Nuclear solar electric cars!

Fred, Fred, Fred... you ought to know better.

About electric cars, he says:

Liberals love them because they will prevent pollution, end global warming, and maybe stop hair loss. Libertarians hate them because they associate them with clean air, federal subsidies, and Al Gore. 

He might say it isn't possible, me being a libertarian and all, but my first car was an electric car. I love them. And I know their limitations. (Yes, that's actually me and my electric car in the picture above, in the spring of 1980.) I like clean air, I dislike government subsidies, and Al Gore is a big ol' hypocrite I can ignore. Next!

So where does the electricity come from? From all kinds of generating plants, I guess–now. But if it came from nuclear power plants, then you would have a nuclear-powered car. See? And you would have zero pollution of the air.

I guess it depends how you define "pollution of the air", but whatever. 

Back when I drove an electric car, the location where I lived got the majority of its electricity from a nuclear plant (at least when that plant wasn't shut down for one reason or another). I had a bumper sticker on my car saying something about how many barrels of oil one nuclear power plant saved. So my car was nuclear powered, and in fact, all my friends called it "The Nuke".

Then, of solar power he says:

Again, libertarians are against it, probably because Al Gore thinks it is a good idea.

Nope. I love solar power, but I know the environmental damage done by manufacturing the solar panels required for solar electricity. My problem with most people who advocate solar electricity is that they seem to be ignorant of the environmental costs (the same with large-scale wind-generators such as are sprouting up all around me). There is a cost to everything. Be aware of it, take it into account, then make your choice. Personally, I would love a solar roof.

Anyway, yeah, I know it's just humor on his part, but it is good to keep people honest. Right?

-

Totally unrelated, other than it is about transportation (or rather, the prevention of transportation), I think I'll start calling the TSA the Terrorist Support Administration. More accurate.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Don't believe in gender grab bag

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 12, 2017- I titled this one "Gender identity doesn't determine rights", which I still believe is better.)

Contrary to enlightened opinion, I believe there are only two genders, male and female-- with the occasional rare fluke of nature resulting in what used be to called a hermaphrodite.

I don't believe in the grab bag of genders which seems so trendy these days, nor do I believe in the validity of choosing non-binary gender identities, apart from those occasional rarities I mentioned above. I believe in biology.

Yes, it's a shameful confession, revealing one of my terrible shortcomings.

It is also a dangerous view, and a radical perspective, to admit publicly. It labels me, to those on the political Left, as a bigot. In some places, such as Canada, it could make me a criminal.

Yet, my beliefs are nothing but my opinion, and as such they are immaterial.

Because here's the thing which matters: Opinions don't dictate reality; reality is independent of mere opinion, and the reality is that your fundamental human rights don't depend on your gender. As a human you have the full complement of human rights--  life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness-- just because you are alive. End of story.

The outdated view, from back when people believed rights depended on who or what you were and could be added to or taken away, has run its course. It's out of steam. Time to discard that superstition and move on. It's why I see both sides of the argument over gender identities as socially destructive and a distraction.

Even if I think you are a little off-kilter, I will defend your rights, including your right to believe as you wish, up until the moment you try to violate the person or property of another. No one has a right to try to change your beliefs by force, including force of law, just as you have no right to dictate how others believe or speak. Anyone who tries to make up laws based on someone's gender, either to create rights which can't exist, or to take away rights which no one can take away, is wrong. It's simply not subject to legislation one way or the other.

The political Left is correct when it says no laws should be made to force people into gender boxes or punish those who don't fit, and the political Right is correct when it says no laws should force anyone to pretend, and speak as though they believe, someone's psychological issues reflect reality.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Fearing "terrorism"

"Terrorism" has no grip on me. I'm not brave, though.

My biggest fear has already become reality: the loss of one of my kids. I won't say I exactly survived, because not all of me did. I'm somewhat changed. Maybe those around me see it; maybe it's all tucked inside and they don't. Either way, I'm still here.

And especially now, to me, "terrorism" is nothing but loserism. It can't scare me.

It really never has. Whether it comes from ISIS, ICEis, Washington DC, North Korea, or the local cops. They are all just gangs of bullies looking for people to intimidate. If you don't cower, they lose.

Although I will say that on September 11, 2001 I did a lot of looking up at the sky. On that day I had planes (or whatever-- depending on what you believe about that day's events) causing problems east, southeast, and west of me. I felt kind of surrounded.

That day, caught up in the viral stupidity, I flew a "Betsy Ross" flag from my deck (I will not have an official federal Holy Pole Quilt on my property). I'm ashamed of that knee-jerk reaction now.

Yet even then, I wasn't looking for government to "save" me. I knew the most likely result would be a further destruction of liberty from a government excited to have an excuse and a populace too scared to object to any new escalation of tyranny.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Liberty experiment failed

(This is a guest post, written by someone who prefers to stay anonymous. I don't usually do this, but I made an exception in his case. All opinions expressed in the main body of the post are his.)

It is with much sadness, sorrow, and regrets that I realize that our great experiment has failed; Our fleeting Liberty has been forever lost.

It lasted a total of 6 Years, 6 Months, 16 Days.

