Hanging on

To be perfectly honest, I feel like I have been barely hanging on these past few weeks.

Today is the second anniversary of Cheyenne's death, and for some reason it is hitting me harder this year than it did last year.

Maybe it is because other bad events have happened in the past few months. Maybe it's other things.

Whatever the reason, I'm going to try to take the day off.

.

Copblocked

A week or so back I was trapped in a parking lot; blocked in a space by a cop car while the badge-scum who arrived in it molested some guy parked next to me.

The guy he was bothering may actually be a bad guy. Who knows. It's irrelevant. That is no excuse to park in such a way as to block people in and then stay there 10 (or more) minutes after the blocked in person gets to their car. Cop-guy had to perform the "cuff, hassle, release" dance, and then have his victim sign something, and that took a lot of time.

How would the tax addict have reacted if I had blocked him in? You don't even have to answer because we both know.

Cops are worthless vermin. I despise them. So do others.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Could I be wrong?

Yes, I could. How might I be wrong? This is a question everyone needs to ask of themselves now and then. And, it's a question which needs to be considered carefully enough that the answer makes itself known to you. Making sure you know how you might be wrong isn't self-absorption. It's self awareness and a recognition that you can be wrong. Anyone can.

So, take the things you know and make sure they hold up.

Considering my own knowledge, might I be wrong about some things I take for granted? Things I have tested and decided are true?

Could it actually be OK to take things which don't belong to me? Does my need come before your claim of ownership?
Could it be fine to attack people who are minding their own business, but are doing so in a way I don't like?
Might government actually be something other than a gang of thugs?
What if taxation really is voluntary, and is therefore not theft? What does voluntary mean?
What if cops really are the good guys, and they are only doing their job by enforcing the laws that my neighbors want them to enforce?
What if it really is everyone's business if a person chooses to do things to themselves that could cause harm? What if you don't actually own your body?
What if property really is theft?
What if guns are too dangerous for regular people to own or carry, and banning them would actually be OK and would work?

Of course, each time I examine these ideas, no matter how carefully I pick them apart and consider them, I decide I'm not wrong about them, no matter who disagrees. NO matter how strongly they disagree, or how angry they get at me over the disagreement.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

What am I for? What am I against?

It's important to know what you are for, and what you are against. Those are two sides of the same coin. Knowing what I am for should tell you (and me) what I'm against.

I am for rights. I am for responsibility.

I am against archation.

Specifics?

Well, those are just different ways of saying the same thing.

Does an act, rule, or policy violate someone else's equal and identical rights? Does it make it harder for them to exercise their Rightful Liberty? If so, I'm against it. Even if it might seem to "help" me in some way.

If it does none of the above, I'm either for it, or I don't care one way or the other because I understand it's none of my business.

It's really not a very complicated question for those with principles, even when they aren't perfect.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Try to make the world a better place

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 11, 2017)

People are always wanting to know the meaning of life. There is probably more than one, but a very good one is: Make your world a little better every day.

You don't have to think big. Start where you are, doing what you can. Begin with easy stuff, but push yourself beyond the edge of your comfort zone.

If you are hurting an innocent person, stop hurting them. Instead of staying silent while someone else is hurting an innocent person, get up, speak out, and don't let it continue. If you see someone being bullied, stand up for them. Even if the bully has power, or if the law is on his side. Especially if the bully is the law.

Confront the bullies with kindness at first, if possible. Don't make them feel bad unless they refuse to stop. If they won't stop, they need to feel bad. Otherwise they are lying to themselves.

If you see some litter, pick it up. If someone is kicking and stomping a toad, rescue it.

If you see someone on a path you believe will hurt them, warn them. If they won't listen, respect their choice. Yes, it's hard to do, but it's right.

Don't mistake errors in judgment for wrongdoing, nor moral shortcomings for crimes. Don't seek to punish people for mistakes. Justice is about honest restitution, not punishment.

Be good, be kind, have worthwhile principles and stick to them. Realize that "good" and "kind" aren't necessarily the same thing. Not all who are kind are good, and sometimes being good means you can't be kind. It's better to be good than to be kind. If your principles get in the way of being good, you need better principles.

After you get practice improving your personal sphere, you have a foundation from which you can spread out into the world, if you want.

If you do choose to expand your influence beyond your home turf, keep in mind C. S. Lewis' warning: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” That would be the opposite of making the world a better place.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Guns, criminals, and the mentally deranged

.

