Kitten update #3

Whiskers is finally healthy. His right eye (cornea) still has some healing to do, but it's no longer infected. The cough is gone and there's no more rattle in his chest. There's no excessive sneezing.

He has also transitioned into being an indoor cat, thanks to monsoon rains over the last couple of days. He's meeting the other cats, who are suspicious, but not hostile. There is lots of supervision when they check each other out.

He is extremely playful and energetic, as healthy kittens tend to be.

His life is good. So much better than when I stumbled across his sick, starving body nearly 2 weeks ago. Thank you to those who helped me help him.

I appreciate the donations toward his care and the concern shown toward his well-being.

Chasing the ball. Where did it go?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"'Your child will wait for another child to die.' Amid Covid-19 surge, Dallas County has no pediatric ICU beds left, county judge says." ~ Thus sayeth CNN

How many children actually die of Covid? Or even get put into the pediatric ICU due to Covid? And do none of them in the ICU recover? If not, why does it matter whether a child gets a spot in the pre-morgue? Politics makes people stupid.

Believing in the state's magic

I know there are those who hold out hope by pointing out the state's illegitimate word games and whatnot. They are playing along.

"Legal" mumbo jumbo doesn't change reality. 

Yes, government supremacists like to pretend it does; they want you to believe in their state magic. It's statist wishful thinking.

The United States doesn't own you no matter what, not even if it is a corporation named THE UNITED STATES.
It doesn't matter how your name is written on documents.
It doesn't matter about the legal definition of "person".
It doesn't matter if a flag has yellow fringe.
None of that makes an iota of difference in reality or with your natural human rights, even if states believe it does. 

Don't buy into the lies they want you to buy. You're doing their work for them if you do. None of their legalistic stuff makes you their property. None of it alters your natural human rights. Let them play their word games. If some other state plays along, that's on them. They are the fools.

You are sovereign. Act like it.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Arnold Schwarzenegger says "...screw your freedom. Because with freedom comes obligations and responsibilities". Sounds like he doesn't understand the difference between freedom and liberty. I wonder if it would make any difference if he did. Yes, freedom can include things you have no right to do, but liberty doesn't, and he's advocating violating liberty-- something no one has a right to do. Screw your mandates, Arnold.

"Eek! Liberty?! Kill it before it spreads!"

As I've mentioned, I am right on the state line between Texas and New Mexico. NM recently legalized Cannabis (Texas gov says they never will). It's not yet legal to sell it, but it is legal to use it. Legislation is so incredibly stupid.

But, anyway...

Someone from Colorado wants to open a dispensary (why not just call it a store?) right on the NM side of the state line. The town council (of the NM town) is trying to make up new zoning rules, more strict than the already ridiculous state rules, to make sure it doesn't happen.

This is what angers me about statists. They just seem to hate liberty so much that they can't stand to see it threaten to happen.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

You don't need that!

An actual, although paraphrased for brevity, argument I saw recently for banning certain guns:

"You don't need an AR15. You can use a revolver to live out your white male self-defense fantasies if AR15s are banned*. No one should have to live in a society with semi-automatic assault rifles. Society has rules. If you don't want to live by society's rules, go live in the woods in a Ted Kaczynski cabin, you mouthbreather."

Yeah, I get it. You don't like guns.

And I don't like pit bulls. Probably at least as much as you don't like guns. I see no need for anyone to own one. I've known nice ones, but that doesn't mean some of them, when kept by certain people, aren't crazy dangerous. There are plenty of other breeds you could keep, right?

So, if I were as self-centered as you, I could claim:

"You don't need a pit bull. You can still have a Shih Tzu to live out your white male dog-owning fantasies if pit bulls are banned. No one should have to live in a society with pit bulls. Society has rules. If you don't want to live by society's rules, go live in the woods in a Ted Kaczynski cabin, you mouthbreather."

Except, that I would never make that argument. I am not so self-centered that I imagine I have any right to tell others what they are "allowed" to have. It doesn't matter how much I dislike (or fear) what you have. I'm just not ever going to do that.

Yes, if your gun or your pit bull harms someone (or if there is a credible threat they'll do so), you are fully accountable. You owe restitution-- maybe more than you can ever pay. But before that happens, your stuff is none of my business. 

Yes, society has rules, the primary one of which is "Don't violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else". Once you start deciding you can tell others what they don't need, you're violating that rule. You are being antisocial and uncivilized.

No one has the right to decide what other people need. You only need air, water, shelter, and food. You can live on Primate Chow in a sheltered cage with a dripping pipe. Anything else is a luxury. But only a monster would force you to live this way based on what they claim you don't need.

--

*At least until "Saturday Night Specials" are banned.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Hypothetically, I care about people... I promise

Is it bad that I seem to care more about a sick kitten than I do most people? Sometimes I think it is.

