Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Saturday, February 03, 2024
Liberty takes more responsibility
A randomly armed society is a politer society than an unarmed one
Today— or yesterday as this posts— I was walking around among large groups of people in a sketchy area. Or, large from my perspective, anyway.
Against my will and better judgment, but in service to familial tranquility.
I felt better when I realized that I wasn’t the only one armed; that I was undoubtedly one among many. This being Texas.
I know there are people* who would find this disturbing. I’m so glad I’m not one of them.
I'll always be sure the generally decent people vastly outnumber the scum. Even most statists are generally decent, if misguided.
Give me a universally armed society any day. And a randomly armed one until then.
-
*cowards and crooks and monsters, in particular
Friday, February 02, 2024
Seeing all sides; not buying it
I have the crippling ability to see both sides of many issues. "Seeing" isn't believing.
Recently it's the Texas government vs the US feral government issue.
No, I don't agree with the feds; they are always wrong on everything, so don't think I ever side with them on anything, even if I'm inclined to agree on some minor point. They always screw it up somehow. Their institution shouldn't exist, has no right to exist, etc., and that's enough to invalidate their point, whatever it may be.
But the Texas government doesn't have an ethical advantage there. "States rights" is ridiculous because rights are individual-- states can't have rights.
Still, if the Texas government helps individual property owners fence off their land to trespassers, foreign (feds count as foreign) or domestic. they are doing the right thing (but with stolen money, so...). If they fence off "public" land, they aren't, since governments don't legitimately own anything. If you want the right to shut off access to the public, transfer ownership to an individual who has rights.
And if the feds trespass to take down fences on private property, they are no better than any other trespassing vandal.
I know people say "You can't have open borders [sic] and a welfare state" as though this justifies more government rather than pointing out what needs to be eliminated. Talk about hacking at the branches!
The same goes for the danger of new criminals coming into your town. You have the absolute human right to shoot anyone who violates your life, liberty, or property in a serious manner, if you can't get them to stop using less force. Government usually violates this right, to the benefit of criminals of every sort, but this doesn't justify more government; it invalidates another piece of government's pie.
What if these newcomers v*te for more socialism? Well, the current and recent v*ters don't have a good record on that anyway. Letting any majority have the power to violate your life, liberty, and property is so incredibly stupid, maybe you deserve to suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer, too.
And, I am absolutely 100% against government importing people from other countries. If a government imports people, it must be completely responsible for them, their care, and anything they do. Since taxation is theft, the money to cover the expense must come from the pockets of the politicians who implemented the program, and the sales of their assets.
So, yes, I can see all sides, but I can also see the obvious nonsense embedded in the entire "debate". When you tolerate government, you're going to get outcomes like this. Maybe, don't.
Having the ability to think, even when you can see both sides, doesn't turn out well for government's position. Sorry, crooks, thugs, and other assorted authoritarians.
Thursday, February 01, 2024
A society that doesn't respect individuals?
You can’t have a society apart from individuals since individuals are the atoms of society.
Collectivists don’t like this reality. But that doesn’t change it.
Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Ways to support what I do, if you think I'm useful
"Hooray for our side!"
I know that a major reason I don’t get much support or popularity is that I won’t join one of the teams.
Tuesday, January 30, 2024
I was wrong
I recently learned I was wrong (again). It happens.
I said the Texas government wasn’t allowed, by the Constitution, to control immigration.
Thomas Knapp pointed out that the same clause of the Constitution that forbids the federal government from controlling immigration allows the states to regulate immigration into their states— if read in a certain way. I have read that clause many times, but was focused on what it did to the feds, blind to what it allows of the states.
He also pointed out that this doesn’t make it moral, just “constitutional”. The Constitution allows many unethical things.
I’m still opposed to authorization reactions to anything. I still believe private solutions are better. If property owners want to fence off their property they have the right to do so. Government, be it the Texas or federal, has no rights. None. It has power— the power to do wrong and get away with it.
I hate being wrong, but I learn more from being wrong than from being right.
Monday, January 29, 2024
Civil war coming?
Is America heading for civil war? "Civil War 2.0"?
No. Not just no, but it would be impossible to have a second civil war.
That's because America has never yet had a civil war. Regardless of what your government-approved history course told you.
There was a revolution, following secession, in 1776; war between America and Great Britain— two separate countries.
Then in the 1860s, again following secession, there was a war between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America— two separate countries. Countries that Lincoln and other thugs wanted to force into unification.
A true civil war is when two factions are using military force and fighting for control of one government, and that hasn’t happened here.
Any "normal" election is closer to a civil war than any war between separate countries is-- all that's lacking is the shooting, which I could see happening; you already have two opposing factions fighting for control of one government.
The situation between the Texas government and the US federal government won’t become a civil war. Even if it broke up the “united” States.
Texas isn’t likely to try to take over and control the US federal government. I’m not sure what you’d call it if the feds tried to take over and control the Texas government, but it wouldn’t meet the criteria to be a civil war, nor would it cause one. Secession isn’t a civil war, nor can it result in one.
If the current situation causes war, it can’t— by definition— be a civil war. Unless you torture, stretch, and twist the definition of "civil war" so that it can include the American "Civil War", which would be a dishonest and political thing to do. Even if a dictionary does it.