"We must find a way to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally deranged." ~ Lying cowardly loser

Who do you mean by "we", since I'll have no part in such a scheme? How do you propose "we" do what you suggest? Who do you give the imaginary power to carry this out? A gang of proven unethical criminals called "government"? Yeah, that always goes well. 

Who gets to define "criminal" and "mentally deranged"? Or even "weapons"? I know-- those same proven, unethical criminals of "government", right?

How would you implement this plan without violating some number of innocent people? Or do they even matter to you? Are they just "collateral damage" to be ignored and discarded for your Big Idea? That does seem to be the standard practice of your favored vile gang.

Are you personally willing to go door to door stealing guns from people and murdering those who resist? Or would you continue to be a sniveling coward and send other vile parasites to die on your behalf?

Do you take personal responsibility for those killed when denied (or fatally delayed while awaiting your approval) a weapon they needed for self defense? Because if you support this kind of thing, I will hold you personally accountable. Each and every time some innocent person is murdered in one of your "gun free zones", or even in a place where the "laws" and policies make it even slightly less likely that good people there will be adequately armed, I hold YOU responsible if you support anti-gun "laws" and policies. Yes, YOU. You are on the side of the murderers who need unarmed victims and slaughter zones to keep them trapped.

Yes, I grant that anti-gun "laws" may save some lives. They will also cost some lives, and this you carefully ignore. What makes you the god who gets to decide to roll the dice and let randomness choose who lives and who dies at the hands of your "laws"? What made you so cowardly that you either refuse to contribute to the defense of those around you, or fear those who do step up?

No one has the right (or the "authority") to make up rules banning or "regulating" weapons. Not you, not a president, not the BATFEces gang, not judges, not "community activists", not congressvermin, not cops, not mayors or governors. No one. That right doesn't exist and can't be created.

And, I even break away from some of my co-travelers in that I know rights can never be lost-- not even if you are a criminal or are mentally deranged. No one has a right to forbid you to own and to carry weapons, but they do have the right to shoot anyone who chooses to archate. That's just reality, and if it doesn't suit you, you are free to leave the realm of reality in hopes of a more suitable afterlife.

This "plan" will go nowhere, because it is both wrong and impossible. You are free to yap about it and pretend it's an option. You are probably able to make up "laws" and murder people who break them. I will not comply, not will I expect anyone else to comply. I will not report anyone I suspect of violating your made-up rules. I assume everyone is always armed, anyway, so why would I act otherwise? I will never cooperate in taking weapons from anyone who isn't archating, and then only when it is defense.

You are a disgusting coward for believing this plan of yours is an answer or a solution, rather than an escalation of the foundational problem. You are also an idiot for not seeming to realize that other nasty cowards and control freaks have made the same suggestion throughout the mists of time. There will always be lying cowardly losers like you, wanting to be "pragmatic" in violating others. You are nothing new. Get lost, worm.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Safe spaces" for nationalists

Borderism is just another manifestation of the toxic and whiny "safe space" movement. No different than the other forms seen on university campuses. Childishness mistaken for maturity.

Once seen in that light, you may never be able to unsee it. Or to take them seriously ever again.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Worse than the worst

I'm sure you've heard of the "knock out game", where some loser just punches a victim in the head without warning, intending to knock the person unconscious.

Yeah, it's a disgusting thing to do. Those people are the worst!

But, to me it would seem even worse to torture the person first by tying them down, taunting them a while, then punching them unconscious. There's the added factor of psychological torture.

And to me, this illustrates the tactic behind State "executions".

Yes, I actually think losers who play the standard "knock out game" are probably less ethically reprehensible than the losers who clinically murder people for the State. And that's a really law bar to begin with.

That's when I ignore the number of those on the death assembly line who have been discovered to be innocent, but railroaded by a corrupt "criminal justice system", "crime labs" that come up with whatever results the cops and prosecutors want them to come up with, and "judges" who have no business judging anyone but themselves. Murder carried out under clinical conditions is still murder-- or maybe it's murder plus.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"The law" is no excuse

Statists make the absurd claim "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", but that's obviously nonsense. If you aren't aware of some random, arbitrary rule made up by some ethically empty control freak, how can you be expected to act counter-intuitively and "obey" it?

Only an idiot would expect that.

Ignorance of the "law" is normal, natural, ubiquitous (even by those who worship and enforce "laws"), and it is most definitely the best excuse.