But, on the other hand, the kitten only cried for help. He didn't hold me at cop-point and threaten my life if I didn't help him. I'm more willing to help someone who isn't giving me an order; who isn't making threats.

Hypothetically, I care more about other humans than animals. But that hypothetical keeps running into reality-- people who advocate violating my life, liberty, and property either through freelance crime or through legislation. It's hard to care about people who demand I be sacrificed on their altar to selfishness.

However... I do care about other people, and caring about other people means it hurts me when others are violated. Never forget, advocating for the violation of one means advocating for the violation of all. 

If I didn't care about people, I wouldn't be a libertarian or an anarchist or a Voluntaryist or an abolitionist (whichever term floats your banana). But I am because I do care. Even when it's hard. Even when it doesn't show as clearly as it should.

PS: I sincerely thank the two readers who chipped in toward the kitten's expenses. It means a lot to me and to my daughter. It helps remind me that people are worth caring about.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Cori Bush got something right

I know you probably don't want to hear it, and I hate to have to say it, but sometimes a politician can be directionally correct.

Some people are criticizing Cori Bush, some politician from somewhere, over her support for defunding police while hiring her own private security. (Here's a link, but of course, it's from one of those fake news organizations, so take it all with a grain of salt: link)

If that were the whole story she'd have it exactly right. Shocking, I know!

Of course, being a politician, any money she spends on anything-- food, transportation, clothing, housing, or security-- is stolen money. If it weren't for institutional theft ("taxation") she wouldn't have the money to spend.

But, if she were not a politician she'd be doing it right.

Yes, the police must be defunded, dismantled, and disavowed. Then the "taxes" which would go to funding that gang need to be abolished, too. That money could then be used for whatever each individual wants, including security of some sort if that's what someone wants to spend it on. People could hire private security or buy a gun. They could even pool their resources-- through mutual consent with others who also want the "service" and are willing to chip in to pay for it-- to hire something superficially police-like (but without "qualified immunity" and such). I wouldn't chip in, but that's just me.

You can't legitimately justify legislation enforcers by pointing to a problem they perpetuate-- crime-- through their enforcement of disarmament legislation. Well, you can try, but you look like an idiot doing so,

I know... copsuckers gotta copsuck. They hallucinate that cops are the good guys and are different than their freelance competition. Of course, police now out-steal freelance burglars (ignoring other types of freelance thieves) even before you count the "tax" money they receive, so the claim they are the good guys is completely delusional. 

Abolish the police, then accept the responsibility for your own security-- it has always been your responsibility whether you wanted to face that or not.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Don't tolerate vandals, vandalism

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

The article in last week's paper about the problem of restroom vandalism in Clovis city parks struck a chord with me. I've seen the results myself.

I realize the people who vandalize park restrooms aren't the kind of people who read newspapers. Nor much of anything else for that matter. I'm going to express my contempt for those reprehensible creatures anyway.

The most useless thing in the world is a park without restroom facilities. If you're going to have a park, you need the facilities. It doesn't matter if you're the parent of a small child who waits until the last minute to tell you they "need to go... NOW", or an adult who has to interrupt a family visit to the park in a desperate attempt to find a nearby fast food restaurant with a public restroom-- which was even harder to find in the era of "take out only" under Covid-19 hysteria.

If I sound like I speak from experience, it's because I do.

I never excuse taxation and don't want it used to fund anything, even things I like, including parks or their restrooms. But what kind of a dimwit vandalizes restrooms? I'd guess they are the kind of people who will relieve themselves on a picnic table or on someone's lawn, just because they are too self-centered to care about others.

Vandalism and litter are two things I can't think of any excuse for doing. If you ask me, both are as irresponsible as cluttering the world with legislation.

Vandalizing tax-funded property can only have one of two results-- either those damaged properties get repaired, costing even more stolen money (you might call it "public funds"), or they get taken away so that no one will have them. Don't count on getting a tax rebate due to fewer available facilities, though. It's not going to happen.

How can this problem be solved? My suggestion would be to let local businesses and individuals build, own, and maintain park restrooms. Let them protect their facilities however they see fit. I would hope security cameras inside the restrooms are off the table, but there have to be other clever solutions.

What can you do? Don't tolerate vandals. Anyone who vandalizes anything is your enemy. They are violating you and me. Don't vandalize anything in my presence and expect me to laugh about it or ignore it. I won't. It's completely unacceptable.

(The week after this was published, vandals struck the city aquatic center. And a week or so later, vandals broke the glass in both outer doors of a Family Dollar near my house.)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Kitten update #2

Yesterday we went to the Big City to celebrate my son's birthday with him. The rescue kitten went with us because I hated to leave him alone all day. It was a good decision.

