Believable crime solvers

My awareness of what's on TV is kind of low. I have Netflix, but nothing else, so I don't even get exposed to what's currently on the air. But, through other people, I notice a lot of shows revolving around the solving of crimes. It's an old theme, but still a popular one.

Unfortunately, they all seem to solve crimes as government employees, or in league with government employees. That's silly. Government is the biggest crime of all.

Even Sherlock, with his contempt for the stupidity of cops and his willingness to ignore "laws", still acts as though the government can be good guys, and he generally solves the case then hands the criminals over to the State.

What I would like to see is a good series based on a freelance crime solver, individual or group, who recognizes that government is just another facet of the criminal element. Who realizes that the only real crimes involve archation, thus have an individual victim.

Even if the bad guys who commit the particular crime of the week aren't government, the cops, "laws", and courts are portrayed honestly, as obstacles to justice; not on the same side as our heroes.

Obviously, I'd like to see the government employees shown to be the bad guys "even" when they are doing nothing but passing or enforcing average, every day "laws". Let's watch the heroes find out which cop was responsible for calling for a no-knock raid, and bring him to justice! Along with the rest of his gang who went along with him!

And, of course, justice on the show involves returning the victim to as near his or her "pre-violation" condition as possible- never revenge, "punishment", or a cage. Although, I could see some bad guys on the show being killed in self defense. That would still be satisfying.

Now, that's a crime show I could really enjoy!

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Government's two choices

Just as I wish for any nasty gang, I want government to fail. To get so bad that no one complies any more. To spend its way into oblivion, and try to "tax" itself out of the box. To go overboard with everything it does. And, as if it cares about my wishes, government is doing so as fast as it possibly can.

I would also be OK with it if government went so smoothly that I didn't notice it at all. Yeah, death to the State is still better, but as long as it's not molesting me, I'm not going to go out of my way to notice it. But this isn't the nature of the thing.

The more uncomfortable people become with government, the sooner they'll help it die. So, in spite of my own discomfort, I encourage government to be as evil and intrusive as it wants. Go all out. Governments always commit suicide, no matter who gets blamed by "history".

I'll try to prepare for the worst, while hoping to avoid it.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are surprising and GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

( As if there's any point: Steemit link)

Government meddling catching up

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 21, 2016)

Did the Russian government affect the recent US presidential election? Maybe, but remind me again why I should care.

You already know every election is rigged, because "abolish the office" isn't among the options you are allowed to choose from. Until every election has this outcome as a very real possibility, the status quo is in no serious danger.

It wasn't "our election" unless you've sold yourself into bondage to this strange cult called "government". Treasure your rightful liberty. Don't hitch your wagon to any president, no matter who it is, and you'll never need a president to call your own. It's healthier for you.

I don't need Trump, Clinton, or any other elected "official"-- they can't have any positive impact on my life whatsoever. The best thing government can ever do is to simply get out of the way, and yet this is the one thing government most fears doing. They won't risk people discovering how unnecessary their meddling is.

How can it matter if the Russian government interfered in something so dirty?

Those who complained loudest when Trump wouldn't pre-commit to accepting the results of the election are the same people now refusing to accept the results of the election. How is this not funny?

Besides, isn't getting upset over this conspiracy theory just a bit hypocritical? The US government has a long history, over several decades, of meddling in other governments' elections and political processes. Do they believe they should be exempt from the same treatment? If so, why? Because they are special? You get what you dish out, and complaining about it just makes you look weak.

As long as you pretend it's OK to set up a system where someone gets the power to control the lives of others, bad people will continue to look for ways to exploit it to their advantage. It's inevitable. Giving anyone the power to take property from those who produce it, to limit the liberty people are allowed to enjoy, and to otherwise strangle the blessings of life, then worrying someone may influence this system, seems a strange concern indeed.

Govern yourself and the Russian government can't affect your life. It's only when you foolishly hand this sacred responsibility to others-- through elections or other political processes-- that you expose yourself to the risk of someone in some political center, in Moscow, Washington DC, or Santa Fe, smothering your life. Why do that to yourself?

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Recent medical bills have hit me hard, cleaning me out in the midst of December birthdays and Christmas, so any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"La la la... I can't hear you!"

When people are doing something incorrectly, they aren't generally interested in being shown the right way. This baffles me beyond words, but it's true.

It holds true whether it is my daughter trying to bowl, holding the ball completely wrong and getting a gutter ball every time, or people believing freedom comes from government, cops, and "laws".

When I can clearly see what someone is doing wrong, I want to point it out to them. It pains me to see someone fail over and over again, out of ignorance. It's even worse to see them stay the course to failure due to stubbornness.

But, I am learning that instruction is never welcomed. Or, at least rarely enough as to be "never" for all intents and purposes (or should I say "for all intensive purposes" as I've heard people say, who then refuse to say it correctly even when their error has been pointed out- never by me- and they are aware they sound dumb?)

Do people enjoy being wrong?

I know better ways to live among other people. I know how to improve individual safety, and thus "public safety". I know how to end inflation. I know how to protect property rights and end the "immigration" conniptions. These things are NOT rocket science, and it has taken hundreds of years of ignorance on top of stubbornness on top of stupidity to make them seem hard. In other words, it has taken statism.