Here are the facts that few Americans even know. (Quoted text from various American History websites which I won’t name. The interested reader will look them up for himself. I fully expect nobody will bother to do so.)

“The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781

“Until the new Constitution was ratified, the country was governed by the Articles of Confederation. The document was tailored to a newly formed nation made of states acting as independent countries, and it quickly became clear to America’s leaders [politicians] that future stability [their power] required a stronger, more centralized government. New York’s Alexander Hamilton thus led the call for a constitutional convention to reevaluate the nation’s governing document. The Confederation Congress endorsed his initiative, and representatives from all 13 states were subsequently invited to convene in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, to participate in the convention.

“The initial purpose of the Convention was for the delegates [a group of greedy, ungodly and powerful men] to amend the Articles of Confederation; however, the ultimate outcome was the proposal and creation of a completely new form of government. On September 17, 1787, the convention concluded with the signing (by 38 out of 41 delegates present) of the new U.S. Constitution. Under Article VII, it was agreed that the document would not be binding until its ratification by nine of the 13 existing states.

“Hamilton and James Madison [two of the worse enemies of Liberty this nation has yet seen] led the lobbying efforts for votes in favor of ratifying the Constitution. With assistance from [traitor to Liberty] John Jay, they produced the 85 essays known as “The Federalist Papers” that explained and defended how the proposed new government would function. The essays were published in newspapers nationwide and were pivotal to securing ratification.”

[The anti-federalist papers were ignored by most people because they didn’t understand they were being led astray. Even now that our Liberty is almost gone, still most people won’t even read them! Even now that these papers are digitized and made into audio files, few Americans bother to listen to them!]

It’s anyone’s guess if The Articles of Confederation would have secured Liberty on these shores. It’s impossible to know what could have been.
The exact dates of ratification of the new constitution are listed below, but they really don’t matter. My statement of “6 Years, 6 Months, 16 Days” above assumes the date when these evil men started us on our plunge to tyranny.

Once the enemies of Liberty set their jaws to destroy that great gift that 56 brave men gave and lost their “Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honors” to secure, all was lost. (The actual length of time from the Articles of Confederation’s ratification till the ratification of the new constitution was 8 Years, 3 Days if anyone cares.)

“After ratification, Congress set dates for the first federal elections and the official implementation of the Constitution. Elections were set to take place on Monday, December 15, 1788, to Saturday, January 10, 1789, and the new government was set to begin on March 4, 1789.”

History buffs (and those fearful of Liberty) would drag out the Connecticut Compromise, but it was all fluff to trick people to put into effect this new tyranny. The reasons the common man went along with this anti-liberty plan was mainly because the common man just wants to live free, mind his own business, to make a life for himself, to raise a healthy family, and to live his life in peace and prosperity if he can.

Fast forward to the 1930’s-1940’s…
“Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps said

First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

“The quotation stems from Niemöller's lectures during the early postwar period. Different versions of the quotation exist. These can be attributed to the fact that Niemöller spoke extemporaneously and in a number of settings. Much controversy surrounds the content of the poem as it has been printed in varying forms, referring to diverse groups such as Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Trade Unionists, or Communists depending upon the version. Nonetheless, his point was that Germans—in particular, he believed, the leaders of the Protestant churches—had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people.”

One of the most important tenants of the new constitution, the prohibition of ex-post facto laws, is so important it is listed twice in this document.

“An ex-post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex-post facto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.”

This is an important law because… “It's a law that makes an act criminal, even though the act was lawful when it was committed or it can be a law that inflicts a harsher punishment than was permitted when the act was committed.

............................................

And this is as far as my guest poster, "TFF", got before losing interest and moving on to other things.
I agree with him that ex-post facto "laws" are utterly despicable.
He invited me to finish this essay for him, but I have a hard time expecting honestly or integrity from government. "What do you expect? It's government!" So I can't really work up the interest to put in an honest effort to do this justice.
But he asked if I would share this, so his effort would be recorded somewhere. I am pleased to do so.

-

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

The (free) market and Capitalism

I don't usually write "free market" anymore, just "the market", because if it's not free, it's not the market.

"The market" just means voluntary trade without coercion. Government "laws" make a market impossible-- although you can still create a mostly-"free" market through the Black (or Gray) Market.

"Capitalism" is simply the market plus the act of re-investing some of the profits ("capital") back into the market. A true capitalism is impossible under a government (due to the impossibility of a real market coexisting with government), although approximations can exist.

It is possible to have a non-capitalist market if you make no profit, or put none of your profits back into the business (and don't use that money to start another business, either). This will probably be a short-lived dead end, though.

Capitalism is not about "hierarchies", although there is nothing wrong with voluntary hierarchies.

It has nothing to do with exploitation, even though exploitation can happen in any arrangement.

Anarchy isn't anti-capitalist, unless "capitalism" is misidentified and defined incorrectly. Socialism dishonestly posing as "anarchism" is anti-capitalism because socialism is anti-property rights, and you can't have a market if you aren't allowed to own and use property.

Here's an excellent essay about barter, trade, and capitalism and how it is all voluntary.


.

Do "nice guys" rob people politely?