I would turn the statist's claim around.

"The law" is no excuse to molest, kidnap, rob, and murder people. The "law" is never justification to archate. And anyone who believes it is is a nasty goon.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Same language, different thoughts, no communication

I'm talking about when a discussion gets bogged down because of the different ways people use words, and different definitions... and it results in no communication taking place. No fun!

And I really do try. Normal dictionaries are no help. You can always find a definition somewhere that fits your thinking, and is contrary to the other definitions. Probably under the same entry.

So when this happens I tell them what a word means to me. I link to the "dictionary post" entry. I try to explain what I mean by the word, contrasted against what they mean by the word. Just as a way to get us talking about the same concept, even if we use different words. Deaf ears. They invariably refuse to listen.

For example, to me a right is anything you can do without violating another person, therefore you need no permission to do it. Anything. There are lots of ways to expand that thought, of course, but that's the basic point.

And then I attract attention from people who want to argue over privileges while calling them "rights". Or they want to change rights into privileges by allowing government (or some other gang) to hand out licenses for engaging in that behavior. Ugh.

Yeah, I realize almost no one out there "gets" rights. Too much conditioning, I suppose. Too much belief in "authority".

Sorry, but if it can be lost or taken away, it isn't a right. A right can be violated, though, but that's not the sticking point they usually want to focus on. They simply can't get over their point debating how and when rights can be lost or removed, to justify violating people's rights in one way or another. Because that's where it always leads.

And this same tactic goes on over many other concepts as well. It is frustrating.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Who's responsible?

A while back I saw someone who wanted to make the NRA pay for the medical and funeral expenses of the Las Vegas evil loser's victims. I'm sure he feels the same about yesterday's victims of the evil loser in the Texas church-- or will as soon as he thinks of it.

I guess he's one of those "special" folk who believes the NRA is actually pro-gun rights. LOL!!

But, wait... what is he demanding?

The NRA doesn't manufacture or sell guns. It doesn't encourage evil losers to go out and murder people-- in fact it does quite the opposite as long as you're not a cop or a troop (and yes, it makes exceptions for them, because it loves and worships them with all its shriveled little heart and its fat bank account). The NRA's gun safety programs used to be the big selling point for membership, and safety necessarily includes not shooting innocent people.

The NRA has as much to do with actual guns as Facebook does with breeding cats.

But, if the guy had faced this reality, I'm sure he would have just switched to wanting to force gun manufacturers and sellers to pay the expenses. Or, forcing their insurance companies to pay, if that fails.

And that's just as stupid.

Using a car analogy, as he was doing before running away... If you sell a car and some time later the guy you sold it to (or someone he sold it to) uses that car to plow into a group of kindergarteners, injuring hundreds and killing a bunch of them, should you or your insurance cover the medical and funeral expenses? Or is the evil loser driver responsible for his actions, and should he be held responsible-- or should his insurance  company (if he has any) be financially responsible, according to the contract they have with him?

If, after all this, there's simply not a pocket deep enough to cover all the expenses, either get charity to help, or suck it up. Robbing people to pay for something they didn't do is evil. And so is "regulating" guns.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Liberty an unappreciated necessity

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 4, 2017)

It's a human tragedy that most of us lack real appreciation for life's necessities.

We don't appreciate things until it's too late.

Water is overlooked until you have to scrounge for every drop. I've been thirsty enough to sip water from a rotten stump's hollow, filtering it through a bandanna against my mouth to avoid swallowing mosquito larvae and globs of algae. I've been thirsty enough to drink water, peppered with rabbit pellets, from holes in rocks.

Yet, even I can take for granted that when I turn on the faucet, good water will come out. Occasionally I remember the times water was scarce, and feel appreciative.

You won't appreciate heat, light, or cooked food until you don't have the option of flipping a switch. The appreciation for those modern conveniences grows stronger when you've made every fire by rubbing sticks together.

Do this a few thousand times over several years and it will help you feel gratitude for technology-- even lighters.

In the same way, you'll never value liberty until you've had it and lost it. Almost no American appreciates liberty because they've never actually experienced it. They've been taught to believe Americans are free, and questioning the truth of this statement is labeled "ingratitude".

It's not. It's recognizing reality and demanding better.

Until you are free to live as you see fit, as long as you're not harming anyone else, your liberty is being violated. Until you are free to travel, trade, and protect your person and property without seeking permission from anyone to do those things, liberty is imaginary. If you are required to get licenses and permits to go about your life and business, you aren't free.