And most people apparently enjoy the misery they bring upon themselves. Otherwise, why not just drop it and start taking the correct path?

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Some blogskeeping

Just to keep you up to date. Never fear, I'm not going to turn into a statist. I'm not a Trump supporter any more than I was an Obama supporter, nor am I a supporter of any politician. Ever.

So, when I speak of "direction", it doesn't mean anything like that.

The direction in which I would like to keep this blog moving:

• Continue posting once per day, at least. Have something ready to go in case the newspaper neglects to post my column online, as happened this week.
• Limit the "wall of text" posts; if I can't say it briefly, I should reconsider saying it until I can.
• Don't worry that I might offend statists with something I say. They aren't reading this blog anyway. And if they happen upon it, they need to be offended.

I would like more supporters and subscribers, but I have stopped looking at the stats as a measure of how I'm doing. People will either read, or they won't.

Beyond that, I need to get back into making the videos. They never get many views, but they are good practice for me.

And, that's where I stand with the blog. Yes, I may keep evolving- always in the direction of more Rightful Liberty, as has been the direction I've moved my entire life.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

What "taxes" provide

My 9 year-old daughter already understands that "taxation" is theft.

But today she asked a question about how "taxes" work, and here's the illustration I gave her.

I told her that if she wants an ice cream sundae, she can choose the kind of ice cream and toppings she wants. If the price is what she (or I, as the case may be) is what she is willing to pay, she can buy it.

But, when "tax" money pays for something, you might get a similarly good sundae- or not.

Maybe the ice cream is obviously contaminated with rat droppings. Maybe the toppings are things you don't want to eat, or don't want on a sundae. Chicken nuggets and mushrooms with mud, perhaps. But I force you to buy it anyway, and in the price I include the fee you must pay me for deciding what will go into making this government sundae. If you want an edible sundae, you are still forced to pay for the nasty government sundae on top of the one you can actually eat and enjoy, so basically you have to pay twice to get something decent.

Exactly as in the case of government kinderprisons and actual educational choice. Or anything else "provided" by "taxation" and coercion. Pay twice- once for worthless crap you don't want, then again for the product or service which actually fills your need. Strange "system".

Maybe she understands better now.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"If a cop tells you to do something, just do it!"

No matter what a cop tells you to do, just do it. If his demand was unlawful you can survive the encounter, with only a little damage to your ego, to face him in court at a later date.

Or, so sayeth the copsuckers.

Unfortunately, this belief of theirs ignores reality.

The main problem isn't even that the courts are controlled by the same gang, and will give the cop every benefit of the doubt, while viewing you as an enemy.

Sometimes, cops are delusional and irrational, and dangerous to decent beings. OK, not just "sometimes".

Once, years ago, I was picking up lunch from Taco Bell for myself and co-workers. Right at the entrance there had been a minor fender bender, and a cop was directing traffic.

I stopped and waited for my turn. The cop looked directly at me, pointed at me, and then waved me through. I turned into the lot and parked.

As I got out of my car, here came the cop (leaving his apparently non-essential duties). He was red-faced and screaming at me.

He said something along the lines of "Next time a police officer gives you directions, you had better follow them!"

I didn't even know what he was talking about, and admitted my confusion.

He claimed to have clearly indicated for me to wait. That's NOT what I saw, and (perhaps unwisely) I said so. I've rarely seen such an angry individual, and the truth didn't calm him down one bit. Strange beast.

But, to the best of my ability, I had done exactly what he told me to do. He was either daydreaming and not paying attention to what he was doing, or he changed his mind. Or he was lying.

I survived. Not everyone is as lucky.

Yes, cops are scum, and you can't always expect to survive just because you obey their insane demands. Sometimes you may have to defend yourself from these gangsters. When that day comes, good luck to you.

Angry Blue Line Gang scum

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Yet another worse-than-worthless constitution

My 9 year-old daughter tells me that because some kids irritated the "teacher", her third grade class was coerced into writing a "class constitution". Laying out, of course, how the kids are to behave, rather than how the "teacher" should.

Kind of the opposite of the whole idea of a constitution, but exactly how they are applied these days.

But, me being me, I told her she isn't bound by any contract she didn't agree to, no matter what anyone says.

Yeah, I'm trouble like that.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Be more antifragile

Antifragile, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb . Read this book.

If you don't plan on doing so, or want to know why I recommend it, I'll tell you. (You can also read this long-ish take on the book and concept.)

I like the book, and the idea, because it feeds my confirmation bias- but I think it is right, anyway. I'll admit, I am still reading it, but I don't see it going astray.

One of the major points of the book is that by designing all the danger out of things, trying to make the randomness and volatility go away and keep things smooth and "safe", you make the danger worse. It's inevitable and natural. Completely unavoidable.

Just like how anti-gun "laws" actually increase the risks they claim to want to solve. The people who embrace these ideas may have good intentions, but they are idiots.

The author seems to be right on point, just as he was in his book The Black Swan (which so many reference, but apparently didn't read very carefully). Taleb has more erroneous faith in the potential goodness, usefulness, and necessity of governments (and some residual anti-gun bigotry) than I ever will, but I can overlook his error in this case.

