Holiday sale on Bitcoin! If I had money to spare I'd be getting more.

I'm too ignorant to have a good opinion

I saw enough "news" about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial that I had a firm opinion as to the correct verdict. I don't feel I had seen enough about the Ahmaud Arbery killing to form an opinion as to how that trial should have gone. Nor do I trust media sources to get the story right (which includes everything I heard about the Rittenhouse case, too).

I've heard two very different versions of the Arbery case. Depending on which one is closer to the truth, I could go either way.

I heard that the killers were trying to make a citizens' arrest and Arbery resisted. If cops can do it, so can anyone. If it's not OK for any goober off the streets to do it, it's not OK for cops to do it. That includes killing someone for "resisting arrest". That's just how it is. Cops can't have extra rights. So, if* it's valid for a cop to arrest someone or kill them while trying, you and I have the exact same right to do so regardless of the opinions of political criminals. (*That's a big "if".)

But, I also think everyone has the natural right to fight a kidnapping, even if you call it an "arrest". By anyone for any reason. Yes, it might be unwise to do so, especially if you're outgunned, but that's a separate issue.

And, I still think both sides in any altercation have the right to use whatever force they feel is necessary to keep from being harmed-- yes, even the clear bad guy. I just hope the bad guy loses every time without fail.

I also think people have a right to defend their property-- and their neighbors' property with their neighbors' permission-- from thieves and other violators. One version of the story I heard seems to show this right being exercised.

Otherwise, I don't really like convictions, just on principle. It feels like letting government win. So there's that. 

Nor do I like everything being sold as being about "race" and I don't like when the racists win.

So I admit I'm too ignorant about this case to form a good opinion as to how I think it should have gone. 

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

Happy Thanksgiving

 

Those rights you defend

I'll bet you've heard the claim that "you only have those rights you defend", or similarly that you don't have the right to do "X" because government prevents you from exercising it.

This is wrong.

That's because rights mostly revolve around what others have no right to do.

Even if others enslave you-- which no one has a right to do-- it doesn't mean you have no right to not be enslaved. You have this right, but others chose to violate it.

You have the right to fight off slavers. You might win and you might lose, but your rights don't change, only your situation does.

Mostly, of course, I see this argument used to explain, in a statist way ("statesplaining"?), why your rights are routinely violated by political criminals. "It's your fault because you didn't defend your rights hard enough." Nice victim-blaming there. No, it's the violator's fault. Every time, without exception.

You have rights because no one has the right to violate you. That's all you need to know. I hope you'll do whatever it takes to defend your rights, and if you need my help, let me know. But you can't "lose" a right just because some thug chooses to violate it.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Balanced living

I've said before that libertarianism is the balanced position. Various facets of libertarianism-- anarchy and responsibility, among them-- are the balance between the dangerous extremes of decadence and authoritarianism, deadly chaos and deadly order, and between nihilism and fascism.

One of the clearest illustrations of this has been visible in the reactions to the Rittenhouse case and verdict.

Only the libertarians get it. Again.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Actions have natural consequences

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 20, 2021)

Actions have consequences. I can disagree with what someone does, and even believe they should face consequences for their actions, without believing government should hand out those consequences. Government isn't the proper place to look for solutions.

Natural and social consequences are unavoidable; consequences from government are arbitrary.

I don't believe government authority has any legitimacy. It looks to me like any other superstitious belief lots of people share. It's just astrology with a lot of guns and bombs and offices.

Consequences shouldn't necessarily be legal consequences, anyway. Social consequences don't require government, and often government steps in to save bad guys from any real social consequences their behavior earned them. This rewards antisocial behavior and encourages more of it.

Murder is wrong regardless of the opinions of politicians. The murders they approve of or call something other than "murder", are exactly as wrong as those they weep and wail and hold press events over. Government or legislation is not the proper way to deal with murder.