No one has the right to require the licensing of driving, carried guns, or businesses. No one has the right to take your money, using the excuse of taxation or fines. No one has the right to prohibit or regulate any part of your life until you tread on the equal and identical rights of others. It is your unrefusable* responsibility to not violate people by restricting their rights, and nothing can change that.

Those who support the violations and celebrate them as "freedom" are lying to you.

Yes, it could be worse.

I'm grateful for the liberties still allowed. I crave the return of those which have been criminalized through the error of allowing government to grow.

If you are grateful too, show it by defending liberty even when everyone around you would rather you didn't.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

A moment of silence-- owed by you and me, anyway

It's time for a moment of silence after an evil loser murdered a bunch of people in a Texas church.

Of course, this silence only applies to you and me. The anti-liberty bigots have decreed that only they are permitted to squeal loudly for anti-gun "laws" in the immediate aftermath.

But sane people must show our "respect" for the victims by keeping our mouths shut, no matter the lies spouted by the anti-liberty bigots. Lies which will inevitably result in more innocent victims.

The same old same old.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Borderists don't understand property rights, part infinity

Borderism in bloom.

"In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will. And 'public property' has borders as well. It is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners. And while it is true that the State is a criminal organization and that to entrust it with the task of border control will inevitably result in numerous injustices to both domestic residents and foreigners, it is also true that the State does something also when it decides not to do anything about border control and that, under the present circumstances, doing nothing at all in this regard will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry." - Bionic Mosquito

First off, "immigration" is a lie used to justify bigger, more powerful government. Government to be aimed at those the borderists want to aim it at, but bigger, more powerful government, regardless.

What was that main theme again? "In a fully privatized libertarian order ... 'public property' ... is the property of domestic tax-payers..."

Ummm. No. Sorry.

In a "fully privatized libertarian order" there would be no "taxes" to be paid by anyone, "domestic" or "foreign". If there were "public property", it would be owned by a group which VOLUNTARILY agrees to pay for its purchase and upkeep and allows the public to use the property at its whim. Not financed through theft. Not really "public".

And this has absolutely no bearing on the borderist argument, no matter how badly they wish it did. Borderism is anti-property rights, because they believe the State's spurious claim on my property trumps mine.

The last 3/5 of the paragraph wobbles between admitting government "border control" is a bad deal for the slaves (and others), and seeking to justify it anyway.

This is just one example of where the borderists go wrong; the examples are seemingly endless. And frustrating. All calculated to reach the conclusion that "feels" pragmatic and cozy, while avoiding the truth.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Mean Ol' Truth!

The truth is the truth. After you have noticed the truth, or had it explained to you, that should be the end of it.

You can complain about the truth, or wish it were otherwise, but the truth doesn't change to make you comfortable.

And this is something anti-liberty bigots really don't like hearing. They either don't believe there is a truth, or they believe their feelings can alter it. It just doesn't work that way.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Letting government control you

If I want to do something, I don't stop just because government decides to mandate it.

For example, I want to wear a seat belt when in a vehicle. I did so long before it became "the law". I didn't stop wearing one when government made it a "crime" to neglect to wear one.

I understand physics. I want to reduce my chances of injury in case of a wreck. I am not under any delusion that a seat belt guarantees anything-- Cheyenne was wearing a seat belt and it didn't help.

But, I know the risks both ways, and that's my choice. I wouldn't dream of forcing my choice on you (but if you are riding in my vehicle, I will ask you to put on the seat belt, and I may choose to not drive you if you won't).

I don't support using "laws" against you if you make a different choice, and I understand that cops who make "traffic stops" based on seat belt use are nothing but bullies and thieves. Maybe worse.

In other cases I haven't stopped doing some things just because government decided to forbid them. And I haven't started doing things just because government forbids them, either. There are a few things I have chosen to do after government made them mandatory, just to avoid being murdered, not because I agree. I wish I didn't think this is necessary, but in a few cases, I do.

Mandatory or forbidden, government's opinion on matters is generally irrelevant to me.

If you change your behavior just because of government or its "laws", you are letting them control you no matter which way you go. If that's your choice, at least recognize it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Paint and corners and statists

In Facebook discussions I sometimes find it amusing to let statists paint themselves into corners.

It's easy for them to do, because statism is internally inconsistent and stupid. All I have to do is keep them talking, and that corner, surrounded by the paint they applied, with no way out, is where they'll end up.

