Time to stop respecting political authority

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 5, 2025)

If you're concerned about America's direction, there's a way to think about it that helps. It's also true.

America is the people, the natural wonders and resources, and the spirit of innovation. America is liberty.

The US federal government is the enemy of all those things and not something you should look to for guidance, protection, or answers. The regional and local governments are not on America's side, either. Being loyal to government is misguided. Or worse.

When the CIA spies on Americans it is showing its loyalty to itself, not to America. It has methods to disrupt other countries; do you believe it won't use these methods in America to make things go its way? Of course it will, regardless of legality.

When the FBI is caught pressuring desperate losers to commit crimes so it can congratulate itself for thwarting another plot, do you think this was an unusual case? Or have you realized the FBI is not looking out for America, either?

Presidents and members of Congress might pretend to listen to you, but even if they were sincere, there are millions of people with opposing values and goals. Don't count on politicians to do the right thing, if they even understand what's right.

The Supreme Court is just as bad. They may follow the Constitution as long as it doesn't inconvenience government too much. Or as long as it doesn't go against their personal preferences.

It would be great if it were safe to ignore all these anti-American institutions, but they've made sure it isn't. You have to watch out for the next threat they'll throw your way.

No one can fix them-- they are already working exactly as designed. You can try to hold them accountable in individual cases, but it's like chasing down a single fly in a feedlot. You might succeed, but it will make no difference. It's too safe for them to keep being the bad guys, and there's safety in the illusion of numbers.

There's nothing they can do to us if enough of us stop complying. They are a drop in the bucket, in terms of real numbers. It's the superstitious belief in political authority that props them up.

The best way to respect America is to stop respecting those who fight against everything that makes America good. America will be fine, as long as you don't give the political criminals too much power over it.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate your support.

The arguments for DST

I follow an account on X that advocates for deleting "Daylight Saving Time". This has resulted in debates with DST advocates, which has taught me some things about their view of the world.

Primarily, and at the foundation, nearly all supporters of DST believe anyone who prefers standard time is a "lazy bum who wants to sleep all day". This is where every discussion eventually ends up. It's their gotcha.

Beyond that--

I've come to discover how few of them realize the sun sets later (and rises earlier) in the summer, giving more hours of daylight no matter what you do with the clocks. I thought everyone knew this. Apparently not.

They'll argue that "everyone prefers DST", but when I suggest that if this is the case, businesses will simply choose to open and close an hour earlier in summer to make people happy (like they are already doing under DST, while pretending this isn't what they are doing), I'm told this wouldn't work because there are too many "lazy bums who want to sleep all day".

They'll claim they don't care which clock setting is chosen, as long as the clock changing stops. But, when I say, "OK, then we can just stay on standard time", they have a meltdown, saying that's not what they meant. Then it goes back to accommodating "lazy bums". 

If pressed at this point, they'll even say we need to keep the twice-a-year "time change" to avoid staying with permanent standard time.

There's more--

They've told me there's no such thing as circadian rhythms. 

I've been told it doesn't matter where the hands of the clock point (as long as the clock is on DST) so I shouldn't care-- while they express how deeply they care that I be forced to adopt their clock setting.

They've told me that time zones are arbitrary (which suggests they've never traveled very far east or west); apparently unaware they are based on when the sun is at its zenith in a general region.
If we're going to ignore noon anyway, let's just adopt the One World Clock (UTC), and go with that (which I oppose as much as I oppose DST). But they don't like that, either.

They've told me that permanent standard time would disrupt international business and put America out of sync with the rest of the world. I don't even know how to respond to that weapons-grade lack of awareness.

They've told me that people who want permanent standard time don't love their kids (or don't have kids) and don't want their kids to have the "extra" daylight.

But, mostly, I'm told-- time after time-- that if I don't embrace DST it's only because I am a lazy bum who wants to sleep all day. And that, to them, ends the discussion.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Faking data

Let me tell you about the time I faked data "for science".

My Wildlife Management class was assigned to survey the number of squirrels and squirrel nests in a plot of woods on the university campus. It was a wild area of many acres beside the remote free parking lot. A perfect place for hiding corpses, if someone is into that sort of thing.

The class divided into groups. Every group was free to choose their methods of survey, and we were to extrapolate from our observations to the entire area and write up a report. The group I was in decided on our method and chose a time and date to meet.

At the designated hour, we met and headed off into the woods with our notebooks. Then things fell apart.

A little backstory. I spent nearly all my time in the woods-- when I wasn't forced to be somewhere else. Rain, snow, heat, whatever. And, among friends and family, I am envied as the person mosquitos ignore. I taste bad to them or something, and many times I am completely unbothered while the people with me are covered with ravenous mosquitos and going insane from the misery.