I believe the corporate social media empires should face consequences for censoring speech on their sites; I don't believe government is the proper institution to hand out those consequences. Getting government involved would likely make the situation worse; the censorship would only increase. Especially since so much of the censoring is aimed at silencing those who question the sketchy government story.

If someone has violated the life, liberty, or property of another, they owe restitution as a result. This is justice; anything else isn't. Government courts don't deal in justice, even when it's in their name. They deal in punishment, which is revenge. This is only going to make things worse in the long run, as should be obvious by now.

But without government, how would you collect the restitution you are owed as the victim of a crime? You'd better find a way which doesn't involve government unless you want to be on the wrong side. Using government to collect your restitution from the violator means you now owe restitution to those who were taxed-- robbed-- to fund the government you used. It's a destructive cycle which solves nothing.

There are better, consensual ways, to do everything you have a right to do. Find them.

All actions, good and bad, have consequences. Whether anyone believes they should happen or not, they will happen with or without government stepping in. Let them happen naturally.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Truth is "hate speech" in a society of lies.

A system built on thuggery and cheating

I don't believe you can build a legitimate or credible "system" using illegitimate or non-credible parts. This is why no political government (or any piece thereof) looks legitimate or credible to me. It is based on politics and is political throughout. Politics is cheating.

Even if such a "system" gets something right on occasion, I see this as an accident, not as proof of legitimacy.

And, in the case of the Rittenhouse trial, the jury got it right, not the "system". The "system" allowed there to be a trial-- an attempt to punish a victim (an unlikeable victim, in my opinion) while portraying his attackers as victims. There's nothing legitimate about that.

Now, the prosecutor and arresting officers (if there were any) need to pay restitution. They wouldn't be able to afford the amount I would suggest they owe. I'd also shun them to death. But that's just me, and seems to be a reasonable consequence of being part of an evil, illegitimate "system".

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

Politics is for the gullible.

What is wrong with some people?

I've got a friend of a couple of decades who is in a potentially dangerous situation with her roommate, and she's probably making it worse by dispensing with civility. They both have done so. It's a cold war on the verge of going hot. 

She's not worried about any consequences because she's cocky and because she keeps knives in her room.

She doesn't believe the potentially dangerous person or her friends can do anything to her. So she keeps antagonizing her, and the roommate is doing the same. 

To be clear, neither is innocent in my opinion. Both are doing all they can to poke at the other, making the other person as miserable as possible. The roommate has been using, breaking, and throwing away my friend's property, and picking locks to access my friend's bathroom for her constant stream of visitors to use, and her bedroom to get to kitchen utensils my friend bought and hid to keep from being damaged. 

The other girl has done things unilaterally to raise the rent, and my friend is refusing to pay the higher rent. But also refusing to discuss it or even tell the roommate she's refusing to pay the higher rent. And, still, looking for ways to anger the roommate. Any communication is through passive-aggressive notes left-- and ignored-- around the apartment.

They are refusing to even speak to each other anymore, letting their behavior speak for them. 

I see this leading to a bad situation, maybe even-- I hate to think this way-- murder. And I've warned her. Do you think she listens? Ha. It's almost as though she is enjoying this situation; it seems to energize her. Who knows what the roommate thinks.

She lives hundreds of miles away and there's nothing I can physically do.

I've been in enough sketchy situations over the years that I'm not cocky. I don't try to intentionally antagonize anyone, especially without a clear path away from the situation. I'm not going to assume the other person isn't going to snap if pushed too far. I don't assume they aren't sneaky enough to get the drop on me. I assume they could well have friends who wouldn't draw the line at physical violence they believe would help their friend.

But, it seems some people are dedicated to being stubborn. As happens all the time, I ask myself what is wrong with some people?

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

Dr. Phil and all those court shows are porn for people who pretend to be offended by porn.

Would this solve inflation? Abolish all political government at every level, then burn/delete any FRNs or digital money in the possession of government. (Then open Fort Knox and let's see if there's anything left in there to be handed out to the people in restitution.)

