The ATF (BATFEces) are some of the most disgustingly horrible and crooked government goons ever created. Anywhere on the planet at any time in history. Truly reprehensible vermin. I used to have a friend who had an uncle or something who worked for them, and I told her as much (No, this didn't end our friendship, I moved away). Joining that gang is more unforgivable than becoming a Blue Line Gangster (which is unforgivable enough).

 A couple of months ago I saw news items about how much energy Bitcoin mining took, and how much heat it produced. 

I thought to myself "Someone is trying to destroy Bitcoin". Now it looks like I was right.

Regardless, I've done what I wanted with Bitcoin, so whatever happens, happens. I'm happy.

How not to get a broken finger

Last week I was at the outdoor (but semi-enclosed) garden center of a chain hardware store on the New Mexico side of my territory. I wasn't masked, and wasn't even thinking about it. By now, even the silly Branch Covidians have largely admitted that masks are pointless outdoors. Still, there were masks on some faces.

Then, as I stood in the checkout line, an older guy walking past, wearing a mask, poked his finger at me and asked my daughter where my mask was. He seemed to be good-natured about it-- he winked as he said it-- but I'm not thrilled about being approached that way, or poked at (he didn't touch me).

I said "We're outdoors" and he gave a bit of a nod and went on his way.

I'm not sure what reaction he was looking for. Did he expect me to apologize and mask up? Or was he pointing out that I'm a free thinker who doesn't follow the crowd? I couldn't even tell for sure whether he was disapproving or approving.

As in every encounter of this sort, I have to wonder if he recognized me from my newspaper column picture. It happens a lot, but he made no reference to it.

Whatever his intention, I don't recommend following his example with random people in public. Other people might not be as calm as I am. If you don't want your finger broken, don't go poking it at random strangers. This is how you get your finger broken.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Tools don't have rights

When speaking of gun-owners' rights, sometimes the phrase "gun rights" is used. But guns don't have rights; people do.

This is important because of another thing that is often said. People frequently discuss whether or not government has a right to do this or that. No, it doesn't. Ever.

Government has no rights. Government can't have rights, and nothing can make it possible for governments to have rights. 

Rights are a feature of individual humans; not of tools. Nor of a collective. 

Political governments are tools created by humans-- built of a collective of humans-- for a purpose. Chairs are tools created by humans-- built of various materials-- for a purpose. Chairs aren't usually imagined to have rights, but somehow governments are. 

Governments can no more have rights than chairs can have rights. And no one can have the right to use a tool they possess-- a gun, a government, or a chair-- to violate the life, liberty, or property of another.

Each individual comprising government has rights equal and identical to the rights had by every other individual human-- no more, no less. New rights aren't created by grouping lots of people together. Just like no rights are created by making a tool. You still have the right to use the tool you made or traded for-- in non-political ways-- but the tool itself has no rights at all. Whether it is a gun, a chair, or a government. So, "does government have a right to...?" No, it doesn't. It can't.

A slightly better question would be "Do I have a right to use government to...?" Substitute "a gun" for "government" and ask again and you'll probably have your answer.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Problem handled-- without gangs

An acquaintance recently had a problem with an eBay package. 

It was one of those UPS shipments that gets handed over to the USPS for final delivery. 

The UPS tracking number didn't show any problems during shipment, but when it was handed over to the post office in the Big City, someone put the new USPS tracking number on the package along with someone else's name and PO box number. (Does UPS make the new label or does the USPS? Seeing as how the label has the new USPS tracking number, I doubt UPS prints those-- but I don't know.) She knew nothing of any of this and kept watching for the delivery.

Saturday, the tracking said the package had been delivered the day before, but my acquaintance hadn't gotten it.

The post office here is closed on Saturdays, but she went and knocked on the door and they answered. She asked for her package but was told there was no package. Checking the tracking number showed it had been picked up by someone with a completely different box number. They said they'd look into it on Monday, but maybe that person would realize the mistake and return the package.

Not being content to let things sit for two days on a package worth over $100, she used the box number given by the post office and an internet search gave her a name and address. A further Facebook search showed the person had one mutual friend, Contact was made. (A lesson about the privacy-killing internet.)

The person with the package said yes, she had picked up a package, but her name was on it, so it was hers. She denied it contained what my acquaintance had ordered, but cautiously avoided saying anything incriminating about it. She even supplied a photo of the label with the tracking number; her name and box number included.  She ended by saying "Good luck finding your package".