I've been giving him antibiotics in his food since Friday. He can taste it and can be stubborn about it, but has finally accepted it. He's still snotty and his eyes are still gooey, though. I do think he's improving some. He has gained a lot of weight in the past week. He no longer feels bony; I can pet him without his spine and ribs feeling so obvious. He is very playful. 

He has also been taking up most of my free time, but that's OK. 

The road trip was probably the kitten's best day ever. He had a great time with my daughter on the 180-mile round trip. He played, ate, and slept in the back seat. Usually in my daughter's lap. He got to play and explore my son's apartment, too. I think he's already spoiled.

The kitten also got a name: Whiskers.

My daughter is wanting to buy him a lot of things. I really need to find him a home once he is healthy, but that's not going to go over well with her. I guess we'll see what happens.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Enemies out of thin air

Do you have actual enemies? Yes, whether you know it or not. But do you hallucinate more enemies than you really have?

People who wouldn't otherwise have "enough" enemies-- or who want to pretend their real enemies aren't enemies-- often hallucinate enemies. Then by treating those chosen people as enemies, they make them into real enemies.

These days, "The Unvaxxed" and "The Maskless" are popular targets to make into enemies, as are gun owners.

Yes, there are people out there doing wrong. You have real enemies; people seeking to violate you (and others). Most use legislation, others are more freelance about it. No need to hallucinate more of them, just because you don't take the real ones seriously.

-

Now would be a good time to help support KentForLiberty.com

Conservatives are wishy-washy on rights and liberty because they love punishment so much.

Is housing a human right?

Lots of noise is being made over the claim that housing is a human right. Is it?

Well, yes. But not in the way it is being presented. Those who don't understand what a right is get confused over things like this.

You have the right to provide yourself with housing. This just means no one has the right to forbid it, as long as you are housing yourself in a way that doesn't violate their life, liberty, or property.

No one has the right to impose building codes or to impose "zoning" that would prevent you from housing yourself. 

You are responsible for making sure your house doesn't collapse on top of you. If it does, you probably built a house that was beyond your skill level. Maybe you shouldn't do that.

"Taxation" makes it harder to house yourself, and is therefore something no one has a "right" to do.

But no one is obligated to provide you with housing at their expense. You don't have a right to trespass on someone else's property. You don't have the right to live in someone else's house without paying them the amount of money you have mutually agreed upon. You don't have a right to the type of housing you'd prefer if you can't provide it for yourself. 

So, if by claiming "housing is a human right" you are imagining it's OK to force someone to house another against their will, you're showing you don't understand rights. You may be a socialistic statist.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Kitten update

Playing with his toy

For those who might care, the rescue kitten is getting stronger. He's got a good appetite and is playful; he has a sweet personality. 

He still has a respiratory problem and his eyes are still gooey, but he can open his eyes now. 

I bathed him and have washed his face to help get the crust off, but it's stuck on there pretty good.

I've been using some rather old injectable penicillin, but am having my doubts that it is still good. I've ordered something fresh.

He has probably doubled in weight since Sunday. Still feels bony, though. I should have weighed him to begin with.

He deserves a chance and I'm doing what I can to give him one.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Is democracy the greatest threat to human rights?

Beware those who want to enslave

Anyone!

People who don't believe in rights usually seem to have ulterior motives. They want to do things to you without seeing themselves as the bad guy. If they can say rights don't exist, it's easier to justify enslaving you.

Standing right beside them are those who imagine they have a right to do things no one can have a right to do.

That one gem of a human I was arguing with is a prime example. Some of her supporters may even be worse.

She wants to choose her own rights-- including the "right" to use government violence to prevent you from having guns.

She thinks my idea of rights only applies to "straight, white, males" no matter how clearly I've explained that that isn't the case at all.

I believe gay transgendered married multi-racial trios of independent migrants should defend their marijuana crops with full-auto rifles because no one has the "right" to forbid it. That "no one has the 'right' to forbid it" is the only thing that matters where rights are concerned.

She and her followers keep harping on the same claim, both are saying rights don't exist, that they only exist for "rich white men"-- and she thinks "minorities and women" should get to v*te on "new" rights they might like-- "rights" which would negate actual human rights. But what other rights would anyone need? The "right" to enslave? It's nuts.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The dangers of taking a walk

Every day I take a walk. Yesterday morning during my walk a sick, starving kitten found me and started following me, crying for help. I tried to harden myself and just walk away; I can't afford any new expenses. 

But I couldn't.

I realize this was a stupid thing for me to do. I'm a sucker.

It's probably a hopeless case. It has a respiratory infection, eye infections, and is just skin and bones. I've seen friends lose kittens who were in better shape. I can't afford a vet visit. But I've set it up for comfort and am giving it kitten formula and soft food. I've also given it subcutaneous fluids, ophthalmic ointment, and antibiotic injections. 