I just keep asking questions about their position, and leading them where they are already heading. I try to avoid saying anything too shocking, or anything that will scare them off.

OK, so maybe it's not so much that I let them paint themselves into a corner, as I help them. I give them the paint and brush if necessary.

What is sad is how often they realize what is happening and go silent right at the end. Right before the fun part. I feel robbed because I don't get to use my ultimate point when that happens. Such is life.

Yes, I have a mean streak. The ZAP helps keep it under control.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Statism's foundation

Statism is based on lies. Without lies it evaporates like a single drop of water skittering across the hot surface of a wood stove in January.

Not just the classic Orwellian "War is peace" lies, but lies most people don't even notice.

Lies like "taxation is the price we pay for a civilized society", and "there's no difference between men and women (and/or "men" and "women" can be defined however you want, or denied altogether)".
Lies like the myth that a country is like a private club, where the members have the right to control who gets in.
Believing that "democracy" or a Constitution make mob rule OK is believing in a lie.
Liberty and rights are not up for a v*te, even if government allows "the people" to v*te on them. It's a lie.

Lies, even those which don't seem to have anything to do with statism specifically, can be harmful and help prop up statism. They give justifications for "laws" which violate liberty. They train people to believe there is no truth, but whatever you feel is right is OK-- and most people feel it's OK to violate you in one way or another.

Seeing the lies and refusing to go along with them is not a path to popularity. It's not "pragmatic" or nice. So be it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Who's calling whom "arrogant"?

Time after time I've seen people call libertarians "arrogant". Sure, I would agree with that in many cases. So?

Time after time, though, the haughtiest, most arrogant, and "better-than-you" folk I encounter are statists of one sort or another. Often the very same ones who get off calling libertarians "arrogant".

The blind hypocrisy is actually kind of funny.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Donations? Subscriptions? Please?

Follow me on Steemit

Politics rigged game I won't play

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 27, 2017)

People often describe the things I write as "political". They may not even intend it as an insult.

I prefer to think of my views as post-political; beyond the obsolete sphere of politics. I wish people would recognize politics as the enemy; the opposite of how they should view the world and interact with others.

It would be nice if they did, because politics ruins everything it touches. Politics makes people see the world through the fake "Right vs. Left" lens. It's a distortion, not reality. The truth is, there are people who want to violate and control you, and people who don't. People who use politics are the ones unwilling to leave you alone. Even worse, the rush of using politics against others, when your side has the power, is addictive.

It's time to heal the addiction and move past it.

Politics can be regarded as the method people commonly use to attempt to live among those they hate or fear; seeking to force their will on them. It's why they elect bullies they hope will target, under the guise of laws, "those people". Whoever "those people" may be to the politically inclined. Unfortunately for those who play the game, their bullies occupy government offices only for a while. Once your bully leaves office, the office remains and someone else will fill it. And it might just be a bully elected to target you.

Part of the problem is the monopolistic nature of politics. If my side wins, your side loses. There's no room for "live and let live", or "you do your thing, I'll do mine, as long as neither of us tries to force the other to go along". This would be civilized, so we can't have that!

Politics is a rejection of personal responsibility. In fact, it often criminalizes personal responsibility and replaces it with one-size-fits-all laws. In truth, the laws fit almost no one, and don't fit anyone very well. But they are "the law", and you are expected to comply no matter how arbitrary and harmful they are. It's how politics works.

I understand that if someone is using politics to violate your life, liberty, or property, you'll feel the need to use politics in self-defense. Then those feeling the pointy end of your politics will turn the tables on you the first chance they get. It's an endless pendulum of destruction and abuse.

Politics is a rigged game. I refuse to play.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

My one unchanging rule

Wherever I go, wherever I am, there is one rule I live by that doesn't change: Don't archate.

I hold myself to it, even though I don't consider it a "thou shalt not" to be imposed on you.

I may agree to additional rules if the situation warrants it, but I won't agree to any rule that breaks that primary rule.

In a civilized society this wouldn't be a problem, but in the uncivil environment of States, this can get me into a lot of trouble if I'm not careful. Sometimes even if I am careful.

I may be forced to alter my behavior somewhat if a bad guy has the drop on me, but it doesn't mean I accept his counterfeit "rule", it just means I know he can kill me.

