to require business licenses. It's none of their business who opens what kind of business, and nothing can make it their business. Not even if "this is how we've always done it", which isn't true anyway.
Local government is even pretending it should have the power to dictate whether someone will be allowed to use their own property as a subdivision.
This is crazy!
If we are to continue to fund government and give it our occasional obedience there must be rules for it to follow. Since the Constitution has been ignored for the past century and a half or so, what do you suggest be tried next?
Those who want to keep political government around are the ones responsible for keeping it out of the lives of everyone else. If you won't rein in your troublesome servant, his misbehavior is on your head.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Libertarian "Buts" and "former libertarians"
I've written before about "libertarian, buts" and "former libertarians". I've always been skeptical of either claim. If you make exceptions you might be "libertarian-leaning", but I don't believe you are libertarian. And if you claim to be a "former libertarian" I have my doubts you ever understood the concept in the first place if you can be swayed to abandon it. I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they aren't being completely honest.
So many people seem to feel it's trendy or edgy to call themselves libertarian, but... they like to hang on to certain exceptions. This seems to explain "former libertarians" as well. They are fine with life, liberty, and property until they find an exception-- an excuse for archation-- they value more. They can even get creative in justifying their exceptions.
Someone may be a libertarian "but" they support police because they can't imagine having to take responsibility for defending their own rights and they imagine that's what cops do.
They may call themselves libertarian while demanding government schools be reopened.
They may have been a libertarian until they decided "Black Lives Matter" more than other lives, and are willing to use the political means to impose their belief on society through legislation.
Some may be libertarian, except that they lust to take part in whichever current witch hunt allows them to fantasize about revenge and murder (which they'll characterize as "justice").
Or maybe they were libertarian until they decided "climate change" was a big enough threat, with no way to handle it, so now they support governments dictating "climate policy".
Don't accept a "but". You're better than 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.
Saturday, August 22, 2020
A life of public service
Those who work in the Market* have chosen a life of service.
Totally unlike those who work in government/politics, who have chosen a life of parasitism and thuggery.
Who are the true public servants and who are the public serpents? Common usage has it completely backwards.
*I don't say "free market" because if it isn't free, it's not the Market.
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.
Friday, August 21, 2020
Expecting Trouble?
I never expect trouble. However, I also know trouble can show up anywhere at any time. It doesn't care if I expect it or not. Recognizing that the potential for trouble is always there isn't the same as expecting it. One is paranoid; the other is realistic.
If I see a rattlesnake or a cop, I know the potential for trouble is there, so I avoid them.
Actually, with the rattlesnake, I sometimes approach out of curiosity... I know their range and that they really aren't my enemy. I know what to expect from them. A rattlesnake isn't going to take flight and attack me from above, nor give a call that brings more snakes to the scene.
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.
Thursday, August 20, 2020
Mutual trust and respect
You don't show mutual trust and respect by both being unarmed, but by both being armed and non-aggressive.
I found that the original Lost in Space series is on a streaming service and have been watching it again. On one episode the Robinsons encounter some aliens who don't speak and after some tense moments-- and some laser blasts exchanged-- come to realize they aren't enemies. The alien dad tosses his weapon aside to show he means no harm. John Robinson picks up the weapon and hands it back in one of the most astute demonstrations of trust and respect I can remember seeing on any screen.
The political aliens that infest our human societies could learn a lot from this.
First of all, we are not shooting at them. Often not even when it's justified. Therefore there's no reason for us to toss our weapons down to show that we mean no harm-- if we meant harm we would be attacking them. It would be up to them to disarm if anyone should.
Second, the way they could show their respect and trust is by not insisting we be disarmed, but by acknowledging that humans stay armed.
Fictional TV characters, and the aliens they encounter, are far more human than the political aliens who want to run our lives and disarm us so they feel safe.
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.