Monday the post office said the package was in the other person's name, so that was the end of it.

My acquaintance notified eBay that she hadn't received the package, but they quickly denied the claim, saying the tracking number showed it had been delivered.

This is where I came in. She wanted to turn matters over to the police-- I said that since the other person's name and box number were on the package, that would probably be pointless (and I always try to discourage involving the Blue Line Gang anyway). So she gave me a chance to handle it and I wrote her appeal for her. 

I looked over every document and message back and forth. I gave eBay every bit of information available, including the name and address of the person who had picked up the package, saying that they were unknown to the purchaser and refused to return the package, saying that since her name was on it, it was hers. I offered to send photographic evidence if they'd tell me where to send it.

This made eBay relent and refund her money. I count this as a double win. My acquaintance got her money back and I found out where a person I probably shouldn't trust lives. I just hope the eBay seller didn't get charged unless the mistake was somehow theirs.

Is this how things might work in a free society where calling the cops isn't an option? Seems like it could be.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Gun control [sic] based on lies

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 14, 2021)

If you have a better idea, share it and convince people it's a good idea. If you can't convince them with the truth, that should be the end of it.

If you can't let it go, and decide to force everyone to go along with you, you'll use politics to make them do something you couldn't talk them into doing. In other words, you'll cheat.

There are different ways this can be done. You can let Congress make up new legislation, but this is hard and takes a long time. These days a president will often just declare "It is so" and skip all the constitutional safeguards, which-- truthfully-- don't often protect your rights from government anyway.

Presidents like this method because it gives them the power to impose their will unilaterally. There used to be a word for political rulers who did this, but it seems to have been removed from public conversation since January.

Executive orders, and their pale cousins-- executive actions-- are how recent presidents have managed to violate the natural human right to own and to carry weapons without bothering to go through the (still crooked and unconstitutional) legislative steps.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (which should be the name of a convenience store, not a government office) uses a similar trick.

The Second Amendment makes it a crime for government to make up any rules about weapons. Since courts are controlled by government, they usually allow this crime to go unchecked. It doesn't excuse the criminal act of "gun control" when courts allow it to happen.

Congress, the president, bureaucrats, judges, and all other political people are forbidden to violate any of our natural human rights. They do it anyway, and they get away with it almost every time. They cheat and lie until they get what they want, and most of the public is OK with it. People get scared and don't understand the issue because of the lies told by the national media corporations and politicians.

All "gun control" is based on lies. It doesn't make anyone safer. It isn't the government's job to tell you what you are allowed to own or how and where you can carry it. There is no authority for government to require background checks or permits or licenses. Those who do it anyway are cheating. They are cheating you out of your rightful liberty. Why put up with it?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Calling things what they aren't-- "Constitutional carry"

Texas politicians are debating "Constitutional Carry". Except, that's not really what they're debating.

Constitutional Carry would involve removing every single legislative impediment to, and unequivocally recognizing and supporting the exercise of, the fundamental natural human right to carry weapons, in line with what the Second Amendment of the US Constitution requires of them. 

That's not what they are proposing.

Instead of finally "getting right with the law" and ending a century and a half of criminal behavior, they are simply removing some of the counterfeit roadblocks. They'll be violating the law slightly less than before, but still violating it in huge ways.

If there are any exceptions or restrictions, they aren't doing what the US Constitution requires of them. It's better than before, but it most certainly isn't Constitutional.

You could argue that while it isn't in line with the US Constitution, it instead follows the rights violations "allowed" under the Texas Constitution. The Texas Constitution says: 

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

So, the state allows itself to violate natural human rights illegitimately, and this is what this "Constitutional Carry" legislation does. This is no different than the state saying slavery is legal-- it's as unethical as anything can be.

As I said, it's probably better than before, and I hope it passes. But it's still a big old statist rights violation. Just criminals continuing to be criminals, but being slightly "nicer" about it than before.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Be considerate-- Prep

Do you want to be considerate of others? Then you need to be a prepper.

Prepping is most considerate. 

In the early days of the panic-demic, do you know who wasn't out there competing for the rare roll of toilet paper? Preppers. 

Who wasn't fighting with karens in the grocery store aisles for a can of corn or a bag of dried beans? Preppers.