The idea behind the "good cop" delusion seems to run along these lines: If you are robbed by a gentlemanly robber, you weren't really robbed.

And yes, most cops have behaved nicely toward me, even while they robbed me. (Although they have all acted scared while committing their act of enforcement.) Does this excuse the theft? No. That's ridiculous.

A polite archator is still an archator, and is not a "good" person. Ever. Not even if you approve of what they do.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Spoon-feeding statists

I need more patience with people who have just run across unfamiliar ideas relating to liberty.

Yes, I may have been explaining it for a decade.
Others may have been explaining it for millennia.
I may not feel like explaining it again, in detail, for the hundredth time.
But the new guy doesn't know this. It's brand new to him. He hasn't been along for the ride, but just now noticed the saddled horse waiting for him to hop on. And he's suspicious.

It's something hard to keep in mind, especially when the new guy comes at me with a hostile self-righteous attitude, and the assurance that no one has ever heard anything like his objections before.

I do try to explain. I try to be patient even though I've probably blogged about his precise point before. Maybe more than once. I can explain again, suited to his individual argument, punctuated by links that will help the explanation. Which he will studiously ignore.

When I provide explanatory links rather than typing the whole thing out again, it would be nice if he took the time to read them, instead of wanting it all spelled out and spoon-fed to him. But I've learned that's not how it works. He wants to be spoon-fed, and he wants it pre-digested. No effort.

And that gets old.

But maybe that's what I need to do anyway. If, that is, there is any point in trying to help people have better lives. And that is debatable.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

I am...

I am a libertarian because I believe in maximizing liberty and minimizing aggression.

I recognize the maximum amount of liberty requires there be no one who can violate liberty free of rightful consequences.

The minimum amount of aggression is zero.

Government is founded on aggression, violations of liberty, and theft.

Therefore I am opposed to any and all externally imposed government, which means I am an anarchist.

All externally imposed governments enslave. Slavery is something else I am vehemently against. This means I am an abolitionist.

Slavery is not voluntary. I believe every human interaction should be voluntary, and that when someone tries to force themselves on you, you have a fundamental human right to defend your life, liberty, and property from their advances. This is why I am a Voluntaryist.

I will embrace whichever of these labels for myself I want, for whatever purpose, whenever it suits me. They are interchangeable, unless you mis-define them.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Derailed!

It's interesting, and not in a good way, how easy it seems for some people to veer Left or Right. Perhaps even for most people.

Some people who I used to believe had their heads on straight, got bogged down in the Social Justice Wanker agenda. So much for them.

Others went off on the alt-right crazy train with the election of Trump. Oops. Have fun with that.

Some have cobbled together some freakish Frankensteinian monster combining the worst of both! Yes, it's as scary as it sounds!

To resist going off-track must be harder than I thought. That makes me sad.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Government never a friend to liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 5, 2017)

Those who value liberty are often labeled "anti-government" by those who don't understand. It's easy to see how they make this mistake.

People have come to believe liberty-- or "freedom", as they usually call it-- requires government protection in order to exist. Because of this they'll cry out to government whenever they feel threatened or violated. This is a sign the indoctrination has succeeded. However, even when government claims to support liberty, it's harming it.

Government has made itself the enemy of liberty without people noticing. In fact government can't exist alongside liberty; the two are mutually exclusive. Pro-liberty people will appear to be anti-government to those who choose the other side.

I am in favor of legitimate government: self government. I am not in favor of any group, including one chosen by the voting majority, imposing restrictions on people to forbid them from doing what they have a natural human right to do.

What do you have a right to do? Anything and everything which doesn't violate anyone else's rights.

You have the right to keep and use your own property, defend yourself from attackers, smoke Cannabis, and engage in mutually agreeable trade with anyone anywhere, because none of these things violate anyone's rights.

You can't have the right to murder, rob, or enslave, nor to interfere with others doing anything they have the right to do, including things you don't like them doing. You have no right to govern others, and you can't delegate-- to anyone-- a right you don't have. A right which can't exist.

If you somehow create a government which protects property from thieves, but doesn't excuse theft by calling it "taxation", it won't qualify as "government" to most people. If you could create a government which protects everyone's rights, and never allows its employees to commit the very acts it is supposedly protecting people from, it would be different from any government in history. Again, so different no one would consider it government. This is how crooked government has been over the millennia-- it simply couldn't act ethically and be considered "government" by the majority. This is enlightening.

I am against anything most would call government. Not because it is government, but because I oppose theft, aggression, and coercion, no matter who does it; regardless of any justifications they dream up. I am not anti-government, but being pro-liberty looks the same to those who support the State, and place it and its employees beyond accountability.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Known by those who consider you the enemy

It is said that if you are libertarian, and being consistent, those on the Right will call you a "Leftist" and those on the Left will claim you're part of the "Right".

It seems to me, in some cases at least, I must be doing things right.

On Facebook a while back I wrote "Neither Right nor Left, but the opposite of both those extremely wrong positions."

A guy who is infamous on Facebook for calling libertarians (or anyone who isn't his brand of alt-right) rude names commented "So... far left".