Time's Up flag listing... fixed?

I just discovered that my Time's Up flags, which I thought were available for sale for the past month, weren't. I had paid for an entire month of "pause and build" instead of having them for sale. I think that is fixed now.

So, here again, is the listing. (Probably twice, as it tends to do.)

Don't you dare take your safety equipment with you

Demanding that someone leave their gun behind when they are going to where there is trouble is like demanding someone unhook their seatbelt if they see an out-of-control car heading toward them. It's like demanding they throw out their fire extinguishers if they smell smoke.

What kind of evil idiot would demand you get rid of your safety equipment at the moment when you most need it? Political idiots, that's who.

Anyone who holds this opinion wants you to die.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

The barbarism of the Branch Covidians

Someone I know made a stupid TikTok video (aren't they all?) with the song "Take this mask and shove it", and the comments were overwhelmingly negative. Most were along the lines of "I hope you catch Covid and die" (some hoping her child dies of Covid, too), and others were more focused on hating Texas and the Texas governor.

She deleted them all. 

I would have left them and ridiculed all the superstitious commenters. I would have laughed at their religion and its unscientific belief requirements. But this is because I don't ever delete comments (other than those from spammers, but those don't count). The only comment I ever intentionally deleted was one where the commenter threw a fit and demanded I delete his comment immediately. And I once accidentally deleted a comment when I was trying to read it from my phone.

The crazed, frothing hatred from the Branch Covidians is insane. And seems to be growing as their "pandemic" narrative fades. (The pandemic is over; it's now endemic and just something to live with. Note I said "live with", not "continue to panic about".)

Even a prepper blog I read has gone over to the crazy side. He basically sees Covid as an existential threat and he believes all the government's numbers and claims about it. Remember, if two people are in a room and one of them sees a unicorn in the room and the other doesn't, the one who sees the unicorn is probably the one who's hallucinating. In fact, the same is true even if the animal in question is only a zebra.  Or a horse.

Opposing mandates isn't the same as trying to forbid you from getting a "vaccine" or wearing a mask. Do what you feel is best. But the Branch Covidians are trying to convince you it is the same. And they want you to know they feel you are a murderer for opposing mandates. All over a silly overreaction to a virus. Some people don't even believe the virus exists.

I doubt it's all made up-- I think there probably is a new variety of cold virus out there, but I have no proof and no way to know without taking someone else's word. But I know for sure that the way the Branch Covidians-- in and out of political power-- are behaving about it is wrong. They are becoming barbarians. Make sure it doesn't end the way they'd prefer.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

A state government isn't the cure for authoritarianism-- it is a feature of it.

Six years. Every day it seems so much longer than that, and also like it was only yesterday.

"The science" is anti-scientific; superstition, science-denial. Anyone who uses the term either doesn't understand what science is or is trying to manipulate you with lies.

"Justice" or "fairness"?

Dishonest or ignorant people are actively trying to conflate "justice" and "fairness". That's not what "justice" means. 

Worse, "fairness" isn't even a real thing, but is a concept "invented so children and idiots could feel like they are participating in conversation".

But fooling people into believing the words "justice" and "fairness" mean the same thing is useful for brainwashing them into accepting injustice by calling it "fairness" and tying it to "justice". Who could admit to being against justice? 

Of course, most people would also say "Who could be against fairness?" I'm not against it; I just recognize it is so totally subjective as to be useless and ultimately imaginary. What I would see as "fair" another might see as "unfair"-- and might also call "injustice" if they confuse those concepts.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

It is NOT wrong to go boldly into a dangerous place in defense of life, liberty, or property, carrying effective weapons (it would be foolish to do so without weapons). To demonize someone who carries a gun when they go among aggressors-- and who only uses these weapons in actual defense-- is to side with evil. Pacifism isn't noble; non-aggression is.