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 13, 2020
Stimulus may be last nail for dollar
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Dangerous followers
I don't need a president, so I don't support presidential candidates. However, from observation, I have a suspicion about the future based on how I expect the followers of those candidates to behave in case of a loss. Or a "win".
I believe a Trump win in the upcoming election would be safer for me, personally, than a Biden win. It's just based on feelings and I could well be wrong. I hope I'm not since I also believe Trump will win.
Notice I said I "believe" all the above, not "think" or know".
I believe if Trump wins, the "other side" will riot and do its best to destroy everything it can, as fast as it can. Since I am far from any big cities, with their largely disarmed populations (at least, among the less aggressive residents) I am not scared for my own safety if/when this happens. I also believe the riots will be quashed by armed suburbanites before they could reach me. And since I'm in a backwater, off any beaten path, it would be hard for them to get to me unless it was intentional.
I see in the anti-Trumpers a mob with a willingness to hurt and kill people they don't believe are fully on "their side". And I'm not.
On the other hand, I don't believe Trump supporters would burn cities if Kamala Harris, in the person of Joe Biden, wins. They'll probably be angry and claim it wasn't a legitimate election (as if that's even a thing). If Harris'/Biden's more radical supporters are able to influence them-- and they must believe they'll be able to-- I'll be personally harmed by the anti-gun legislation they'll push through-- more so than Trump's anti-gun legislation (as evil as it was) managed to hurt me.
I don't see a willingness among Trump supporters to attack people who aren't loudly siding with the others and getting in their faces, so I don't believe they would be much of a threat to me. Even if they know I'm not on their side. I have sat through the Pledge to Holy Pole Quilt without participating, and although I got a few dirty looks, no one threatened me as I've seen (on video) happen to people who were ordered by an angry mob to raise a fist and declare "black lives matter". So, again, I feel safer with a Trump win than with a Biden win.
It could just be my bias speaking. I've spent more of my life around "conservatives", and even when they disagree with me it hasn't gone as badly as the few times I've disagreed with "progressives" to their faces.
I don't believe I was the critical variable, even though I admit I usually feel more sympathy toward misguided "Right-Statists" than I do for equally misguided "Left-Statists".
I don't feel as strongly about the election this time around, since I haven't had decades of personal loathing for Joe Biden like I had for Hillary Clinton. And even then I didn't "prefer Trump" enough to v*te against Hillary.
Of course, if the "social unrest" gets bad enough, whoever the anointed ruler turns out to be, none of us will be immune. How much damage we'll sustain remains to be seen. Interesting times, fuels by politics (which makes people stupid).
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 12, 2020
"Borders", human trafficking, "freebies", and other political misdeeds
Why would anyone conflate "open borders" with government intentionally importing hordes of people from other counties and giving them your stuff? Those aren't the same thing at all.
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 11, 2020
Keep your Utopia to yourself
How many of other people's "good ideas" do I want no part of? Most of them.
I'm not interested in a moneyless society or solving "inequality" even if this would boost me. I don't care to live anywhere that has no offensive speech or ideas. "Problematic" means interesting. I don't want to live in a shining city where everything is perfect-- by someone else's definition of "perfect".
Most people's Utopias sound like dystopias to me.
I would rather have messy liberty than a bubble-wrapped cage.
This may mean I'm ungovernable. Does it mean I'm defective?
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, September 10, 2020
Not everyone is political
To people who are political, standing up to them and their politics seems political. If you do so they'll claim this is evidence that you are political, just like they are.
That's the same faulty thinking that makes an irrational person believe that killing someone who intends to harm or kill you is murder.
Shooting an attacker is not murder.
Opposing someone's aggressive politics-- without advocating the use of aggressive politics against them-- is not political. It's not the same-- the initiation of force (lacking consent) makes all the difference.
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 08, 2020
The victim isn't to blame for the actions of the thug
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, September 07, 2020
To the BidenBots of Twitter
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's gifts
There is nothing government can offer me that I want. The price is always too high, especially when it's "free".
I don't want their handouts or their idea of "national security", or economic stability/central banking, or "law and order". Their idea of "peace" or "prosperity" isn't compatible with mine, and I don't want their version. I don't even want the government versions of "freedom" or "liberty"-- those are shoddy substitutes for the real thing.
Economically, government can't give me anything it didn't first steal from someone else. I'm opposed to theft, so why would I want to receive stolen property?
I have no problem with letting others take whatever government offers-- or pretends to offer-- as long as I'm not forced to pay for it or to participate in any way. As long as market alternatives aren't prevented for those things government does that I might still like if offered elsewhere.
Why is this reasonable compromise off-limits? Is it because political government is anti-reason? Yes. Yes, it is.
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, 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.

















