Ever notice how people who hate guns are generally the least able to act responsibly? It's almost as if there's a connection...

In other news... (with an update)

The past 24+ hours I've been struggling to take care of a very sick 9-year-old cat (Butterscotch), and I'm too tired and emotionally drained to write anything, much less anything smart, for automatic posting tomorrow morning. 

She's had a relapse of a problem she had a little over 3 years ago when we nearly lost her. She has a vet appointment for first thing in the morning. I'm trying to prepare my daughter for what may come.

UPDATE: Butters has a chronic kidney issue (which was the problem before). The vet put her on a few medications to get her over the crisis, and she already seems to feel a bit better. I caught the problem earlier this time so she wasn't as sick. Hard to believe, as sick as she was. I just have to stay vigilant and make sure she doesn't stop eating or drinking for even a day.
As an aside-- the vet looks like Molly Quinn from Castle.

For your favorite miscreants

 I'm offering Time's Up flags again for a while. In time for holiday gifts if you order early enough.

NPCs in action

The small local park is often the target of destructive people. Largely people from a specific demographic.

I don't want government taking people's money and using it for parks or park equipment, but I also think vandalism is one of the most stupid things supposed humans can do.

If you destroy something that "belongs" to government (but isn't otherwise violating anyone the way a police car, for example, does), you gained nothing. More money will be stolen to repair or replace it. Even if you imagine the taxes will be paid by someone else, you still end up paying through higher prices on everything you buy because someone is paying those taxes.

This table has been a recent focus of vandalism. The concrete pad under the table is inscribed with someone's initials and the year "1951", but for the past year, there has been a concerted effort by certain "people" to destroy the table. It has been repeatedly attacked.

Why? I don't get it.

Do these people imagine their life would somehow be better if they just tear down everything until nothing is left? Or are they counting on others to keep replacing what is destroyed with new stuff for them to destroy? What are they thinking?

Therein lies the answer and the problem.

The people who do things like this aren't actually thinking. They don't think of consequences or of the future beyond what they feel at this moment. They act on impulse. They are programmed-- by their empty culture-- to carry out certain actions and are powerless to resist. Thinking would get in the way, so it is avoided. If they are even capable of thinking. And perhaps they aren't. Maybe the capacity for independent thought was never part of their program. It sure looks as though that's the case.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

Newest new project

Just for fun, I've started posting my Quora answers over on Patreon. I answer questions on Quora mainly to poke statists. I certainly don't try to convince any of them of anything there. I'm not always 100% serious-- especially if I think the question is dishonest (as so many seem to be).

I had given up on Patreon a while back. Subscribers kept leaving-- especially after the Covid shutdowns crippled the finances of so many-- and it became more trouble than it was worth to post there. But 2 stubborn supporters stuck around through the down time, so I feel I owe them something. This is... something. Maybe something sort of fun.

Yes, I am doing this with the hope of getting some more paid supporters. If it works I'll continue. If not, we'll see what happens.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Societal cancer

Society is an expression of human nature, on a large enough scale to spontaneously self-organize. 

Just like in any self-organization event, there can be localized glitches. Problems-- cancers-- can arise inside that self-organization to threaten its continuation. Cancers, in the case of society, like government-- including police. 

The solution is to cut those tumors out to make society healthier, not to pretend they are the valuable thing in the society. Never imagine those cancers are what make society; confusing the disease for the organism.

Don't be a cancer worshiper.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

At least no one is shooting at me...

How have things been going the past couple of weeks?

"Never goes smooth. How come it never goes smooth?" -- Captain Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly: Safe)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The tiresome topic

I would love to never again mention Covid, the pandemic over-reactions, or the mandates. I don't want to mention those things because I'm over it all. Once you stop believing in the Tooth Fairy it stops mattering to your life and there's no longer any point in talking about it. 

And I've never seen any topic expose so much science ignorance (on both sides, unfortunately) as this one. That's before you consider whether governments have any "authority" to impose mandates and whatnot (they don't).

But the Branch Covidians aren't letting it go. They keep intruding in my life with their crazy religious beliefs.

It's not as bad on the Texas side-- although some superstitious businesses still have "masks required" signs by the door even here. And on the New Mexico side of the line, every business has the signs due to the governor's orders, but even those who enforced the signs at first have given up now. 