The mosquitos in those woods that day had never heard that I should be ignored. My group fled the woods without documenting a single squirrel or squirrel nest. We were all covered in huge, white welts when we had run far enough from the trees to stop and compare. It was a new (unpleasant) experience for me. Later I found out all the other groups had done the same.

Yet, we all turned in "reports", and the "reports" were all similar enough to look like human error or like different methods of extrapolation could explain them.

Science is real and can be trusted. Humans can't be trusted to do real science when there's an incentive to make stuff up. Whether it's a bias, money, or a swarm of giant hungry mosquitos.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

The insult that's a compliment

There's one attempted insult that shouldn't bother you even a little: "You think you’re better than other people".

Malcolm Reynolds handled it wisely by responding, "Just the ones I'm better than". In reality, it's even easier than that.

Anyone who utters those words already knows they have a significant flaw you're lacking. The statement is an admission. It may as well be a compliment. Be happy and move on.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Don't be distracted by USAID

USAID is bad, but the root problem is archation.

Archation is when life, liberty, and property (natural human rights) are violated. The biggest violator is, and always has been, political government: The State.

The State steals your money through taxation and inflation (wherein it counterfeits "money", making your money worth less). It then uses this stolen money against your rights.

There's no way to ethically spend stolen money. Spending it on USAID is part of that crookedness. It's evil, but it isn't the root evil.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Overwhelming craziness all around us

The world has gone utterly insane. I mean, the people in the world. (Yeah, I know it's not exactly a new development.)

Try to hold on while everyone around you screams for authoritarianism and delusion to be served up just the way they want it, according to their dulled tastes. Stick to your ethical principles even when all the unethical ("normal") people, with their pragmatism and statist agendas, are against you. Right or Left.

Are we witnessing the death throes of authoritarianism, or is the authoritarian dragon just rolling over to find a comfortable position after lying on the same side for too long? Most likely, it's the latter, but I'll keep hoping it's the former. This dragon is not your friend; it's not on your side. Even if it does some things you like, by eating the ugly monsters who have been slashing at you with their swords and pitchforks. It's making way for others to slash at your liberty.

We'll watch and see how this goes. It's interesting, if nothing else.

Keep prepping. Maybe everything will be fine. If it all goes kablooie, you won't have the kind of warning you expect. You won't have a chance to do those things you're waiting for the last minute to do. Go ahead and take care of them as soon as possible. If nothing happens, you'll still be better off.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

The "I oppose DEI" challenge accepted

You've got a deal.

I oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion. I oppose ALL of it.

Would this person want to know why?

I oppose diversity of competence, which is what DEI advocates are really pushing. It's stupid and dangerous. Any other types of diversity are irrelevant and no one who matters cares. I want competent people- of any type- doing the jobs that are critically important.

I oppose equity, because it is impossible to achieve it without striving for the lowest common denominator. Equity is death. It denies that everyone alive has equal and identical rights, and makes everyone equally enslaved. It is evil and I oppose it.

I oppose inclusion for the sake of inclusion. I respect the natural human right of association. If you want or need an exclusive space and don't want me there, that's your right even if it hurts my feelings. Not everyone needs access to everywhere. And if you're excluded, make your own space.
Yes, that means the "Libertarian Party" has a right to kick out statists. It means women's organizations have a right to exclude men. It means churches have a right to exclude atheists or people who hold incompatible beliefs. It means you have a fundamental human right to choose who you associate with, even if I think you're being rude or dumb.
I also have a right to tell people what I think of you for excluding people based on your criteria if I disagree with what you're doing. What I don't have a right to do is use legislation or coercion to force you to change your admittance policy.
I think in most cases, groups would benefit by letting in more people with more points of view. They don't benefit by letting in people who just want to join so they can whine and destroy the group from the inside.

Is that specific enough for the authoritarian bigot who made the challenge?

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Keep reaching for a little more liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 29, 2024)

The year is winding down. I hope yours has been good and your next year will be even better.

I enjoy the week between Christmas and New Year. It might be one of my favorite parts of the holidays; it feels like a cozy nook to rest in and read a book. For me, it's a more relaxed time. The hustle and pressure of the holiday have calmed down, but the family holiday fun often lingers a while longer. So do the leftovers. It's a time to enjoy the present, reflect on the past year, and think about what I can do with the raw material of a new year. The future is what you make of it.

The past year had some challenges for me. but I survived and came through better than ever. I'm optimistic about the future.