One point I took from the book, which statists won't like, is that those who squawk loudest about loving the USA are dooming that which they love to a violent death.

All centralized states are in a constant condition of collapse. It is simply the nature of the thing. You might as well complain about gravity if you don't like this fact. Every centralized state is balanced on a razor's edge. Those trying to hold it together, and not let bits of it fall off one side or the other naturally, are dooming the whole enchilada to be sliced in half by the razor. Let the centralized state fall apart naturally, gently, with as few casualties as possible, rather than this suicidal course statists (nationalists, "Patriots", Constitutionalists, and others) are choosing with this doomed "The Union MUST be preserved" nonsense. Their path is insane. Secession is the only possible way to save America- and it needs to be an ongoing process, continuing to break into smaller and smaller pieces. I suggest taking secession all the way to the level of the individual.

All large, meticulously planned, controlled "things" are fragile. They have the illusion of stability at the cost of actual stability maintained by a bit of natural (and necessary) volatility. One tiny stressor can shatter the whole thing most spectacularly when you least expect it. Expect it and make sure you'll benefit when it happens. It's the smart thing to do, since the morons insist on continuing along their foolish path.

And, following the smart path, read Antifragile.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Fake news was best in the old days

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 14, 2016)

Why the sudden uproar over "fake news"? Apparently, because many on the political Left blame so-called fake news for Trump's election.

There has always been fake news. Nineteenth century newspapers were peppered with delicious tales of sea monsters, mysterious airships, and ape men presented as news. Today, press releases from government agencies are routinely presented without disclaimers. Both are likely to be outlandish fiction.

If a story confirms what you want to believe, be suspicious. If it sounds too juicy to be true, it's probably not true.

Keep this in mind when following any news story.

One problem is those with an agenda who present stories which support their side; ignoring stories which are just as credible, but support another side. Or no side at all. Sometimes stories are technically true, but slanted.

Everyone is biased, even when they don't mean to be. The honest ones admit it and tell you their bias. I don't report news, but if I did it would be with a libertarian bias. I will always prefer liberty over slavery. Every time. "Taxation" is theft and I'll never pretend politics is a "noble profession". Those with the opposite bias present taxation as the price of civilization, and government employment as a public service. Which bias is more honest?

Sometimes what is called "fake news" is actually satire. Many satirical websites pose as serious news sources and anyone can get fooled occasionally. To save face, some get angry over being fooled.

No one is obligated to hold your hand and explain to you that critical thinking is... well, critical. When reading something online, follow the source and see if it also warns of the impending takeover of civilization by Sea Monkeys. If so, the story you were reading may not be completely credible. It's your responsibility to figure it out; not the government's job to tell you who is "real" and who isn't. There should never be any such thing as an authorized "licensed journalist".

Then too, what is called "fake news" is often simply news the opposition doesn't want generally known. Too bad for them.

There obviously were fake or slanted news stories which favored Trump, just as there were those which favored Clinton. It's inevitable.

Personally, I'd like to see a few more stories of fantastic airships with their alien crews leaning out the window, waving and dropping Ambrosia to picnicking families down below. The old days had the best fake news!

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.


(Steemit link)

Cops and shootings

When am I OK with a cop shooting someone?
When I'd be OK with anyone shooting someone in that situation.

When am I OK with someone shooting a cop?
When I'd be OK with anyone being shot in that situation.

 A person's employer doesn't matter in that regard.

If a cop doesn't like it, he can quit being a parasite and go find an HONEST job.

Just before one of those NOT OK shootings

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Lethal threats from trespassers

OK, so I'm confused.

If I go into someone's yard, and they tell me to leave, and I don't, so they chase me out, they are somehow the bad guy?

Or maybe I'm just pacing the road in front of their house, periodically aiming a rifle through their window. If they tell me to stop it, or aim their rifle at me, they are threatening me?

What if I break down their door, rape their daughters, smash up the place a bit, and they fight back. They are the bad guy for fighting me, and I'm a hero?

So, why do people worship the US military doing the same things I just described the fictional me doing, but doing them on a massive scale?

If you are flying war planes in a threatening manner around someone's home territory, YOU are the bad guy. You deserve to have those planes shot down. The pilots are being bad guys and deserve to die. If you call any objection or resistance to your planes "aggression" you are lying.

If you are a military employee breaking stuff and threatening people in someone else's home territory, and you get shot, YOU were the bad guy. It's no different from a homeowner shooting a burglar or rapist he catches in his house.

If you are sailing your war ship off the coast of someone's territory, as some sort of "show of force", YOU are the one provoking. It's not "aggression" for the locals to object or take action against you.

I've heard lots of absurdities along these lines over the past several days. US military supporters complaining that US weaponry is being "attacked" and "threatened" while trespassing and threatening. The choice of words they are using to describe these events is dishonest in the extreme. A whole new level of lying to shape the thinking of those who don't think.

The lies are wearing thin. The liars look like fools to anyone other than the brainwashed military lovers, because they are fools. And aggressors- archators. The US military are bad guys, even if their enemies are ALSO bad guys. You can't do right by doing wrong, then lying about what is going on.