Any time I see any "national" perspective, though, it's still usually Covid-centric. Even when it makes no sense to insert that into the topic-- it's almost as bad as trying to listen to something "mainstream" without someone going off on a "climate change" tangent. And obviously, the US feral government is still pushing hard to get you to obsess over this hobgoblin. What a bunch of criminals.

I'm not interested in restricting such speech, though. I think it's smart to let wackjobs expose themselves for what they are. But I am tired of them and I wish they'd shut up.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

Make politicians invisible again

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 15, 2021)

You may have picked up subtle clues that my opinion of politicians is exactly as low as my opinion of freelance thieves, bullies, and vandals. It's impossible for me to dislike them more than I already do.

Still, I admit some politicians are undeniably worse than others.

My measure of how good or bad a politician is depends entirely on whether they force me to notice them. The more I notice them, the worse I consider them to be. Any politician who isn't completely invisible to my daily life is one I don't like. This not only includes their physical presence, but any legislative or bureaucratic nonsense they drop in my path for me to step in.

If they make up any legislation I might notice, they need to do better. If they flood society with minions acting on their behalf to impose this legislation on me or anyone else, they've crossed a clear line.

I want them to leave me alone, and I mean this in every sense of the phrase.

Obviously, if I notice them because they've stopped bothering me as much as their predecessors in some obvious way, I'll cut them some slack in this one area.

Yet, this wouldn't have been an issue if a politician hadn't meddled where he or she had no business meddling. Somehow, politicians have come to believe meddling is their business rather than being a crime.

It used to be a person could live an entire lifetime without ever meeting a government employee. They were like mythical creatures one heard about from mysterious travelers but had never seen with their own eyes. Much like harpies or Mongolian Death Worms.

Later, the only government employee anyone was likely to encounter was the person delivering the mail. Unless someone actually requested a government employee's presence, they were not imposing themselves in your life.

This isn't the case anymore, much to the detriment of society. This situation is as helpful to society as potholes in racetracks are to racehorses.

Worse, due to the licensing scams they keep expanding you are required to deal with government employees regularly to stay "legal". In some cases once per year, which is far too often. The number of required encounters keeps rising all the time like an overflowing toilet.

I want politicians to become invisible again. Even if their jobs don't go completely extinct, If we no longer see or hear them, it's an improvement.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Texas "Constitutional" carry-- how's it going?

Back before the Texas "Constitutional" Carry legislation went into effect, I had wondered whether it would make any difference. It seems like it may have, but I'm not sure.

I haven't seen anyone open carrying yet. I guess old habits are hard to break. I've always loved seeing regular people (not government tools) wearing a full holster on their belt, but I understand the wisdom of carrying concealed.

I had feared the "We don't care if you die!" signs would remain everywhere, and new ones would appear. That doesn't seem to be the case.

A few new signs of this sort may have shown up (I'm not quite sure), but most of them vanished. Some "Please don't open carry here" signs were posted. Also, a few places left up their old signage referring to license holders and such. I guess they didn't get the memo.

One change I didn't expect is how many of these pro-mass-murder signs vanished from New Mexico stores nearest the state line. Maybe it was only a coincidence that it happened at the same time, but it looks connected to me.

No new legislation was needed, of course; the old illegitimate rules just needed to be abolished or ignored. Yet it seems to have worked out pretty well, considering.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

How can it be both ways?

Why would you pin your hopes on the results of the next election while at the same time believing the last election was stolen? Are you going to v*te harder next time so that no one would be able to cheat enough to beat you? How would this work?

No election is legitimate because no one can have the right to govern anyone but himself. Never. Rights and liberty are not subject to majority opinion or political "authority". That's just how it is, like it or not.

Political criminals will still kill you to prove they are "right". And that's just how it is, like it or not.

But if you believe the last election was a fraud, how can you believe your v*te will matter next time? Do you think the winners will be scared to do it again? Do you think they'll behave because they know you suspect them and will be trying to watch more closely?

Or, do you v*te with the hope that your side will cheat harder next time to pull off a "win" in spite of the anticipated cheating of the other side? Would they need your v*te in that case?

Was there cheating or will your next v*te count?

It just seems really confused to me.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

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".