Libertarianism is all about liberty. Liberty is freedom tempered with responsibility. Thus libertarianism is a deep understanding of, and respect for, freedom tempered with responsibility. If you're not smart enough to understand that, don't embarrass yourself by trying to tear down libertarianism with your statist strawmen built of ignorance and fear.

It's not the tool. It's NEVER the tool.

There was a mass shooting in Norway. With a bow and arrows. Five people are dead with more injured. Some people are commenting that bows aren't (yet) illegal or registered in Norway, hinting that this is a bad thing. Talk about missing the point...

 The tool used is not the problem and never is. It doesn't matter what tool it is (unless it is one which can't be used defensively by being aimed at the individual archator-- governments or bombs, for example).

The most destructive weapon is political government. It can't be aimed sufficiently to target only an archator-- just like a nuclear bomb. If you believe bombs and governments can be used defensively, the burden of proof is on you, because this is an extraordinary claim.

If the control freaks employ the least ethical "tool" to ban guns, knives, or bows and arrows, evil losers will use something else. If the political criminals ban that thing, too, evil losers will move on to something different. There's always a "best available tool" if you're an evil loser. In fact, the most horrible evil losers use political government as their weapon of choice. Banning political government would be pointless too, until humans grow up enough to make banning it redundant. Until then, don't let political criminals get the drop on you.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

Going with the flow (of traffic)

There are things I do that some might mistake for "obeying government". Such as driving on the appropriate side of the road.

There are reasons to drive on the socially accepted side of the road. Legislation isn't necessary. I don't want to be in a head-on crash, and that's less likely as long as I go along with the social convention to drive on the same side as (almost) everyone else in this area. It is self-interest as well as being a way to avoid harming others

It's similar to the reason I don't archate. I have determined that my own life will be better if I drive on the right side of the road and if I don't violate life, liberty, or property. Who would need another reason?

I don't even believe legislation dictating the side of the road to drive on is legitimate. If you're self-destructive, how is it going to stop you? It's a pointless "law".

Along the same lines, if you're doing dumb or harmful things just because legislation says not to, you're being controlled by government.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

Statism is self-sabotage

Something I've noticed most of my life-- at least since I figured out that there were statists and non-statists-- is that statists are invariably angry or otherwise miserable. They've sabotaged themselves by adopting a broken belief system.

Even when I'm in a bad mood, it would only be worse if I were a statist. I know because that used to be the case. I'm much less angry now than I was back when I thought government could possibly be legitimate in certain situations.

The statists I know seem to always be angry over something and it looks like it's due to their statism. The more statist the person, the worse their anger and misery (and the more likely they'll project this anger on non-statists).

I think statism is naturally uncomfortable for humans, even though most seem to choose it. I suspect they don't realize it is optional-- this is probably by design.

They probably want government to do something it isn't doing, while it is doing something else instead. They seem to want to control what people do (cough-cough *wear masks, get jabbed*). They are possibly also upset by those they see living more free than they'd like government to allow. 

Basically I think they want the impossible-- to control other people completely. They don't seem to understand what makes humans tick. This ends up making them angry at other people and government for not solving this issue.

I wish people would be more responsible, kinder, and smarter. I am not under any delusion that I can force them to be. It would only frustrate me more to try, or to blame other people for not controlling the ones who can't control themselves. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of my wishes or my idea of what would work better for them. I'm not going to sabotage my peace of mind by joining the control-freak cult.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

Politics is no more the "real world" than TikTok. In fact, politics is the TikTok for people who take themselves too seriously and believe themselves to be "adults".

Political power is the power to bully

If you define political power as the power of government, then I don't want political power. It's the power to bully. This power is concerned with controlling others. I'm only concerned with controlling myself, and that doesn't involve political power. 

However, sometimes you'll need to remove a bully's political power before you are able to control yourself. I understand using power-- force-- to stop others from controlling you. 

Political power is initiated force such as government action, rather than defensive action. I don't believe that's justified. Everything beyond the economic means or defensive force is political power. 

There is an acceptable way to use power-- using power to take back, from an archator, your power to control yourself. But government action?

I think there are better ways to get rid of bullies and regain your control than by using government. Including simple self-defense. I consider it more adult to use individual self-defensive violence than to use government violence-- including v*ting-- against an archator. Government-supremacists would rather you didn't do this.

Their opinion is trash. 