Trespassers looking for victims

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are surprising and GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(The apparently pointless Steemit link)

Support Law Enforcement

I am totally in favor of supporting law enforcement.

With a trap door.

Temporarily.

Just until the rope can be placed around its steroid-thickened neck.

Then I quickly withdraw that support.

No, I'm not calling for the death of any particular individual who lowers himself to do that "job", but of the entire idea that "laws" are a legitimate thing which should be enforced.

Cops are scum because the "job" is scummy. "Police" is an act of aggression and theft, not the vermin committing the act.

You can never make doing a bad thing into something noble or good. No matter how you try.

Yes, archators can ethically be killed in self defense, and a badge doesn't give them immunity from consequences of being a thug. I want every participant in every "no knock raid" to die in the attempt, every single time, without exception. Good guys would never behave that way. Good people would never support those who do.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Possessed by statist delusions

If someone believes in X, and uses that belief to kill and steal, it doesn't matter much that X is all in their head.

The harm they cause is real, but, its not X's fault; it is theirs alone. They have to be the one to make the choice to be the bad guy.

After all, X-- be it "authority", government, religion, or whatever-- can't actually do anything. It's all the individual's choice.

Every government employee is guilty of this, even when they believe what they are doing is good or necessary. For one thing, it is all financed by theft. That destroys any "good" that might have otherwise come of it. Every bit.

They shouldn't ever do it. No matter what beliefs are in their brain, being acted out.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Discomfort and agony

"My discomfort is a monumental tragedy of epic proportions-- maybe not even survivable. But yours? Yours is trivial, you whiner, and you need to just shut up and deal with it."

Or, at least that's the message most people seem to be sending. Not just statists, but almost all statists.

I do think most people are addicted to comfort. Even me. But I also understand the difference between comfort and necessity. Liberty is a necessity, which is often shoved aside to make way for comfort for the weak losers who find liberty inconvenient or scary.

Physical discomfort can be a problem. It really can. I have slept lying in cold, standing water. I've had a kidney stone so painful I was curled into the fetal position on the floor. And don't even ask about the bike wreck when I was 12, and its aftermath! Makes me shudder to remember! And there have been various other painful or uncomfortable times besides those. But the psychological pain of being violated on a daily basis by statists and other archators is just as real. But statists can't see any possible way they are causing pain, and if they do, they don't care. It's "worth it" to them.

Somehow they believe their discomfort at being slightly chilly and having to put on a sweater compares to the psychic pain of longing for liberty.

Yeah, it's a problem. And yeah, I sometimes roll my eyes and make fun of those who fall into this trap. But, I know they feel the same way about my discomfort, so I guess we are even.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"We don't care"

That IS the truth behind the sign. 

It's not really about guns.

They don't care.

Your life doesn't matter to them.

Every justification is a lie. 

Don't let them get away with lying to you. 

Let them know you know what the sign means. 

Every time is is displayed anywhere. 

Under any "justification". 

This sign is ruder than someone spitting in your eye.

It is a lethal threat.

Don't apologize for them.

Don't cover for them.

It is what it is.

The truth may hurt their feelings, but it is still the truth.

Every single time.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

The Constitution- not even good toilet paper

The Constitution was a really bad idea to begin with, but it doesn't even do what its supporters claim it could do. If the US fe(de)ral government was once "limited" by the Constitution, then I guess I don't understand what "limited" means. "If only we had held the government to it". Ha ha ha!

Anymore, "Constitutional" just means "whatever the court decides government should be able to get away with". If the government wants it, it will be constitutional enough. Especially if following the Constitution would require disbanding huge segments of the Fe(de)ral government- such as the BATFEces (and every other clearly unconstitutional agency) and all the "laws" they impose and enforce.

No more military. No more departments of education, "the interior", or anything else. No more FBI, NSA, TSA, etc., etc. No more "Social Security", ObamaCare, Medicare/Medicaid, subsidies. No more income tax (or IRS). No more War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. In fact, practically no more fe(de)ral government at all. At least 99.999999% of the US fe(de)ral government is obviously, with crystal clarity and no room for quibbling, prohibited from existing under the Constitution. An honest reading would require it be instantly, without hesitation, abolished and disbanded. No adjustment period allowed.

And the courts won't allow that to happen, no matter how dishonest they have to be to keep the scam going.

It doesn't even matter if anyone with a reading comprehension level above that of the average 10 year old can see that such an agency or "law" clearly is not permitted by the Constitution- if it serves the State, it will somehow be "constitutional".

As in cases like this.

I can't even bring myself to care anymore about constitutionality- and I did care back when I began to explore liberty seriously. I mean, I knew the Constitution was a failure, but I wished it hadn't been. Now I see it as nothing but an excuse to impose a State.

Those who still see some legitimacy in government, and some value in the Constitution, may mean well, but they are no friend of liberty. They are supporting their own worst enemy. Stockholm Syndrome, for sure.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Ignoring reality has consequences

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 7, 2016)

When you ignore the rules of reality, you get hurt.

Notice I don't say when you break reality's rules, because those rules can't be broken. They can only be accepted or ignored. Ignore them at your peril.