I replied with a link to a page with tips for improving reading comprehension, but it seems my help wasn't appreciated.

Anyway, he went on about how "middle of the road" is always leftist (Mises says so!), and called me a "crypto-commie". I never said I was "middle of the road"-- why would I be standing stupidly in the road at all? I'm not a cow. Standing between two positions (pretending those positions actually differ) is not the opposite of both.

It reminds me of the poor guy who, back in 2010, called me a "COMMUNOFASCISTIC STATIST", and said "Having a discussion with you is akin to touching the 'tar baby'" when I wouldn't buy into the flawed argument he was trying to trap me into agreeing with him on. Nope, I kept countering his every point rather easily (because it was a subject I've studied a lot), and he didn't like it. So he snapped on me.

Somehow, being called mean names by people who believe theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery can somehow be "better" than NOT committing theft and aggression seems like a compliment to me. I'll survive it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Food costs

Worth it, but not free

Have you ever seen the silly meme saying something like: "If we all gardened and traded our surplus with each other, we could eat for free!"?

When I see that I wonder what the person's definition of "free" is.

I think of "free" as meaning "without cost"; something for nothing.

Even when I pick Rocket Mustard, purslane, or prickly pear out of the yard to eat, there is a cost. It takes labor. Both for harvesting and for preparing.

If I were to garden, the cost would be even greater. There's labor, supplies, and (around here, anyway) water. TANSTAAFL, you know. Maybe you can avoid a bit of "taxation" this way, though.

Anyone who thinks only in terms of money traded for the food is missing almost everything related to cost.

This doesn't mean I am opposed to growing your own and trading the surplus. I'm not. I think it's a great thing to do and I encourage everyone to try it. But let's not fool ourselves that the food produced is in any way "free".

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

"Filthy parasites"

A while back, someone got upset because I called cops "filthy parasites" and said I was just "name calling".

Well, let's see...

Parasite
par·a·siteˈperəˌsīt/ noun

• an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. 
• (derogatory)
• a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Let's look at this one part at a time.

Cops are organisms. I don't believe anyone disputes that fact.

Cops live on other organisms, perhaps not physically but certainly at their expense.

Cops benefit by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. When a cop buys food with his paycheck, he is getting nutrients at his host's expense, since the money used to buy the food was stolen from the hosts (you and me). His food purchase (and every other purchase he makes) reduces the amount of resources you have with which to benefit yourself. His existence costs you.

So, yes, a cop satisfies the first definition to a T.

What about the second part?

A cop is a person.

They rely on other people for their existence as a cop. Without other people believing cops are "necessary", the "job" wouldn't exist.

Cops exploit others. They "make full use of and derive benefit from" other people. This goes back to the first definition.

They do so habitually-- on a daily basis as a condition of holding that "job". If they stop exploiting people, they lose the "job".

Now, do they give "nothing in return"?

That depends. A rapist gives "something", but it is something unwanted and harmful. Of course, the same could be said of a tapeworm.

The lack of consent makes the difference. I don't consent to rape, nor do I consent to being policed.

In spite of objections to the contrary, the reality, by definition, is that cops ARE parasites.

I consider all parasites to be "filthy". If you don't, that's fine with me.

- 

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

They're here...

But, if they all looked like Liv...

The zombies, that is.

America is a Zombocracy- a region ruled by zombies. These mindless brain-eaters are also known as government employees.

Cops, politicians, bureau-craps, and all the rest.

I said they are mindless, but that's not quite true. They share a hive mind driven by the instinct to devour anyone who isn't one of their own. And their disease seems contagious.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Does that seem right to you?

Someone I care about is facing a sentencing on September 8, to plea bargain in an attempt to avoid a cage.

I don't know if she did what she is charged with doing. It seems completely out of character, based on what I know of her due to a friendship that has lasted 17+ years so far. And, it is completely irrelevant to my current objections, anyway. If she did what they claim, she owes someone restitution, and that "someone" isn't the State. The State's injustice system doesn't even have justice on the radar, but seeks only to punish.

So, on to my points:

Her lawyer told her that she has only two options-- plead guilty in a bid to avoid jail time, or go to jail. His reasoning? There is no evidence, and she confessed.

Seems to me "no evidence" should be in her favor-- innocent until PROVEN guilty is the lie we are fed.

Of course, when she "confessed" she was mentally ill-- in fact, this was so obvious to everyone involved she was immediately sent to a psych hospital and put on psych medication after she was booked. She has always had mental issues, and physical brain problems (epilepsy, for one). How is a confession under those circumstances even admissible?

Also, her lawyer admitted to her that he has become friends with the DA during the course of his "defense". Conflict of interest? Seems clear to me.

I don't know if her lawyer is a public defender or an actual defense lawyer. Either way it seems he wants to save his buddies in the DA's office some trouble, and is railroading his client into unnecessary trouble. Not ethical behavior at all.

If I had the money I would pay to get her a real defense lawyer; one committed to truth and justice, and not just pragmatic convenience and keeping his political friends happy.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

How to disappoint me

The fastest way for me to become disappointed in someone I care about is for them to take a government "job". That'll do it every time.