Saturday, January 27, 2024
New year time to accept reality
Invasion?
Is Texas experiencing an invasion? Does the "invasion clause" of the Constitution (Article IV, section 4) mean any "invasion" or does it only apply to a military/paramilitary invasion?
It seems that Texas Governor Abbott did one thing right. I'm going to assume he searched the US Constitution, looking for some legal way to stop "immigration" or to close "the border", and since that's not in there, he found a different path. His only hope was to claim an invasion was occurring.
Is it true? Is this honest or is it a typical political lie?
Honestly, I can see both sides.
Dictionary.com defines "invasion" as:
- an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army. (emphasis mine)
- the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
If the people coming here were shooting or machete-ing their way into Texas the first definition would fit. "Entry, plus enmity". Since they aren't, you'd have to be able to read their minds to see their motivations; there are no overt signs they are entering as enemies. Ignoring any counterfeit "laws" regulating "immigration" doesn't meet the criteria.
You could argue some unknown number of them are entering to form or join "sleeper cells". If so, the proper way to deal with that is to encourage the entire American population to stay armed and ready to defend life, liberty, and property from any enemies, foreign or domestic, at all times, everywhere they happen to be. In other words, ditch every single anti-gun rule on the books and all anti-defense legislation. Anything else is equivalent to mass murder, even in the best of times. It is a crime against humanity in the event of an invasion.
If definition #1 fit the situation, the best thing government could do would be to get out of the way. Let the militia handle it by repelling or shooting any combatants encountered. The most legitimate thing the National Guard could do in that case is to hand their weapons over to the militia. (For all the dumb statists out there it needs to be pointed out that the National Guard is NOT the militia, but came along much later.) Maybe they could pass out water bottles and provide medical care, too. All other branches of government military need to stay out of the way unless they are willing to do the same. The government's military isn't a help.
It would be easier to apply definition #2 to the current situation. The case could be made, even if I think you'd have to be collectivist to make it. I could be persuaded by this definition, at least in some individual cases. Cases requiring an individual response and solution.
My 1949 edition of Funk & Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary includes a third definition of “invasion”:
“3 Encroachment, as by an act of intrusion or trespass…”
"Encroachment"? "...to advance beyond proper, established, or usual limits; make gradual inroads". Who gets to define "proper"? "Established" by whom and by what rights? "Usual limits"? It opens a lot more questions. But I can see how it might fit the circumstances... if looked at in a certain way.
If anyone— migrants, border control, Texas cops, federal troops, or whoever— is trespassing on private property they are subject to consequences. If they die, oh well.
Unfortunately for borderists, the US government does not own all the land inside the “borders” it claims. Crossing government "borders" to enter “public” (government) land (or entering a government building on January 6th) is not trespassing in any real sense. There is no legitimate rightful owner to violate.
Crossing a private property line is another matter.
If, as I’ve heard, the razor-wire fences in question are on private property with the consent (or at the request) of the landowners, then the feds need to back off. If they refuse, I don’t care what happens to them. “S, S, & S”, as ranchers say. And good riddance.
No matter how you want to define "invasion", an authoritarian response is never the right way to go. More government power and control is never going to improve the situation. Let the people handle any problem, if there's a problem.
Friday, January 26, 2024
Absent government, it wouldn't be an issue
This situation between the Texas government and the US government could get "interesting". Do both sides actually believe they are right, or have the Constitution on their side? Delusion.
It’s a sign that welfare needs to be done away with. That all criminalization of armed defense against property crimes needs to go away forever. That self-defense against attackers-- all attackers-- needs to be encouraged rather than punished. It's why it's utterly stupid to allow politics, democracy, and v*ting to have any power to violate individual rights and liberty.
These are the types of counterfeit rules that allow sick borderists to try to escalate the police state to “secure the border”. They can get away with pretending it's about defense when government is allowed to criminalize actual defense.
It’s right to protect society from criminals, but it’s wrong to do it the way they are trying to do it; by making America into an open-air prison camp.
It’s inconceivable that some supposed libertarians are siding with borderist authoritarians to support and justify locking down the “border” instead of attacking the reason people see "border control" as essential and “immigration”* as a problem. Why don't they attack the root of the problem instead? I don't know.
But, I sympathize a little. They don't want "those people" moving into "their" country, but they also still want to keep a political government around for some reason. Tradition, or they can't imagine life without it, maybe? They can't even process the fact that government is forbidden to control "immigration" by the very document they worship when it supports things they want. Because yes, anything government isn't explicitly allowed to do by the Constitution is forbidden.
"Immigration" is not a problem except that government has been allowed to grow to the point where it makes it a problem for its own benefit and to increase its own power and "authority". Yes, "both sides" are doing it. Disgusting!
*Government importing people from other parts of the world is not "immigration", and is a separate issue. One caused, again, by government.
Thursday, January 25, 2024
Bad guy vs a huge gang of worse guys
I'll admit it's a personal shortcoming, but sometimes I don't mind seeing a bad guy hand other bad guys their comeuppance.