Prep now so you won't be a burden on society-- on your friends and neighbors-- later. Prep so you leave more goods on the shelf for others. Prep so you aren't adding extra demand and pushing prices higher than they'd otherwise go.  Prep so you can watch the collapse in relative comfort.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

You have to pick one or the other

I saw a quote by a right-statist who said "conservatives" want "secure borders and small government". That's so cute, it's hilarious. You can have one or the other, but not both at the same time on the same tax farm.

It's like those left statists who want to get rid of guns with anti-gun legislation and want government-- the same government they admit is a gang of thugs (depending on who they believe is "in charge")-- to enforce "gun control" [sic]... with guns and violence. And they hallucinate that this will save lives! The idiocy is astounding!

Politics makes people stupid and makes them agitate for things that are contradictory; for things that can not coexist.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

How much risk is too much?

The amount of risk I'm willing to take depends on how bad the alternative is. And it's completely subjective.

If the danger (or pain) is great enough, I'm willing to do extreme things-- even really risky things-- to alleviate it. It's pure desperation.

If a fireball is chasing me down a hallway I might be willing to jump through a window, not knowing what's on the other side.

Similarly, I would be willing to try experimental mRNA treatment for something like cancer, but not for an over-hyped cold. The risk/reward in the Covid-19 situation is completely upside-down in my subjective opinion.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Skewed, self-selected data

Back in February, I had a routine annual medical check-up. During the course of the questioning, I was asked if I was interested in getting the Covid-19 vaccine. I said I wasn't. 

The doctor asked, "Do you mind telling me why?" My answer was that I just wasn't worried about Covid-- everyone around me has already had it and it wasn't that bad for any of them. 

His response: "Well, my experience has been different. I've seen lots of bad outcomes."

I'm sure he has. Think about it. 

Who is going to come to the hospital emergency room? Those who aren't having problems, or those who are? Which group of people is more likely to have a bad outcome? His data is self-selecting. It's going to give him a skewed view of reality. 

I know someone else who worked in a nursing home during the first several months of the panic-demic, She also is convinced this virus is a really big deal-- and in her limited sphere, it probably was. But that's not representative of the world at large.

Of course, neither is my experience. But it is still my excuse for not being interested in a vaccine experimental gene therapy that won't prevent the disease it is being advertised for fighting, won't prevent those infected from transmitting the virus, and won't confer herd immunity (according to its advocates)-- so getting it won't eliminate antisocial social distancing or masks. Remind me again... what is the point of a vaccination that won't do any of the things normal vaccines are expected to do?

Other people have other reasons, both for getting the vaccine and for refusing to do so. I'm fine with that. I'm not anti-vaccine, but I am anti-mandatory vaccine.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

What are your chances?

I don't have any statistics to prove it, but I'd bet most people have a greater chance of being killed by cops than by freelance thugs-- as long as you do your best to avoid sketchy people, places, or activities.

What do you think?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

NM fumbled on legal marijuana

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 7, 2021)

Leave it to government to fumble a chance to do the right thing.

New Mexico has finally decided to legalize Cannabis. This could have been a win for liberty, but they did it wrong. Instead of letting the market handle it, as they should have, they wanted to get their fingers in as deep as possible.

It's good when a government backs off on violating natural human rights, but the state never had the right to criminalize or control Cannabis to begin with. Neither did the federal government, since no constitutional amendment was ever ratified to give them this power.

Cannabis should only be as controlled as parsley; neither should be controlled at all. Plants-- and who grows, sells, possesses, or consumes them-- are not government's business. Quality issues and fraud are the business of the market, and that's where this should be handled.

This change is driven by a hunger for more money rather than any new respect for human rights. Greedy governments get excited over any new source of money. Taxing Cannabis, or anything else, is wrong because taxation is always theft. I don't want Cannabis taxes to help pay for more government-- we already have far more government than any civilized society would put up with.

Like other states which legalized marijuana, New Mexico's government is sneaky. They legalized the plant while setting so many traps with new rules that the chances of committing a crime under the new system will increase. Marijuana will be "legal"-- if you dot all the "i"s, cross all the "t"s, jump through every arbitrary hoop, and hold your mouth just right while hopping on one foot.

In other states where similar plans have been put in place, people have noticed it was less legally risky to use Cannabis before it was legalized, regulated, and taxed.