It doesn't matter how "respectable" others believe that "job" is.
It doesn't matter if the "job" is believed to be "necessary" or "helpful".
It doesn't matter how badly you need the "job".
It doesn't matter if it's a "job" also filled in the voluntary sector.
It doesn't matter if I still like you and think you are basically a "good" person.
It doesn't matter how much (stolen) money it pays.

If you side with government to get money, I am disappointed in you.

Whether that matters or not is a separate issue altogether.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Counterfeit "laws" create a market for lawyers

If a law is such that you have to look it up to see what it says; to see what it says you are allowed to do (or prohibited from doing), it's not a real law.

If it is written so that you need a lawyer to interpret it for you after you look it up, to tell you if something is "legal" or not, that "law" is even worse. In fact, it's an even clearer sign that the "law" is counterfeit.

The mere existence of lawyers is irrefutable evidence that the majority of "laws" are counterfeit.

Of course, who do you think writes those counterfeit "laws" to give themselves "job security"? Quite a racket, if you can keep getting away with it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

'Hate speech' protected after all

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 28, 2017)

Mark your calendars-- the Supreme Court got something right! Amazing, I know. What occurred on this notable occasion? They admitted the First Amendment protects "hate speech".

Of course it does! It's absurd to think there was ever any question.

They didn't go far enough and still managed to miss the important point, though. It's not because the Bill of Rights creates any rights-- it's because it recognizes that no government has the authority to violate rights, including limiting speech. It is a barrier which binds government, not a permit which applies to the people. As cogs of government, the Supreme Court Jesters don't like to face this painful reality, preferring to frame the issue in a way which preserves their feelings of grandeur. But truth is truth.

You have a right to say whatever you want, even to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, regardless of legal opinion. No law can ever change this reality. However, you have no right to avoid the consequences of exercising your rights in an irresponsible way-- especially if people are harmed. Even if you are a president or a congresscritter.

Yes, I have the right to call members of congress "critters", and they have a right to call me whatever they want.

Freedom of speech is meaningless if it doesn't include the right to say offensive, potentially hurtful things. But, if you lie about someone, or try to talk someone into attacking an individual, or advocate for a law which would violate anyone's rights, you open yourself up to restitution or even rightful self defense. Don't speak unless you are prepared to face the music.

The other side of this right to free speech is your right to shun anyone who says hateful things. In turn, you also have the right to say what you think of them, even if it offends. Even if you have no real argument, but focus on their skin color, their religious beliefs, or their lack of intelligence. You have the right to express your opinions, and no one has the right to force you to stop.

While you have a right to say whatever you want, even beyond the right recognized by the Supreme Court, no one is obligated to let you use their soapbox to be heard, and no one is required to listen to a word you say. Rights don't work that way.

So be careful of your words; they can end up hurting you more than those you were aiming at.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Statist projection

Anarchy doesn't preclude working with others; only ruling others or letting them rule you.

Yet, I can't begin to count the number of times a statist has said something to the effect of "anarchy is anti-social" or "anarchists can't get along with others".

As if statism-- telling others to do as you say or you'll have your armed thugs kill them-- is in any way civilized!

A huge part of getting along with others is living up to your responsibility to not force yourself on them. Government is based on the polar opposite. Government is the height (or depth) of anti-social behavior.

Statists claim that anarchists would fail because they would rely on contracts with each other, and people are unreliable. That we can't get along with each other, much less with those who want to violate us through government and "laws".

What an odd claim.

I make mutually agreed upon contracts just about every day with no problems. I get along with people very nicely. Partly because I don't try to force them to live as I choose to live. It would be nice if they extended the same courtesy to me, but that's not the nature of those who behave in a government-like fashion; muggers, government employees, rapists, kidnappers, etc. I don't expect bad guys to act as anything other than what they are, even as I give them every opportunity to do so.

So, yeah, anarchy works just fine in my personal daily life. I see no need to archate against others, regardless of how they choose to act toward me.

But what if some people can't handle anarchy-- i.e., being self-responsible people?

Well, if someone isn't suited for anarchy-- if they can't deal with others voluntarily-- they'll either learn and grow up, or they'll turn back to statism where they feel "safe".

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Rights and responsibilities again

Well, they are both fruit...

Somewhat related to yesterday's post is this odd notion I heard expressed recently: "Your rights are my responsibility".

Well, no.

Your rights are your responsibility. My only responsibility concerning your rights is to not interfere with you exercising them. I am responsible for not violating you, and if I do, I'm responsible for that, too.

As an example, you have the fundamental human right to own and to carry weapons. I do not have the responsibility to provide you with those weapons; I only have the responsibility to not try to prevent you from owning and carrying them.

For most people, being responsible for their own rights (among the other things they are responsible for) is a very heavy "burden". It's so much easier to demand everyone "give you" your rights than it is to recognize they aren't responsible for that.

The other side of the coin is that it's also so much easier to violate people than it is to respect their right to do things you don't like.

And yes, rights bring responsibilities along with them, even if most responsibilities have nothing to do with rights.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Responsibilities

For some reason I was just thinking about my responsibilities, and-- as I sometimes do with things I can list-- I decided to make a list.