Take gravity, for example. If you ignore gravity you will suffer, and you may even fall to your death. Once you accept the reality of gravity, you can use the rules governing it to fly or even to experience "weightlessness" in orbit. Neither is a case of defying gravity, but of using it to do things which seem to go against what you expect from gravity. You don't even need to know why gravity exists, or how it works, to accept and use it. You just need to know it exists and be able to measure its effect.

If someone walks off the edge of a cliff, you can expect them to fall to the ground far below and splatter like a ripe watermelon. Maybe bushes will slow their fall, or deep water at the bottom will cushion their landing, but don't depend on it. Nothing will truly defeat gravity unless you can turn off the rules of the Universe- and you can't.

There are also rules of civil behavior you ignore at your own risk. Those rules weren't dreamed up by any legislator and don't rely on anyone enforcing them.

If you choose to use violence against the non-violent, a chain of events will be set in motion. The same goes if you violate the property of others.

You may believe you are exempt from the effects due to imaginary rules someone created. Rules designed to give the illusion of authority to those who feel entitled to break the real rules. Their dreamed-up rules can't change reality.

If you decide to steal, trespass, or shove people around, even if you claim authority under made-up "laws", there will be repercussions. The fallout may not be what you or your victims expect. It may not even be timely- you don't know precisely when you'll hit the ground. Usually those who use the "political means"-- non-consensual tactics resulting in a winner and a loser-- to get what they want deny the possibility of unpleasant consequences to themselves. They will be surprised.

You won't avoid the costs you incur, even though the bill may not come when you'd expect and may not be what you expect.

No one is immune to consequences. Reality doesn't allow that option.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.

Disarmed "warriors"

I don't support or appreciate ANY government military. Not here, there, or anywhere, at any time throughout history. There are reasons for that, and I accept that all statists, of every degree, disagree vehemently with me.

Regardless of statists' feelings, government militaries are never on the side of liberty or freedom; concepts they can't even begin to understand.

That being said, if you have a government military, keeping the participants disarmed seems really stupid. If you are going to have a military, the whole point- the only point- is for them to be armed and able to deal with threats. If you can't trust the participants around each other, or around the "public", while armed, you can't trust them at all. So, either they are untrustworthy, or you are a sniveling coward. Or both. If you can't trust the participants, how can you expect me to?

And putting "No Guns" signs on your facilities makes you look ridiculous. Who is going to take you seriously if you are so scared of armed people that you feel the need to post "We don't care if you die" signs at your doors? I mean, really. You want to be seen as tough and dangerous and all that, and yet you fear me with a gun? Pathetic.

Either choose to have a real military, individually armed 100% of the time, or disband and go home, leave the stolen money in the pockets of the people you were pretending to protect, bulldoze the Pentagon, sell off the weapons, and let the militia handle it.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Parking space games

Even if there were no "handicap" spaces, and no associated "fines" (theft by government), I would leave the close spots for those who need them.

I can walk, and I'm not usually in much of a hurry. It's just the decent thing to do.

But I don't get worked up over those who don't do what I do. I don't even really care when someone "illegally" parks in handicap spaces. If you believe you need a close spot, it's not my place to second-guess you.

Honestly, it bothers me more to see all those who park on the places with the yellow stripes saying "this is NOT a parking space". These areas are not government-mandated; they are designated by the property owner as places where he doesn't want you to park, for whatever reason. Probably so others can navigate the parking lot, judging by what I've seen. Yet, look at how many people basically spit in the property owner's face, saying "I'm too important to listen to you". I see it as self-important laziness- or worse. But, if that's how someone chooses to self-identify, I'll believe them.

The way I see it, decency is a choice. You either choose it, or it's probably not even on your radar. Selfishness and self-centeredness are capable of hiding the decent choices from just about anyone. "Laws" have atrophied most people's decency reflex. If it's "legal" or not gets used instead. Government is a crutch in more ways than one, and it weakens those who rely on it too much.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

The delicious, toxic bagel of statism

Statism is like a very-expired, contaminated cinnamon raisin bagel.

How do I know? Because I have experienced both.

Once upon a time, the girl I was married to worked in a nursing home. She would often bring home expired food that was being tossed out. At some point, she brought home a package of cinnamon raisin bagels.

I didn't ever get a real lunch break at my job, so I would often just grab something I could munch if I got hungry. (I still can only eat one actual meal per day.) One day, rummaging around in the back of the refrigerator for "lunch food", I stumbled across this bag of bagels. Yummy!

I took it to work and tossed it on the shelf where I usually put such things.

That day, a little while after "lunch", I started not feeling well. Not nausea, but dizziness. It passed.

The next day, not long after "lunch" I got hit with the most severe dizziness I have ever experienced. I couldn't stand. I couldn't sit. I ended up lying flat on the floor upstairs, out of sight of customers, gripping the carpet (the shop was previously a house and had semi-shag carpet) while my boss complained at me for doing so. I told her she didn't have to pay me for the time I couldn't work, but that wasn't the issue as much as was my inconveniencing her by making her have to stay at the store until I recovered.

As I lay there trying not to fall sideways, or up, I remembered how I had felt the day before, not long after I ate the bagel. I connected the dots and realized the bagels had probably grown some sort of nice fungus which was affecting me. As soon as I expressed this to my boss, she tossed the remaining bagels in the trash.