I plan to bask in the present, grateful for the things that are going well. Maybe I can even come up with a plan for those things that need improvement.

I'll also keep pushing toward a better future-- "better" in this case always means more liberty. I don't expect huge changes immediately, although I wouldn't complain. As long as things move in the right direction, nothing needs to be instant. "Better than yesterday" is usually good enough.

I'll keep reminding people why liberty is better than slavery, even when slavery is called something more socially acceptable.

Neither the Right nor the Left has a monopoly on slavery; they prefer different flavors of the same old authoritarian swill.

What would your ideal future look like? More liberty, more slavery, or no change at all? Can you make an argument for your preference? Could you join me in smashing the shackles of a superstitious devotion to government and the slavery it inevitably brings? I'll not buy into the excuses some use to justify their favorite brand of authoritarianism, but will keep calling things what they are. Sometimes this will put me in the good graces of one political side, and sometimes it will align me with the other. I can live with that.

There can never be "too much liberty". If the world ever gets to a place where you say, "Stop. That's enough liberty for me-- I don't want more", you can stay there and I'll keep pushing forward. I suspect we're decades from that split, so for now, we can be on the same team.

-

Thank you for reading.
Please consider supporting KentForLiberty.

Did the tariffs work?

Just so you remember: Evil often "works" and is thus pragmatic.

If a threatened tariff gets a government to give another government something, it worked (at least in the short term).

Theft can get you a new car.
Kidnapping can get you a "girlfriend".
And a tariff can get you concessions.

It's still not right, even if it "works". Especially when it violates life, liberty, or property and moves in the direction of more authoritarianism.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Tariffs expose economic ignorance

People supporting tariffs clearly demonstrate they don't understand economics. They might have a superficial understanding, based on economically ignorant claims, but no more than that.

The only people who pay tariffs are you, me, and other customers. Not the other country, not the tariffing government, not the exporting company, not the importing company-- the customers. Just like customers are the only ones who pay corporate taxes and other taxes said to be imposed on the rich and powerful on behalf of "the regular people". It can't be any other way in the real world.

But you'll pay more than just the higher prices on imported products. You'll end up paying more for "domestic" products and services.

Tariffs reduce competition. If products from Country A cost more for customers in Country B, because of Country B's tariffs, then businesses in Country B face less competition and can raise prices. 

Their own costs will also increase because of the tariffs for the reasons pointed out above, so they'll have to anyway if they want to stay in business.

When the local Salvation Army store closed, Goodwill’s prices doubled. Or more. Not because Goodwill's expenses increased, but because there was no one in town competing with them to keep their prices lower. Plus Goodwill probably got more donations since they were now the only game in town if you wanted to empty out a closet or shed. It would have worked the same if the Salvation Army had been tariffed and Goodwill hadn't.

I've been scolded by people telling me the tariffs will lower the prices I pay. I hope they're right, but I know they aren't. Of course, I'm told this by people who believe, due to their short-sightedness, that their business/industry will immediately benefit, so take it with a cargo container of salt.

Economic ignorance is the most common thing on earth. Politics is a primary cause of feeling confident in bad ideas you don't understand.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Statists lie

Statists lie. And they frequently rely on newer definitions to help them lie.

Language evolves. I understand that and I don't even care when it evolves naturally. What I do care about is when language is manipulated in order to push an agenda. This is not the same as language evolving- this is language being hacked apart and sewn back together in a Frankenstein's Monster to serve an agenda.

It still looks generally human, that is to say, legitimate, but the integrity of the language that permits clear communication is lost in the process.

I've also noticed they'll switch between definitions as needed to keep their point alive. There's no integrity.

When this happens, there's really nothing you can say (because "words are just words"). Those relying on the manipulated language to "prove" their point just show the neo-definitions or whatever they need and that's that.

Yes, it's dishonest, but as I say, statists lie. It's almost a defining characteristic; you can't support political government and its various programs and efforts while staying honest. So, they manipulate language and then strut around like pigeons on a chessboard.

I also realize most people don't care. To them, words don't have any set meaning; they are just a mental construct and can change every day if convenient. I'm not sure how they expect clear communication to occur if that's the case. Maybe they don't care about that, either.

It's irritating, but it works on observers who buy the garbage they are selling and aren't aware it's garbage.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Diversity

Diversity of completely irrelevant characteristics like sex, "race", sexuality, etc. doesn't matter. It's not important. It can be ignored. It should be ignored.

Diversity of competence is stupid. It's a disaster and needs to be rejected totally.