My list goes something like this, although this is not necessarily in order of importance:

My daughter.
My son.
My parents.
The house upkeep.
The vehicle upkeep.
The newspaper column.
This blog.
To not archate against anyone.
My cats.
Keeping myself healthy enough that I'm not a burden on anyone.

Maybe there are more responsibilities I have that I can't think of at the moment.

I'm not sure it's a responsibility, exactly, but I do feel a desire to make the world a better place for me having been here. Whatever that's worth.

One common thing people say in order to trivialize rights, is that there can be no rights without responsibilities. That is probably true, but it doesn't make rights any less important, and most responsibilities don't seem connected to rights at all.

The responsibility to not archate is the one most related to rights; I have a right to do anything which doesn't archate.

But, what "rights" do I have to my daughter, for example? She holds the rights (as well as the responsibility to not archate), and I have the responsibility. She isn't my property. If someone violates her, they haven't exactly violated me-- even though I will take it personally. I hope to teach her to defend her rights, and to take responsibility, and I'll do what I can to defend her as long as I am around.

I'm thinking that rights and responsibility may not be as entwined as those who aren't comfortable with rights would have you believe.

Of course, those who exercise their rights but take no responsibility will end up archating and stepping beyond what they have a right to do, and they'll find themselves in the position of being someone their victims have a right to defend themselves from, and that won't be a fun place to be.

I'll look at this relationship between rights and responsibilities from a slightly different angle tomorrow.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

You've got to work for it

"Anarchy won't work, because it won't last. Someone will always come along and become a government and rule people."

Yeah, I've pointed out a flaw in this ... "argument"... before.

But here's another take on it.

Yes, anarchy would have to be maintained in order to last. It's not automatic. So?

Everything has to be maintained, even States.

If you are willing to work to maintain a State, but not willing to put effort into maintaining liberty, you don't want liberty very much.

I do. I'm willing to work for it. I'm willing to change the oil, rotate the tires, wash it off when it gets dirty, and fix any troubles that crop up. Because I LOVE liberty.

On the other hand, I'm not willing to lift a finger to maintain any State-- not by v*ting, not by pretending "laws" are legitimate, not by cooperating or complying, not by supporting cops, politicians, judges, courts, bureaucrats, prisons, border walls, or any other statist monstrosity. Statism isn't worth the effort to maintain, and I will not use my limited time and resources to help prop it up.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Making people mad

People are tired of me harping on cops. I know it. They've told me so. It makes them mad. It hurts their feelings. It makes them... uncomfortable. They don't want to hear it.

I understand why. But I'm not sure I want to stop. It's just too important for liberty to make sure to drive the point home, and to never let up. To never give an inch.

Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face. Without their active aggression, there would be no such thing as political power. The opinions of the bullies of the State would be nothing but a bit of hot air, quickly lost to the gentlest breeze.

Next to cops, presidents are nothing. "Laws" are nothing. Corrupt prosecutors (but I repeat myself) are nothing. Power-crazed judges are nothing. Bureaucrats are nothing. The State is nothing. Cops are the one thing that makes government a problem for Rightful Liberty and those who exercise it. Nothing else even comes close-- no matter how evil and reprehensible other things may be.

Yes, I understand it is tiresome to hear "Cops are scum" and "Cops are losers" again and again. But it is more important than anything else you can hear, with regards to liberty. It is absolutely crucial to understand why you can't support cops without polluting yourself; without being a part of the problem. It's just the way it is, and telling it the way it is makes people mad. And, yet I keep on.

I try to be nice about it. I try to not get profane and angry like so many others I see. Quite honestly, I am not angry; I am persistent in speaking this irritating truth. Truth is mistaken for anger when that truth is painful.

In my day-to-day life I don't worry about cops a tenth as much as some of the people I know who don't have a principled stance against policing-- simply because they fear being the target of police attention. Or because they worry that a cop will see them doing something "illegal" while driving. That's something I really don't worry about. It is what it is, and I'm not going to live my life worrying about those parasites.

As with any gang, I avoid contact as much as possible. I recognize what they are, and I don't sugar-coat it. And I go on with my life, knowing they are utterly irrelevant and worthless in the grand scheme of things.

But, I know it is something the population needs to keep being reminded of, because the cult is so ubiquitous and so generally popular. And because it is important.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Ride that bandwagon right over the cliff

If you live in America today, wave the US flag, and support the troops and "law enforcement", I have unhappy news for you.

If you had lived in Nazi Germany you would have almost definitely been an enthusiastic Nazi.

If you lived in a Muslim country today, you would almost certainly be Muslim (which is totally unrelated to whether you would be an Islamic loser).

You hop on the bandwagon too easily, and go along without thinking about what you are doing.

Only those who resist the dominant "culture" in America have a credible chance to have been a truly decent person in Nazi Germany or a non-Muslim in a predominantly Muslim country today.

If you are a flag waving, troop loving, cop supporting American in 2017, you simply don't have what it takes to resist the appeal of the bandwagon.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Satisfying watching parties fight

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 21, 2017)

Besides being an experienced negotiator, I'm beginning to suspect President Trump might be an excellent magician. Or, at least an expert in misdirection.