In spite of my daughter's begging, I absolutely can't afford another cat, so if it survives I'll have to find a home for it.

I don't want my cats to get sick from exposure, so I'm doing all I can to keep things clean. Keeping the kitten out on the protected porch. Washing and sterilizing my hands and anything I touch. At least I have lots of alcohol and anti-microbial wipes on hand.

Life...

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Government wrong tool for society

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 30, 2021)

You are smart enough to know a hammer is the wrong tool for driving a screw. Yes, It can work in an emergency, but it isn't best and can cause future problems. Either use a screwdriver for the screw or find a nail for the hammer.

In the same way, government is the wrong tool for solving society's problems. It might appear to work, but you'd do better to find the right tool for the job. A social tool, not an antisocial tool.

Politics is antisocial. Someone only wins by making someone else lose. A social solution, though, is always win/win. At best, politics means you've fixed something by shuffling problems around. At worst, you solved nothing and created new, bigger problems in the process-- think of the examples of drug prohibition and anti-gun legislation.

Crime, homelessness, pandemics, etc. can all be addressed by finding voluntary solutions rather than non-consensual schemes. You also have to accept that some things can't be solved by any means; you just find ways to deal with them. Ways which don't make things worse by violating anyone's rights.

If you believe the only way to fix a problem is to steal, through taxation, the funds your project needs, and to threaten or attack people with legislation to make them cooperate with your plan, you've become as big a problem as the one you sought to solve. You solved nothing; you only replaced one problem with another problem you created. This isn't a net gain.

I have seen liberty work every time it is put to the test. Not "tried" in a weak, piecemeal sense, but fully embraced. The fears dreamed up as an excuse for violating liberty didn't come to pass. They never will.

Remember, liberty doesn't mean doing whatever you want, but doing whatever doesn't actually violate anyone else, regardless of how others may feel about what you're doing. Liberty is freedom tempered with responsibility, and your primary responsibility is to not violate the equal and identical rights of others. It's simple, but hard for people to grasp when they'd rather not understand.

Liberty, in every situation, provides the best possible tools. This is because it's not a single tool, but a complete tool set along with a machine for making new tools which never existed before; tools you didn't know you needed. No, it isn't perfect. Nothing is. It's still a far cry better than the alternative.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Enemies? Or just problems to solve?

I try to keep in mind that my enemy isn't people so much as a way some people behave-- anyone can behave in that way under certain conditions. If you archate, it doesn't matter what you call yourself-- you are the enemy of liberty, society, and responsibility, which makes you an enemy of mine. 

But you can stop acting that way and you can be forgiven. 

Evil is an action, not a person. (Although, if a person consistently chooses evil behavior, labeling that person as evil is helpful shorthand.) 

Someone doesn't need to be evil to be subject to self-defense; they only need to be committing an act of archation-- acting in an evil way-- where the best choice at the moment seems to be using force to stop them. 

It's not personal, it's necessary. They aren't an enemy, they are just a problem. No need to imagine they are more than they are.

-

Please donate or subscribe to support KentForLiberty.com

Justifying the state

Recently I ran across a statist's justifications for political government, "...to secure America's borders from invasion and to protect the freedoms of the citizenry." His claim was that this was the totality of the legitimate justifications for government to exist. Sounds like he just wants a big daddy.

Even supposing his claim were true-- and it can't be-- if an institution can't do what it has to do in order to justify its existence, it's time to scrap it.

There's just so much wrong with his claim.

The real enemy is inside America's "borders". Any threat from outside pales in comparison. A big part of the reason is that invaders would be shot by their intended victims in defense of life, liberty, and property, while internal enemies are apparently largely immune.

To "secure America's borders" is to make a continent-spanning concentration camp. Fences work in both directions, you know. And governments are more interested in keeping you in-- to be milked your whole life-- than in keeping others out. 

Governments never protect freedoms in any meaningful way. Sure they protect easy freedoms, but never do they rise to the challenge of protecting liberty, because governments are the only real threat to your liberty. Who else could threaten it like they do?

"The citizenry" is a polite euphemism for government property-- slaves. You may not see yourself that way, but government certainly does. They believe you belong to them. That's why they insist it's OK to disarm you, to "tax" you, to vaccinate you, to censor you (through their co-conspirators in "social media" corporations, if necessary), and to punish those who speak the truth.

Any government strong enough "to secure America's borders from invasion and to protect the freedoms of the citizenry", regardless of whether they actually do either, is too strong to allow you to exercise your liberty.

Only a delusional statist could believe the load that guy wrote to justify political government. 

And other people have other equally delusional justifications for government: to provide a 
"social safety net", to redistribute stolen money, to impose equity, to take away scary tools, and to otherwise be a big mommy.

Either way, it's a giant pile. Don't let people like that trick you into going along with them.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com