Frequently, in fiction, I root for the bad guy when he goes up against other bad guys. Often, just because I dislike them more than I dislike him. Especially if it's one bad guy against a gang of bad guys-- or worse guys.
I prefer the pirate, Captain Jack Sparrow, to the English Navy.
I prefer NYC cop John McClane to Hans Gruber's gang.
Even though the Rebel Alliance wants to re-establish a government, thus I wouldn't otherwise support their cause, the Empire is still worse as long as the Empire has power. Once the Empire fell, the situation changed.
Since I don't suffer from TDS, this is how I see the current Trump campaign.
I don't need a president (neither do you), nor am I so helpless and pathetic that I need to be governed by anyone. I don't personally like or support Trump. But I dislike those who are trying to "get" him even more than I dislike him. I wouldn't mind seeing them beaten at their own game and utterly humiliated. No matter who does it.
Even an authoritarian anti-liberty bigot like Trump. He's no worse than they are.
Yes, I know they are likely to try to assassinate him if their current court schemes don't take him out. I would expect nothing less. But in the meantime, I hope they are confounded as to what's really going on, not realizing they created him.
Wednesday, January 24, 2024
There's no justification for a police state
Most people seem to want a police state-- at least when it comes to imposing or forbidding things they want to mandate or prohibit.
Not me.
There are things I deeply dislike, but I would rather ridicule them or call them out than give politicized goons the power to do anything, one way or another, about them.
You have a right to ridicule the ridiculous and you have the right to speak the truth to those who deny it. Those rights are as important as the right to use force against anyone who is violating you or someone else.
You don't have the right to advocate, pass, or enforce legislation that is propped up with stolen money and depends on a police state. You may try to make the case that you are only using this political violence in defense, but you don't want to admit this is like using a nuclear weapon on a village to get a couple of bad guys among the others. Political violence can't be aimed precisely enough to avoid harming more innocents than bad guys. This is true in every case, even if well-intentioned. Even if you'd have the right to hunt down and kill the bad guy to stop him from continuing to do what he's doing.
Trying to justify a political response is justifying a police state which will eventually target you, or destroy you as "collateral damage".
No police states, or police state tactics, ever!
Tuesday, January 23, 2024
Undue power over others
I don’t like anything which gets in the way of people exercising their rights.
That includes, but isn't limited to, government/corporations. Anyone with power over someone can prevent them from doing things they have a right to do.
Perhaps the problem is letting anyone have power over others. At least, undue power.
Then there's the subjectivity of how much power is "undue".
Some amount of power over your young children is necessary. Some amount of power over employees is too. In those cases, when you get in the way of people doing things they have a right to do-- things that don't really have an impact over the things you need to control-- I see it as undue power.
Your kid wants to color the apple blue instead of red? Your kid wants to wear their favorite shirt to the family gathering instead of the one you picked out? Who does it hurt? Let them. It's not the same as letting your kid eat only marshmallows for a month because that's what they want.
Controlling employees is very similar. Some things actually affect their value to you in a bad way; you aren't getting what you're paying for. Other things don't. Reasonable power recognizes (and respects) the difference.
But, since there's really no choice involved in government having power over you, government power is always undue power. It is never legitimate. Not even a little.
Monday, January 22, 2024
Problems caused and fertilized by Too Much Government
What are the problems of allowing Too Much Government to continue to infest society? They are many.
Immigration, drugs, crime, "gun violence" "the pandemic", "foreign affairs", etc. All the problems associated with these issues are either entirely caused by, or are greatly magnified by, the existence of political government. The issues would either go away or be easily handled by free people who aren't being thwarted by legislation and the crooks who pass and enforce it.
The best government is that which governs least. "Not at all" is just about right.
Maybe you think none of this is intentional, but is just because the wrong crooks hold the power. You'd be wrong. It’s not a mistake, it’s a plan to fail. A plan to hurt you and your loved ones.
They (government employees) believe they have plausible deniability, but only with the idiots and statists among us. They are responsible. And there is an obvious way to make it right.
Saturday, January 20, 2024
Liberty greatest gift you can give
The existential threat
If Congress is doing anything other than abolishing legislation, it is killing America.
Congress is a bigger threat to America-- to YOU-- than China, terrorists, fentanyl, or "Disease X". Combined.
Friday, January 19, 2024
Statism's desperation illustrated
Statism. It's a failed cult.
Thursday, January 18, 2024
Some fantasy is more enjoyable than others
Any media where government is portrayed as the good guys is pure fantasy. Just as much as anything full of magic, dragons, or the Hogfather.
Maybe less believable, though. To those with critical thinking skills, anyway.
Wednesday, January 17, 2024
"We have a warrant"
When I'm watching any show where the cops come to the door and demand to be let in because they "have a warrant", my thought is "Well, isn't that special. The crime gang gave itself permission to commit a crime".
I'm not saying it's safe to refuse to cooperate-- it wouldn't be-- but there's nothing magical about a warrant. It's just what I described above: a criminal gang giving itself permission to trespass, rob, and or kidnap.
Maybe their target is even a bad guy. But so are they, and they prove it by issuing and serving warrants.