I will never think it's wrong to violently deal with a bully of any kind. I've encountered too many of them to have any sympathy whatsoever. I do not care if bullies get shot and killed by their victims, and I would never punish the victim for doing so. The bully made the choice to bully, so the cost of that choice rests on them. Yes, those who support bullies and political power will probably punish you for standing up for yourself, but don't mistake this consequence for proof that you did wrong.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

US may be one panic away from disaster

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 8, 2021)

A couple of centuries ago, a smart fellow known as Voltaire pointed out, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

This is a timeless truth.

It explains why a disturbing number of people in the year 2021 are calling for segregation, imposed poverty, or even concentration camps-- they prefer to use euphemisms-- for their neighbors who are, for whatever reason, unvaccinated against Covid-19. If this isn't a willingness to commit an atrocity, what is?

They've been fooled into believing absurdities concerning the virus, now they are publicly calling for atrocities. Society is ripe for some political functionary to start committing atrocities, using the excuse of "public safety", and these people would cheer and start lighting up the tip lines. Or dragging their neighbors to the "authorities" themselves.

There is a big overlap between those who want officials to punish their unvaccinated neighbors and those who want government to ban gun ownership. Maybe this doesn't mean anything, but it is worth noticing.

Many of these same people want to convince you that Ivermectin is only a horse de-wormer. Would they also characterize penicillin as only a horse antibiotic? Both are partly true, but incomplete.

Any medication can be dangerous if used incorrectly. Trying to shut down discussion concerning a medicine-- whether Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, or Cannabis-- is neither rational nor ethical. It's not science, but superstition. If you feel the need to shut down debate you've admitted your position is weak.

This doesn't mean I believe you should use any particular medication. Your medical decisions are between you and your doctor, with your informed consent being the deciding factor in every case. Government, social media corporations, and I shouldn't have any say in the matter. You might as well listen to your dog's medical advice-- the credibility is about the same.

I have no idea whether Ivermectin or anything else is effective against any specific virus, but I know when people are lying. You are being lied to.

It's not completely their fault. They've been lied to by politicized "experts" and they bought it hook, line, and sinker. Now, based on the absurd lies they believed, they have come up with what must seem to them to be a reasonable reaction.

It's not ethnic cleansing, but ideological cleansing. Does this make it better in their minds? America may be only one panic away from disaster because so many have believed absurdities.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"Tyrannovania has the right to..."

I do not support any state. No state has the "right" to exist. 

Yes, individuals have the right to organize and cooperate, but not to form states or otherwise violate the natural rights of any other individual.

This always comes to mind when I hear someone say that such-and-such a state "has the right" to do something. No, it doesn't. Individuals do, as long as they aren't violating the life, liberty, or property of anyone else, but a state doesn't. No collective has the right to violate the rights of any individual. (Not even of those inside the collective, especially when their "consent" was coerced.)

The belief that they do has caused a lot of tragedy on a massive scale. "Consent of the governed" is a scam.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

No political government-- "government" or state-- is legitimate, credible, or ethical. Not one ever has been or ever will be. Because they are political. And if you remove the politics it stops being what anyone would generally call "government".

Abolish the police. That's not bathwater and whatever's floating in it is no baby. Toss it out.

William Shatner is going to space on Blue Origin's rocket. I can't help but think that's kind of awesome. Even if something goes wrong-- space is risky-- for Captain Kirk to die in a spaceship mishap (or even just in a spaceship) seems correct in some way. I'm hoping for his safety, of course, but he's 90 years old and has had a good run, and this wouldn't be the worst ending.

"Just breathe...."

The last few days I've been wound up. Too wound up.

I was worried about my dad's vaccination sickness-- he has finally recovered.

I've had some particularly aggravating repair projects going on that I wasn't having a lot of success with. Self-inflicted injuries, sore muscles, frustration, and things that didn't fit together the right way because they weren't the right parts. I'm sure you know how that goes. If not, you're more competent than me.

Then, on a visit to my parents' house, I was subjected to live "news" reports about that Arlington, Texas school shooting, and the absolute idiocy of the cops, politicians (including school administrators), and the news media comments just about drove me up the wall until I could escape. My daughter said I started yelling.

It was a perfect storm to stress me out and get me worked up.