On the prohibitionist side, there's the fear of more impaired drivers on the road. A reasonable fear, but unnecessary.

If you harm someone's person or property in an accident it doesn't matter if it was because you were drunk or stoned, sleepy, texting, or speeding to the scene of an accident. The responsibility is still completely yours. No regulation is needed to make you extra responsible.

I wish, instead of finding new ways to have more control, government could keep its hands off our lives for a change. This was a chance to lead the way, and it was squandered on politics.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The evil stupidity of government "authority"

Politics makes people stupid. Government "jobs" that come with any "authority" will make them evil.

An early event that drove this home to me was when I was attending a mountainman rendezvous in the Rocky Mountains years ago. It had been a dry year, so the forest was under a burn ban. No fires for cooking, warmth, blacksmithing, or anything. 

Now, I understand the danger of fire in a tinder-dry forest. I understand that some people are irresponsible with fire (and everything else). I am not opposed to reminding people of dangers inherent in such situations, even though I don't support edicts and mandates.

But, a few days before the rendezvous began it started to rain. And rain and rain. Like it couldn't stop.

The Forest Circus goons invaded our camp, wading through standing water and mud in their uniforms, to remind us that the burn ban was still in effect.  Threatening "legal" action if anyone dared light a fire.

There was no way to start a forest fire under those conditions without a nuclear bomb. Only the best woodsman would have been able to make a campfire anyway. It was the first (and only) time I ever actually slept in standing water. Thank goodness for wool blankets!

A few days later the goons relented a little, allowing the blacksmith to light his forge for a certain number of hours per day, and allowing some cooking fires, but for me, it was too late. My wife-at-the-time demanded we leave.

A little bit of imaginary "authority" ruined rendezvous that year for me and for a lot of others; more than any amount of rain could have done. Political stupidity plus political "authority" equals government evil.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Statists' imaginary friend

For a lot of people, government is their imaginary friend. In more ways than one.

"The Government", as many people seem to think of it, is imaginary. It is not something above and beyond the sick people who populate its buildings and agencies. It is no more powerful than the gang of people who work for it. It is not wise. It is not helpful. It is not one monumental block.

Also, it's an imaginary friend because it is not your friend. If you act as though it is, you're going to be taken advantage of and you will be hurt. It doesn't care about you. It cares about its own power and position over you. The individuals who make up government are more concerned with keeping their paycheck coming than with doing the right thing. Keeping that paycheck coming means keeping government running, which means violating you in whatever way is necessary to that end. It means "nice" government employees will kill you to protect government.

Government is the imaginary friend it's most harmful to believe in. It's long past time to grow up and stop believing in it. You don't need it like you may have when you were immature.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Non-political politics?

Can there be any such thing as politics that is divorced from the political means? How would that work, if possible?

I get it that many people really like politics. Some feel the need to participate, rather than just observe. Some of these believe they are being self-defensively political. But is that really a thing? Isn't that like setting off a bomb in a crowded store and saying it was in self-defense?

I get protesting against some anti-liberty scheme. But is v*ting ever really a purely defensive protest?

How can you "be political" without violating the life, liberty, or property of anyone else in any way-- without archating?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

A debt you don't owe

What do humans owe each other? Lots of clashing claims get thrown around, but most of them are complete nonsense.

You don't automatically owe others housing, medical care, safety, or food. Not without a prior, mutually consensual, agreement.

Recently, I've seen more and more claims saying "we" also owe each other respect.

There is only one kind of respect you owe others, and it is very specific.

You are obligated-- you owe it-- to respect the natural, equal, and identical human rights of every individual. Not a generalized "respect". You can't owe something that hasn't been earned by a consensual agreement or by a debt your actions created.

You owe it to others to not violate their life, liberty, or property-- including by trying to prevent them from securing those things for themselves. Your primary responsibility is, always has been and always will be, to not archate-- this is how you show the respect you actually owe to others. You owe it to them to not stand in their way of providing housing, medical care, safety, food, or respect for themselves.

But respect for their opinions? Nope.
Respect based on the color of their skin, their sex, their sexual proclivities, their culture, or their political/religious beliefs? Nope, again.

You owe others respect for their human right to be who they are, as long as they don't seek to use government violence to impose themselves and their opinions on you. 