Focusing on the diversity of irrelevant characteristics guarantees a diversity of competence because it takes attention away from what's important. It's a method to dilute competence and to take unreasonable chances.

Some individuals of every sex, "race", sexuality, or any other irrelevant characteristic like these are competent in every realm. They don't need to be propped up by dangerous policies.

It's OK to not be competent in every realm, but everyone can be competent in something. Chase that; not the things you lack competence in, but you wish you were good at. Or, find a way to become competent in what you want to pursue.

If someone isn't competent in some area, I don't want to risk putting them in that position. If someone is competent in some area, I want them doing that, regardless of their other irrelevant qualities. It makes my life better and it is risky to exclude them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Hiding military liability?

Let me start by stating my biases:
I am unapologetically pro-liberty. I don't support liberty's most dangerous enemy: government. Thus, I don't support or trust government's military, but consider it the gun pointed in the face of Americans and the biggest factor in making people in other countries want to kill Americans.

With that out of the way, I suspect the collision between the army helicopter and the commercial airplane was the fault of the army helicopter. 

The commercial plane was following its regular, scheduled route. The army helicopter was obviously somewhere it shouldn't have been at a time it shouldn't have been there, and was probably (I'm speculating here) flying darker than was responsible under the conditions. The responsibility to not cause a disaster was the helicopter crew's. They failed.

Early headlines were invariably along the lines of "Collision between army helicopter and commercial plane".

Yet, I watched as headlines soon morphed into implying the commercial plane was at fault. "Plane flies into army helicopter" and things of that sort. A subtle but critical change. Without any evidence that this was true, or important to the event.

If the feral government's military people were at fault, would the military be liable (or pressured into) paying damages to the families of its victims? Or into paying more? Could this be the reason the narrative changed as I watched?

If you don't think something like this is could be at play, you trust government too much.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Seeing both sides, even the wrong one

Being able to see, understand, and sympathize with both sides of an issue can be a pain.

There's no topic where I understand both sides as well as I do "immigration". This has been very obvious over the past week or so.

I'm a "borders are imaginary lines delineating tax farms and telling you which counterfeit 'laws' apply where" kind of guy. 

Governments don't have any rights whatsoever, much less a "right" to tell people where they can go. (No, I don't believe walking on "government property" [sic] is trespassing, either, but that's a topic for another day.)

I completely understand and sympathize with the "close the borders and deport them" side while still knowing they are utterly wrong.

I get the argument that “they broke the law” by being here, but the “laws” the migrants broke to be here have no more legitimacy than anti-gun rules. So, none whatsoever. The rules themselves are unethical and they also violate the Constitution, if that matters to you.

But government has been importing people, which it should never have done, and this gets people understandably worked up. 

Government doesn't respect the right of association, forcing people to deal with those they'd rather not-- whether a government employee or someone whose culture is incompatible with those forced to accommodate it. This doesn't help anyone.

Many of those who embrace the ideas of "immigration control" and deportation believe their position respects property rights, while they promote the socialist notion of "our country" and believe they have a right to control property they don't own. They only respect property rights as long as the property is used in ways they approve of.

And then government (as it always does) has been shielding the archators among the migrants from the natural consequences of their behavior-- something that is evil and causes more anti-"immigrant" feelings. This anger makes people unable to think reasonably about the topic. It couldn't be otherwise, especially if someone is inclined to be a borderist and dislike "outsiders" in the first place.

You'll never get attacked as fast and hard as you will if you point out the illegitimacy of "immigration law". That's purely government's doing. Maybe it's intentional, or maybe it's incompetence.

Either way, I sympathize with everyone, I condemn the archators on all sides, and I know there's probably no point in trying to convince those ruled by their emotions.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

No excuse for this disgusting idea

I despise the notion of “public policy”. Concerning anything.

It’s a disgusting idea. The only reason for it is so lawgivers will have an idea of what legislation to impose. 

It is nearly always used in an anti-liberty way, even though this isn't inevitable. This is because those who make "public policy" are invariably statists. 

Even if they are personally "libertarian", they suggest "public policy" because they feel the state is legitimate and should have a say in our lives. Believing the state to be legitimate is a defining characteristic of statism. Believing it should have a say in our lives is accepting slavery, as long as the state is the slavemaster.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Saving the economy from government

No income tax.
No sales tax.
No tariffs.
Defund government.
Separate life and state.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Too many authoritarians

That a large number of people are in favor of the authoritarian things Trump is doing, and a large number were in favor of the authoritarian thugs Biden did, doesn’t bode well for the future.

People— or too many people— seem to like authoritarianism. As long as it aligns with their preferences and beliefs. Not their “values” since there’s no value in authoritarianism.