It took a couple of hours, but the dizziness passed. I dug the bagels out of the trash and checked their "best by" date. They were only a year or so out of date.

Maybe I should have presented them to a pharmacologist- I might have discovered an awesome new drug. But I didn't think of that at the time.

Anyway, this is similar to statism. It looks delicious. It passes the smell test for almost everyone. But it screws with your brain once you internalize it, because it contains toxins you can't easily detect. Those of us who don't swallow it watch those who have done so flailing around, unable to do the simplest things for themselves. But they don't even realize how silly they look, or how helpless they are.

If only statism wore off after a few hours like bagel fungus does.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported, and probably causes dizziness only rarely. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

As a comedian, I suck

On Facebook, for no particular reason other than something I read made me think back to that politician who was once quoted as insisting the "income tax" was "voluntary", I posted:

As of today, subscriptions to my blog are voluntary.
You can pay, or spend the rest of your life in a cage (or die if you resist). But since you have that choice, or you can choose to move to North Korea instead of paying, it's voluntary. Right?
I mean, the "tax" collectors at the IRS wouldn't lie about what "voluntary" means, would they?

Almost immediately, a guy posted a response:

Laughing my @$$ off no one is going to pay you to look at your d@mn blog if you have relevant information for our situation you would be giving it away for free not asking for money  

(edited for rude words)

OK, so he didn't get the joke; maybe he didn't see the winky face. And apparently he has never heard of punctuation.

But, then... I got to thinking. Is that true? Valuable (relevant) information must be given away? Only crap gets paid for? And that's how you can tell the difference between the two? There's no good information in a book that's for sale, but if the author (or someone else?) gives you the book for free, the information in it suddenly has value?  That seems a strange kind of thinking.

I would imagine some valuable information is bought and sold, while some is given away, but to say that only free information has any worth seems... odd.

I mean, yes, my blog is free. More free than it used to be, even, since I have opened up all the previously "subscriber-only" posts. Does this mean it now contains "relevant information"?

Does this apply to other contributions as well? If I do a good job flipping burgers, I have to do it for free. If I'm a competent brain surgeon, I can't charge for my services. Only the hacks and con men can expect payment. Or, does it only apply to information?

As a way to put my "resolution" into action, I have adopted "Don't be mean to stupid people" on Facebook and in face-to-face interactions. So, I didn't give him a reply beyond "Whoosh" (the sound of the joke flying over his head). Perhaps I should thank him for showing me how some percentage of people think- although I suppose elections have already shown the prevalence of the entitlement mentality pretty clearly.

Relax, it was just a joke. Just not a very good one, apparently.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is VOLUNTARILY reader supported. 
Any TOTALLY VOLUNTARY donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated even if they destroy the value of any information I may have tried to provide. Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Statists believe they're smart, but...

...then they say things like how terrible new "synthetic marijuana" is, and how this problem is due to marijuana legalization around the country.

... or that Islamic terrorists are a big problem, so "we" need to keep using the US military to meddle in their lands so as to create more of them.

... they come up with bizarre "crimes" such as "trespassing on public property".

And then we see exactly how "smart" statists actually are.

Sorry, but if you believe more government will solve a problem, you ARE the problem. And none too bright.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Don't help cops feel useful

I don't want cops to feel useful, wanted, or needed.

I'd rather they struggle to walk the boredom tightrope between donuts and steroids without anyone inviting them into their life. If they are going to be collecting their ill-gotten paychecks anyway, I'd rather they be sitting in the donut shop than out "on the streets". It keeps the harm they do to a minimum. I don't want them "earning their pay" by committing acts of enforcement. Not even against my worst enemy.

I don't want cops to feel useful, wanted, or needed. Because they aren't.

Let the only official duties they perform be robbing drivers, molesting property owners, and other acts of archation. Period. Don't let them do anything to feel useful, wanted, or needed.

I understand calling them when your insurance company demands it. I also consider that requirement an act of aggression by the insurance company, but good luck finding one that doesn't insist on involving cops.

But, otherwise, PLEASE don't call the cops. For your own safety's sake, if nothing else. There is no situation so bad it can't be made much worse by inviting a cop into the mix.

Plus, I don't want cops to feel useful, wanted, or needed.

Call me instead. Or call a neighbor. Or handle it yourself. Or call a crackhead- your life will be in less danger from him or her, I promise you.

But don't do anything to help cops feel useful, wanted, or needed. They are parasites on society. Let them feel that way. Let that feeling lead them to make better choices. Or not. Not my problem.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

All assistance should be voluntary

(My Eastern New Mexico News [formerly the Clovis News Journal] column for November 30, 2016)

Help one another, voluntarily (my chosen headline)

It is once again the season to remember the less fortunate. On one hand, you shouldn't need an annual reminder to be good to other people, but on the other hand, sometimes it's fortunate the calendar has a few such reminders built in.

If someone wants to help those in need, there is nothing stopping her from freely giving her own money and time to those she feels deserve help.

Yet most who feel more money should be spent on their favorite government programs are never content to simply chip in-- they demand laws forcing everyone else to do the same.

It's the opposite of generosity, compassion, or caring. Those things are better expressed individual to individual.