He gets observers to focus on one hand's flamboyant flourishes, while doing the work he wants to accomplish with the hand they aren't paying attention to.

If you don't believe this, notice how he says and does trivial, even silly, things which get all the attention. While people are laughing at him, he is doing things which could impact the future, for better or worse, mostly under the radar. Perhaps he doesn't do this on purpose, but I wouldn't bet on it.

His self-created caricature has become the focus of attention, probably just as he wishes it to be. After all, if no one takes you seriously, they won't pay attention to everything you're up to. If you can get them to worry about the wrong things-- things they have been tricked into worrying about-- you can get away with almost anything.

His posts on Twitter are a case in point. Not just the "covfefe" brier patch his opponents threw him in, but all the rest as well. People focus so much on the pointless things he writes there that he is able to work on his real agenda pretty much unseen by the population. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the particular bullies you prefer to have trying to run your life.

Those of us who prefer to keep all the bullies at bay, regardless of the particular flavor of their bullying, are a tiny minority.

He also manages to entice his enemies into doing things which show them in the worst possible light. Just by fanning the flames of their hatred, and by not being the president they had been assured they were going to be blessed with. To get your opponents to humiliate themselves without you having to lift a finger is almost a superpower. I wish I could do the same; it would save so much time and effort!

Maybe none of this is intentional on his part. Maybe he is just lucky. Maybe his opponents are simply incompetent. It's not beyond the realm of possibility.

For me, sitting outside this "Red State vs. Blue State" civil war, it's an interesting show. It's like watching all those who want to destroy your liberty tangling themselves in barbed wire while fighting amongst themselves. There is something very satisfying about it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Observation on observing

Most people don't observe. This observation (ha ha) has annoyed me all my life.

I'm not picking on other people; I constantly get annoyed at myself for failing to observe something I think I should have noticed.

People also fail to observe things they don't want to observe-- things that would make them uncomfortable.

This explains why most people don't notice that cops are bad guys, even with a seemingly infinite stream of irrefutable evidence being shoved in their faces on a daily basis by the behavior of cops themselves.

When the tendency to be unobservant is combined with the fanaticism to not see what you'd rather not see, it is almost guaranteed that people won't notice something really important.

Now, copsuckers might come back with the claim that I don't observe the good that cops do. If so, I have counter-evidence to refute their claim. I observe both sides, but to the copsuckers it appears biased against cops. That's because ethics itself is biased against cops. If you are observant, you'll notice this fact, even if you don't want to.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

An obligation to comply?

Do you believe you have an obligation to comply with "the law"?

How far do you believe your obligation extends?
Only to those "laws" you agree with, or all of them?
What about "laws" which would require you to do something you know is wrong, or "laws" which would forbid you to do something right?
Would you sacrifice your ethics, morals, or religion to "the law"? If not, what happened to your obligation.

I recently heard someone say they had an obligation to comply with the law, and it instantly sounded ridiculous to me. But, as with all ridiculous utterances, I ponder them to try to understand why someone would say something so ridiculous.

The "reason" I come up with is that it sounds "reasonable" to people who have come to mistake "the law" for what's right and good. It sounds civilized. It may even feed upon their belief in a "social contract".

But to me, it sounds like someone going along with evil for convenience and so they don't feel the need to actually think and weigh their actions.

I am freer, feeling no such obligation whatsoever. Yes, I'll "comply" when a cop is watching, just like I'll "comply" when a mugger has the drop on me. But that's just a survival strategy in the face of armed reality, not really compliance.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Why I (still) blog

The liberty-lover family is facing tough times. We will make it through; we always have throughout history. But the near future will probably be hard and not all of us will make it to the better times beyond that.

I write my blog to try to give you ideas, encouragement, inspiration and whatever else might help you  survive and thrive while living surrounded by rabid statism. So that, perhaps, you can increase your chances to make it through, and enjoy the circumstances as much as possible until times get better. I hope it helps.

Obviously not everyone will "get" my blog. Only a tiny slice of modern humanity could get it, even if they knew about it. Most are simply too entrenched in set ways of thinking to understand anything outside of their toxic little box. Some probably just don't like me, and would reject anything I say on that basis alone. It happens.

I appreciate you for not being like that.

I'll continue to stick my neck out, knowing you-- The Remnant-- are out there. Just as long as I can, as long as I still have something to say, and as long as I still feel I am doing some good.

I've also got to remember to do my best to balance no-holds-barred truth with compassion and being nice. And, for me, that's not easy. Statism drains me, exhausts me, makes me tired and short tempered, and I have an almost overpowering urge to mock statists of any degree. It's a struggle.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

If you support States...

If you preach ethics, but support States, you are being inconsistent. And unethical.

If you preach morals, but support States, you are either being immoral, or your morality is warped until it is unethical and evil.

If you are a genius, but you support States because you believe them to be good and necessary, you're either being dumb or you have a tragic blind spot causing you to be wrong.

You would do well to correct your errors.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Heroes wanted

I sure could use some monetary help.
If you can and want to, please consider it.
Here's the link to the fundraiser post, but right now Paypal donations would help the most.