The quickest way to show yourself unworthy of even that level of respect is to try to force others to give you "respect"-- or else the State will use violence against them on your behalf.

Don't be guilted into taking on a debt that isn't yours. You owe what you owe, and not a bit more.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Just crazy enough it might work

Hey, here's a great idea! Let's form a gang! Only, we'll call it something nicer than a "gang". A "safetisnug", maybe. That sounds nice, right?

We'll claim we have recently discovered (through revelation) that we have the right to tell others how they are allowed to live, and the right to take a cut of their property so we can afford to keep telling them how they are allowed to live. And we have the right to beat up, rob, cage, or kill anyone who resists our help. But it's to keep them safe and snug from other dangers out there, so it's better than the alternative.

If anyone objects, we can say "Yoda said we have to do this or you'll live wrong because you are evil and stupid, and we aren't because He guides us with his infinite wisdom". 

Or, we can just write a document saying we are going to do this, claim that everyone says it's OK if we do, and point to it as proof that we have a right to do this. 

If anyone knows what rights are and points out that we can't have such a right, we'll just make up some magical quality with a new name-- I propose "powerness" -- that would lead to the same result. "You are obligated to comply with my document-sanctioned (and society-approved) requests or I have the powerness to rob, cage, or kill you!" See how that would work?

Yeah, it might be hard to talk people into going along with this crazy new idea. People aren't just going to roll over and give up their lives to a gang that says they have to.
Maybe that's why no one has thought of doing anything like this before.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Rebel, but make it responsible

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 31, 2021)

This past year has been hard on liberty.

It started with world-wide government overreaction to a pandemic. This was still going strong when some focus shifted to choosing a politician to run your life. 

Recently, as the pandemic hype began to fizzle in many places and after most of the post-election drama had faded, the push to further violate your natural human right to own and to carry weapons was triggered by the horrible crimes of a few evil losers. Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.

If it wasn't one thing it was another.

This has probably always been the case, but sometimes it feels worse. This has been one of those times.

Did the past year signal the end of liberty, or just put a few more nails in its coffin?  Is liberty under a greater threat these days or is it only a matter of perception? I hope it's the latter, even though I suspect it's the former. I plan to pry some of those coffin nails out before it's too late to salvage what we're losing. I hope you'll help.

The question is, how can this problem be fixed?

Most people don't think about liberty very often. It may even scare them if they do. They won't miss it until it's so far gone it will be hard to win back.

Liberty is responsibility and people don't like responsibility. Too many people want to believe someone else is protecting them and doing the thinking so they won't have to. I hope you're not among those who want to be treated like a child, needing 'round-the-clock supervision and care. But if so, government is happy to oblige.

It's easier to control a population of people who won't think for themselves and who feel dependent on you. Those who don't want to be shielded from the real world are a danger to those whose plans require mindless compliance.

Most people comply too quickly.

It's going to take commitment to win back the liberty which has been lost. Part of that commitment will involve standing against politicians and the legislation they impose.

Rebel, but rebel responsibly. Good people never intentionally harm another's life, liberty, or property as a way to show they can think and act for themselves. They rebel only as a way to responsibly exercise their rightful liberty. Do you have it in you to stand for liberty?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Don't follow the crowd unless you really think they're right

One thing that DemoCRAPublicans commonly do is to follow "their" crowd no matter how dumb the position is. In my experience, libertarians are less likely to do this. 

This is why you'll find libertarians disagreeing so strongly over certain issues.

Sometimes, there is a way to see something from multiple angles that seem incompatible with each other, and a good case to be made from multiple sides.

I have no doubt that consistent, smart libertarians can be on both sides (or perpendicular to those sides) of the abortion debate, because I've talked with them. 

Some think of "maximum liberty" as only achievable with a "night watchman" state; others think any state is necessarily less liberty than is optimal. 

Some think liberty relies on morality, some think it only requires individual ethics in those willing to live by them.

Other topics are much the same. 

Yes, sometimes someone is wrong and someone is right-- and you can't tell by which side has more popular support. Sometimes there's no way to know for sure which is which, and sometimes there is. As long as we don't sink to using (or threatening to use) government violence on each other over differing opinions, I think we'll work it out eventually. Or, keep arguing over it into the distant future. That still seems better to me than some elite declaring "The science is settled!" as if that makes it so and delegitimizes further discussion.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two