If someone truly believes the government is best able to help those in need, he's completely free to write the U.S. Treasury a check to spend on welfare-- or on a new drone to crash into a Middle Eastern wedding. Relying on taxation to pay for anything is unnecessary.

For those of us opposed to bullying of any sort, it is essential for all the help to be totally voluntary.

You don't need a "law" to remind you to help people. If you care, no tax is necessary to get you to donate. In fact, taxation reduces the amount you are able to use to help others. No "law" can change the act of forcing people to donate into an act of generosity. No one can be charitable with other people's money, nor is it kindness to hand over your own money under threat. Putting government in charge of such an extortion scheme doesn't change its immoral nature.

Instead of giving your cousin another cute plastic knick-knack to dust or forget, spend the money on someone who needs it; someone you feel is deserving. No one should be making that determination for you, either. When you personally know the circumstances of the person you help, you know their needs better, and care more, than any bureaucrat distributing pillaged funds possibly can.

An act which is of minor effort or cost to you might impact someone's life for decades to come. I know from personal experience, having been on the receiving end a few times.

I often remember those times, especially during the holiday season. It's something I'll always strive to pay forward. Taxes, regulations, and all the other government coercion only stand in the way. They invariably hurt more than they help. Let's start helping each other, instead.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.


(Steemit link)

.

Setting myself up to fail?

I'm doing it. I'm making a New Year resolution. Unfortunately, it's not the kind that I find easy to make stick, but the other kind. I'm still going to give it a shot and, toward the long-term goal, I give myself permission to slip sometimes (although I will expect to be scolded if I do).

So, what is this resolution all about?

I am going to focus on preaching to the choir.

I'm not dropping the newspaper column, because Money, but I will try to limit my "spreading the message" to that. I may even find a more sensible focus for that column, too, if I'm lucky.

I realize I'm not going to convince fans of aggression and theft that they have been on the wrong side all their lives, and that their beloved uncle who died in some government war was on the wrong side. They don't want to hear it, and will do anything to avoid facing it.

So, I am going to try to focus on talking to YOU.

If some statists are "converted" in the process, great. If not, fine. I'm coming to see that they matter less and less to my actual life anyway.

And, just maybe, I'll come up with one of my other "resolution" type things, too. The type I have been more successful at keeping.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"The Masses"* don't know and don't care

You and I are not going to get through to most people. They simply don't care if they are being enslaved or violated-- especially if they believe they are being protected by someone else being "controlled" on their behalf.

I see this as cowardice and laziness, but they don't.

They don't know what liberty is. They actually believe cops and troops are protecting them and their "freedom". And they don't want to know they are dead wrong. They are content (or as content as they can be, under the circumstances) in their ignorance. It comforts them.

If you speak or write honestly, you will offend them if they happen across your words.

So be it.

You are not like them.

Just know that I know you are out there. I want you to know I am with you, as long as you don't archate. In 2017 and beyond.

You are my people; my tribe. If I can consider myself to be part of a tribe.

They are the weather. Obstacles to be avoided or dealt with, but otherwise not worth getting upset over. Which makes me think it's time for a bit of a change. Stay tuned...

*When I see "The Masses" I tend to put the break between words in a different spot: "Them ...", well, you know.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Cop" is a choice to molest, just like "rapist"

Being a cop=rapist is a choice to behave a certain way. A way which violates the life, liberty, and property of individuals. Good people don't choose that path. Not ever. No excuses or justifications cut it.

If a rapist=cop is shot and killed for violating someone, it's not a tragedy. It is instead a triumph of good over evil. Of right over wrong.

Of course, those who support the cop=rapist will be angry. They will question why force was used against the rapist=cop, instead of something less decisive. Something like compliance in the moment, and then seeking justice afterward "if it is determined" a wrong was committed. You know if a wrong was committed- you don't need the cop=rapist's buddies deciding for you.

Ethical people won't criticize or second guess when a rapist=cop is killed in the course of his natural, evil acts, but most people aren't ethical.

If you are violating life, liberty, or property you deserve to die. No question. And this upsets those who can't come to grips with what it is they are supporting.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Relax. Just breathe...

I need to remind myself-- over and over-- that I don't control what others do. Not even close relatives.

If they do things I consider shameful, I shouldn't let it get to me. Their choices are NOT mine, and I am not some dictator who gets to allow or forbid their actions.

I shouldn't let myself feel embarrassed. They aren't me, and I am not their master, nor would I want to be.

Still, it sometimes hurts. Especially when I see it as something that just feeds the State and makes us all a little less free in the long run. Especially if I know some will associate that person with me, and might assume I approve of what they do.

People must always be free to make their own mistakes-- even the ones they foolishly refuse to see as mistakes.

I shouldn't allow myself to get so bothered that I say nasty (even if truthful) things. I need to be better than that. But, it's a journey, and I keep getting lost along the way.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Trust

Jyn Erso- Star Wars: Rogue One

If you want me to trust you, you WILL trust me with a gun. That is absolutely non-negotiable.

If I trust you, I'll never ask you to disarm. Not in my business, my home, or my presence. Never. 

If I do ask you to-- or if I demand it-- you'll instantly know I don't trust you and I don't like you.