Normally I'm a pretty calm person. Just maybe not these past few days. I need to recharge. I need a cave in the wilderness. Or, even just some wilderness-- which doesn't exist near here. I'd love to be a castaway on a deserted island somewhere. For at least a few weeks.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

A license is not the same thing as a credential. A license is government permission-- after paying government-- to do something government pretends to have political "authority" to ration. A license is mandatory.
A legitimate credential says you have been judged (by someone others believe to be competent) to be competent at doing something. But no one is prohibited from doing the same thing without a credential.

The view through "government goggles"

People who hallucinate that any part of political government is "ours" are going to see almost everything through that filter. In other words, they won't see anything accurately, but through the distortion of government goggles.

Scarier still, they'll not see you or your rights as you or they actually are. Since they don't see these accurately, they don't have any qualms about violating you. They may even deny you've been violated at all.

After all, if you think your life, liberty, or property are sacred, you'll get in the way of "our democracy", "our president". "our law enforcement", "our military", "our schools", etc. Standing up for yourself feels to them like you've violated them since you didn't allow them to do to you as they wish.

If you doubt me, take a quick peek through government goggles sometime. But don't let them stay on your face too long or you'll get brain damage.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

This morning's kinderprison shooting happened at the school my w0ke niece worked at a few years ago. 

To scare people into supporting mandatory Covid "vaccines" it has been necessary to convince people that a cold virus is as dangerous as polio.

It has been said "That government is best which governs the least". Thoreau was on the right track, but not exactly right. That government is best which governs the fewest. The best government governs only one individual-- the self. Governments get worse the more people they attempt to govern. Any government trying to rule, for example, 300 million+ people is pure evil and needs to be disposed of.

Politics makes people stupid, but it also makes them aggressive, evil, and easily manipulated. Divorce yourself from politics as much as possible. You'll still be cornered by people armed with politics, but defending yourself from them isn't politics; it's survival.

Malpractice

I'm more than a little angry.

Friday morning my dad got the (at least in his case) unnecessary Covid booster and the flu shot. He's been sick since Saturday morning. It made him more sick than he was when he had Covid back in the summer of 2020.

I think encouraging an 80-year-old-- who has already had Covid-- to get the "vaccine" and its booster is malpractice. Giving him the Covid booster and a flu shot at the same time compounds the malpractice to an almost incomprehensible level. Flu shots alone have always made him sick, but not this sick.

The only reason he and my mom got the Covid "vaccine" in the first place is that my 29-year-old niece-- who has been oozing w0keness ever since college-- insisted that no one in the family could see her baby unless they got the jab. I could live with that mandate; my parents couldn't. So they took the completely unnecessary shots. The baby subsequently caught Covid anyway and had the sniffles for a couple of days.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Not anti-vaccine but anti-mandate

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 1, 2021)

I am not anti-vaccine. I've been vaccinated for a few things in my adult life because I think the risk of those vaccines is less than the risk or inconvenience of the diseases they are supposed to prevent.

I wouldn't bother getting a quasi-vaccine which neither prevents the vaccinated from getting nor spreading a disease I'm not particularly worried about; a sort-of-vaccine which doesn't even last a few years, to moderate a new, slightly more dangerous, cold virus. A cold virus, which like all other cold viruses, will never go away.

It would be dishonest to call me an "anti-vaxxer". I'm not one. I think some vaccines are very useful and are a great benefit. Just not this one.

If you want the vaccine because your opinion of the relative risks differs from mine. I want you to get it. If you get the vaccine, I hope it works or at least makes you feel safer-- whatever you want it to do.

New data might change my mind and make me decide I want one of these vaccines, too-- if the new data comes from a source I trust. A source more credible and trustworthy than those currently counting the numbers of cases and deaths. Government is not such a source.

Why would anyone assume the numbers reported by government agencies and other politicized entities are even close to true? It is an unsupported assumption. I don't trust anyone connected to politics.

I oppose using government power and threats of violence to force others to get vaccinated or to wear masks. I also oppose using government power to forbid vaccinations and masks for those who voluntarily choose them and bear the full costs themselves.

I'm not anti-vaccine. I am anti-mandate.

In this case, I see no difference between bullies, governments, or corporations. No government or corporation has any right to do anything, since rights are individual, not collective. A collective can't have the right to violate individuals' rights.

Yes, private business owners have the right to require masks in their business. I also have the right to refuse to trade with those business owners.

I oppose anyone who helps government create vaccine passports of any sort. I oppose those who advocate for social division based on vaccination status. Even if I later decide to take the vaccination, I will always oppose "Papers, please" and other authoritarian interference in life.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com