Most of them balk if you call their side authoritarian, but will readily agree that their opponents are authoritarian. They lack self-awareness.

Authoritarianism is as deadly as decadence. It is a rejection of responsibility. It is the choice to be a slave while hoping you're the master's favorite. Or, it's the intention to become the master. Either way, it's not smart or good.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Personal responsibility better than government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 22, 2024)

Have you unhitched your wagon from the dying mule of government? If not, why not? It's not helping you, in spite of the claims of its public relations team, but is holding you back. You could be better without it getting in your way and siphoning off the labor of your hands to benefit itself. More liberty, more wealth, more health, more self-respect.

For many people,. talk of the end of political government is crazy. Their ancestors thought any talk of ending slavery-- excuse me, other forms of slavery-- was also crazy. They have a hard time seeing how the world will function without this great evil continuing to devour individual liberty.

One of the favorite go-to excuses of statists against the ethical move of abolishing this cult is the "power vacuum". If you don't have a state it will supposedly leave one of these.

Are you leaving a "power vacuum"? No. You are returning the power to where it has always belonged— to each individual who has the natural human right to run his or her own life.

It's a useful lie if people keep accepting it.

Even in the worst case scenario of this age of political government continuing a few more decades, being ready to take care of yourself in the absence of government will only help you. Not just when government implodes, but today.

The only thing keeping government going is the superstitious belief in it held by too many people. As it fails, over and over again, this belief will start to erode. It can only lie about its failures a certain number of times before the lies stop working. When people stop believing in something which was never real to begin with it stops having any effect on the real world. We are closer to this situation than you might think.

Whether you believe I'm right or wrong doesn't change the reality-- you need to arrange your life in such a way that you don't get dragged under if government collapses next month or next year. If it doesn't, there's no harm to you, but if it does, you'll be better off.

Don't depend on government being there and don't work for it! There are so many ethical options out there which don't depend on robbing people and calling it "taxes", and which don't require pretending to have a right to run the lives of others. Try some of those.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate any support.

Too many rules = no rules

I’m not a fan of arbitrary rules for the sake of having rules. Too many rules will make life unpleasant, even if (as some claim) they make life orderly and safer. The trade-off isn’t worth it.

I understand some rules-- those that match with ethical behavior like “don’t murder”. Rules that depart from this are worse than annoying. They are harmful because they are cheapening the real rules. When every move you make is subject to rules, I can see why some people choose to break all the rules, including the ones that matter.

I knew a teenage boy like this. Some people would say he's the problem (and he may well be headed that way), but the root problem is that there are just too many rules that make no sense. He can't see the difference between the rules that make sense and those that don't. His parents don't seem to have explained it as he grew up. I tried to help him get it. I'm not sure if it took root, and he has now moved away, so I may never know.

Too many rules is the same as no rules at all. In practice, anyway.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Prohibition addiction

I've seen a lot of people get really angry over Ross Ulbricht's pardon. Usually justified by "He was a drug dealer and people DIED!" Or, "Children were trafficked on his site!"

Prohibition is a powerfully addictive drug. Statists are highly susceptible to this addiction, and can't even see when it is destroying their ability to reason. They like prohibition. They demand prohibition. And they don't care who is killed for getting in the way.

Drug abuse is stupid; prohibition is evil.

The truth is, Ross allegedly ran a website that promised commerce with enhanced anonymity. Yes, people doing things prohibited by government are going to use such a site. So will those who recognize that government has no business looking into their business, regardless of how mainstream and ethical their business may be. Government is the enemy.

People try to justify Ross' caging by saying "He knew what would happen".

The CEO of Ford sells vehicles that he knows will be used in crimes. There's no question about it. They are designed to be very useful to criminals. Should he be locked up for two life sentences plus 40 years because of it? No, that's ridiculous.

Every CEO of any company that offers email or other electronic communication services, like cell phones, knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that those services will be used in the commission of crimes. People will be victimized by users of the service through the use of the service. Should those providers of valuable services be locked away and the key thrown into the ocean? No. Only someone evil would try.

And caging Ross was just as absurd. Freeing him was unambiguously right. If someone is on the other side, it's not "just an opinion" because someone's life was on the line; they are siding with evil in this case.

It's possible that other CEOs get a pass because they offer a backdoor for government criminals to access to violate their customers. Perhaps this was partly government's way of punishing Ross for not doing so.

The right thing to do, beyond freeing individual political prisoners, is to get rid of the illegal rules government uses as justification for taking them prisoner in the first place. This would obviously destroy government. I'm OK with that.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.