And, the reverse is also true. If you ask or demand that I disarm, I'll take that as a very clear sign of how you feel about me. Trust goes both ways.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Free riders"

For a large number of people, their concern over "free riders"-- people who get a benefit without obviously paying for it-- is what stands between them and accepting Rightful Liberty. And that is a shame.

A common objection I have seen is that in a free society, where one would contract voluntarily with a private fire department, if your neighbor's house catches fire and your fire contractor fights it in order to save your house from damage, the neighbor has benefited from your contract without paying anything. Your neighbor is a "free rider".

True, as far as it goes.

I suppose you could have a stipulation that your fire department is not to fight fires consuming your neighbors' houses, if they have not also contracted for service, so as not to contribute to their "free-riderhood". The fire department could just sit at your house, hosing it down so the fire doesn't spread to your property. As long as the contract was agreeable to you and your fire department, you could have just about any conditions put in you like.

Alternately, if your house catches fire and your fire department puts it out, your neighbor has again benefited, since his house is less likely to be damaged now. Perhaps you prefer that in this case, your fire company set fire to the neighbor's house in order to allow nature to take its course? I really hope no one would want that.

The "free rider" problem is greatly exaggerated. If people get together to build a bridge, and don't charge a toll for crossing it, does that mean an out-of-town visitor is a "free rider" if he crosses the bridge?

How would you know? He may be crossing the bridge to trade with a business owner who helped pay for the bridge; someone he wouldn't have been able to trade with had the bridge not been built. So is the business owner being cheated since he paid to help build the bridge and the visitor did not? What if this person who crosses the bridge decides to trade with a business owner who also didn't contribute to the construction of the bridge? Does this business owner never trade with the other businesses around him who contributed to the bridge? How did he get the money that he spends in these other stores? Is there no value in keeping his store open for the other people in town?

If you choose to pay for police or "national defense", are those who refuse getting a benefit for nothing? That depends if you ignore the fact that under current conditions, "national defense" endangers us all, and police are bullies and scum. Me, I'd prefer to just get rid of ALL anti-weapon "laws" and let the cost of being a thug rise back to where it belongs.

If people see a benefit in something, they will probably be willing to foot the bill. In a free society, bridges and roads and fire departments would undoubtedly be cheaper and better, since no bureaucracy is eating up the funds and producing nothing but more bureaucracy. There is no reason to whip out coercion to deal with this. A true parasite will suffer the consequences of his decisions regardless whether there is a "government" of any sort to punish him or not.

Besides, everyone will be the "free rider" at times. There is no avoiding it. I think this is only a problem if you look at the situation selfishly or from a "but that's not fair" perspective. Just accept that the times someone else is getting a "free ride" on your dime are paybacks for the times you get the same benefit. It all comes out even in the end, so don't keep a ledger trying to nit-pick every offense. Even if someone seems to come out ahead, are you really willing to give up a little of your liberty to make sure everyone pays in every instance? I'm not.

Not paying "taxes" for roads; using them anyway

-

PS: Also check out this article which has another, much more detailed take on this: Small-Town Anarchy

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Updated from here

Opinions must change to fit facts

(My Clovis News Journal November 23, 2016)


How often do you change your opinion about anything? When you do, what causes the change?

With the reluctance toward changing an opinion, it's amazing anyone ever does, on anything. Yet, it is possible, and it does happen. I have changed my opinion on many things over the course of my life.

When I change my opinions, I would like for truth, reality, and reason to be the catalyst. When I'm wrong, I want to know, and I want this knowledge to change me.

I am very suspicious when anyone tries to change my opinions by appealing to emotion. It reeks of manipulation. Emotion is the preferred tool when an opinion has no facts to support it. It happens every time.

This doesn't mean I always change my opinions for the right reasons, nor does it mean flawed reasons never affect me. I'm honest enough to know anyone can fall for delusions and superstition, and we all allow our biases to color our perceptions of reality. But I don't have to like it.

Often, the more I observe and learn, the more holes I see in my previous opinions. Other times, when I ponder things I've known all along, I realize I haven't been consistent. Then I can't rest until the inconsistency is dealt with. Facts can't change to fit opinions; I must change my opinion to fit the facts.

Changing your mind in the face of new information isn't "wishy-washy", it is smart. Sticking to an opinion by ignoring new information is a sure sign of stubbornness. It may keep you popular, but it stunts you as a person.

One particular change in myself is, while my personal opinions are still largely conservative, I no longer feel entitled to use force to impose my opinions on others. In fact, I see that as one of the worst moral failures possible. Good ideas don't require force.

There are other opinions I hold which might be considered "liberal", but unlike most of those who call themselves liberal or progressive, the thought of using force-- particularly the force of the state through "laws"-- to force others to behave certain ways is completely repulsive to me.

This personal opinion has only gotten stronger over the years. No one has ever given me a compelling reason to change my opinion on the use of governmental force. Their failed justifications don't even begin to reach the level of evidence I require to change my mind.

-

(Also, as the Clovis News Journal and Portales News Tribune are becoming The Eastern New Mexico News, here is another link to this column: link
.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.


(Steemit link)

Merry Christmas

... or whichever Solstice-centric celebration, if any, you observe.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)