Law vs "laws"

Natural Law is completely in sync with liberty-- the two are bound together and can not be pulled apart without destroying everything.

Through experience, over long periods of time, humans discovered Natural Law, which illustrated how to live among others. Society grew as these rules were discovered, and eventually this led to civilization growing from society.

Then some "genius" came along and decided it would be a good idea to write down the Law somewhere so it could be read and referred to. Which wouldn't have been too disastrous, if they had stopped there. But...

This motivated even worse idiots to write down their flawed opinions and call it "law", also. Trying to steal legitimacy for their dreamed up "laws" from the Law which had been discovered.

Unfortunately, none of these new opinions were based on anything but opinion, and were harmful to society. The more of these harmful opinions that were added and called "laws", the more damaged society became. Civilization won't survive if the tide isn't turned. Counterfeit "laws" must be tossed aside. Every single one of them. The sooner, the better.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Evil, with the best intentions

All decent people are, as are some terrible people

I'm sure most of those who created the State had the best of intentions.

Most probably they felt they were doing a good thing. They wanted order to overcome liberty, which they mistook for chaos.

Just like most statists today, and those who support cops.

Good intentions. I know because I know many of them.

But that's why I don't put much stock in intentions. Results are more important. A good quote from The Null Zone- Episode One: Janus illustrates the point:

"No matter how noble your goals, no matter how pure your ideals, no matter how good your intentions, if you look down and discover you’re eating babies, you’re no longer the good guy."

Well, pragmatic or not, that's what statism is. Don't ever. Not even once.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Won't pretend a weed isn't a weed

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 14, 2017. I called this one "How does your liberty garden grow?".)

I am completely in love with liberty. My own, yours, and everyone else's. I want more people to understand it, love it, and live it. I am not afraid of you having and enjoying liberty to the fullest extent humanly possible.

Freedom is not the same as liberty, although many confuse the two. While freedom can seem nice, it can also be a problem. Freedom is doing whatever you want to do, and some people want to do terrible things. Some even want to govern other people! While everyone is free to do hurtful things, limited only by their ability and the ability of their intended victim (or a rescuer) to stop them, no one has the right to commit aggression or theft.

Liberty, on the other hand, can never go "too far", because it is self-limiting; limited only by the equal and identical liberty of everyone else. You can never have the liberty to violate other people.

This is why I love liberty, and try to scatter seeds of liberty whenever I have the chance. I appreciate the efforts of everyone who does the same. Most liberty seeds will wither and die, but a few sprout. I've watched it happen, and it's a beautiful sight.

I will do my best to water and fertilize the liberty seedlings I encounter. Sometimes I run across liberty sprouts which were sown years ago by persons unknown. Yet, there they are, struggling for life in someone's mind. I want to help them thrive.

Sometimes this means having to pull some weeds which took root in the garden; noxious weeds which were mistaken for liberty. This is my least favorite part of spreading liberty. Most people love their weeds, and often they design entire gardens around them. These weeds come in the form of historical documents, respected politicians, revered institutions, and laws they want imposed on people they don't like. These deceptive weeds need to be exposed and uprooted wherever they grow, otherwise they will continue to strangle and kill liberty.

People can grow whatever they want in their garden, of course, but they need to know what it is they are nurturing. When it's not real liberty, it's not going to produce the fruit they expect. If a person is shown they are cultivating a weed, but they choose to keep protecting it, that's their business. I'm still not going to pretend their weed is liberty. You can choose your beliefs; you can't choose your reality.

-

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

(Steemit link)

History- an obsession with drama queens

I noticed something about "history" a long time ago.

History is focused on the drama queens, not the quiet, mature people who made up most of the world's population. And I suppose this is natural.

Who do you remember best? the quiet neighbor who never made a scene, or that "crazy redneck neighbor" who is always annoying you with their drunken antics?

Well, history is the same.

The kings, queens, presidents, prime ministers, generals, soldiers, priests, and all the rest of those who are over-represented in "history" books are no different. They are the drama queens making a scene and getting attention.

The wars, treaties, constitutions, laws, edicts, and everything else they did to get into those "history" books are just the drama queens acting out, to the detriment of the world.

You'd do better to pay attention to those who never made it into "history" books, but obviously, that is a problem.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Misguided emails

The libertarian causes that "conservatives" share with me seem to be under greater assault than the libertarian causes that "progressives" share with me.

As an example, anti-gun bigotry is rampant while anti-Cannabis bigotry seems to be on the decline.

Of course, with Trump's regime-- his pro-loser stance and his plans for a Great Prison Wall-- that wind is swirling drunkenly in multiple directions at once. Which way it will be blowing tomorrow is unclear.

Anyhow, looking at the past rather than the future, this explains how I ended up on a few "conservative" email lists. And they keep sending emails seeking my support for decidedly anti-liberty causes, and that's just not going to go anywhere. Other than the spam folder.

Too bad they don't have to pay me when they send me reprehensible pro-State drivel.

At least they sometimes give me examples of statist idiocy that I can turn into a blog post. Sometimes. Usually there's nothing even remotely unique, creative, or usable in the stuff they squirt out. Just the same old junk they've been offering for centuries, packaged in a new form.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)