But that's just how it is in the here and now. As for my part, it's not going to change on my end. I know a counterfeit "rule" when I see one, and nothing can hide their nature from me, just as nothing I have encountered so far has falsified the Zero Archation Principle, and I would be surprised if anything ever did.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Rights- reciprocal or absolute?

Are rights strictly reciprocal? If you refuse to recognize the rights of others, does that mean you, yourself, have no rights?

I saw someone make this claim, and in my mind it doesn't hold up, even if it seems correct at first.

First off, let's get this out of the way: if rights are imaginary, then no one has any rights, including the right to rule, so that gets rid of the specter of "legitimate government" (among other atrocities) right off the bat. Go in peace and do what you're going to do-- subject to what others are willing to put up with.

On the other hand, I think the nature of human beings makes rights a real and necessary thing, so the rest of this is based on that premise.

I think it is the nature of rights that they can either be respected or violated, and nothing else.

I think rights can't be "lost" regardless of what someone does. Actions which violate rights may create a debt which needs to be paid, or they may cause defensive actions to be used against the person, but that person still has the exact same rights they did before they violated anyone. Consequences simply happen.

Insisting on restitution doesn't violate rights. Restitution is justice.

Self defense (of person or property) doesn't violate rights. Self defense is a human right.

Shunning someone, even to death, is an exercise of the right of association and doesn't violate anyone's rights. No one has the right to impose their presence on you, and their existence doesn't obligate you to do anything other than to not impose yourself on them.

If rights somehow only exist if they are mutually recognized, then rights would never exist in the presence of archators of any kind, and specifically anywhere there were a State or government. States NEVER recognize rights, but relegate them all to the status of privileges-- to be handed out and withdrawn at the whim of the "law".

Yet, I can still see that you have rights regardless of who is violating them.

If you are facing an armed mugger (or a government employee), it is apparent he doesn't recognize your rights. If rights only exist when mutually recognized, there would be no rights present for either of you. But if I am watching, I know you still have rights, and if I need to shoot the mugger in order to help you keep your rights inviolate, I may choose to do so. The opinion of the mugger has no bearing on the existence of your rights. Rights never depend on what the other person believes or does.

So, no, rights are not dependent on being reciprocated, even though that might be nice.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Chaotic order

I've already mentioned that too much chaos AND too much order are both deadly. But here's another observation: too much order-- specifically too much government (which I consider to be any external governance at all)-- becomes deadly because it creates too much chaos for individuals.

When you have too much government, your normal actions stop having normal consequences. This is what chaos is. You can't really know what to expect, and can't usually avoid the random consequences even if you know they are possible. You can be murdered for doing normal, non-evil things that humans have always done.

Things like carrying a weapon, crossing a street, using medications, hiding money from thieves, fighting back and killing your attacker, and various other normal acts.

Normal life becomes complicated and difficult to get through due to the "rules" which impose the order. This is stressful and causes individual chaos.

The order in too much order is only on the surface. The underlying chaos this "order" creates runs deep. If you support government, you support deadly chaos rather than the productive kind. You are the one promoting chaos and ruin. Regardless of your mindless protests to the contrary.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

On fire for liberty

Why can't those who don't understand liberty understand liberty?

I have a hypothesis.

There are those who are able to use liberty when it is available. They don't put any thought into it; it is just there, or it's not.
They are like the people who can use fire as a simple tool, as long as someone else provides it. (Including by manufacturing lighters.)

There are then those who can see how liberty could be increased, and hunger for it when it is violated. They appreciate it, even if they can't really think outside the box. They often see nothing wrong with violating the liberty of people they don't care for.
They are like those who can usually build their own fire when they need one, and then use it as a tool, but don't understand the physical conditions which result in fire well enough to figure out how to make one if the familiar methods aren't available to them. They are probably a bit irrationally afraid of fire.

Then there are those who deeply understand liberty. They know what it is, at an instinctive level. They understand the implications of having it as well as those of having it denied. They can find ways to create liberty where none exists. They know people only get as much liberty as they respect in others, regardless of how they personally feel about those other people.
These are like the people who understand fire. They understand what it is and why it is necessary, and hidden ways it is used that most people never notice. They understand the chemical and physical processes which cause fire, and due to this understanding, can think of new ways to make fire if none of the known methods are available, and they can dream up new ways to use fire once they've got it.

So, trying to explain liberty to some people is like trying to show a dog how to make a fire with flint and steel, and then use that fire to smelt iron, make tiles, and cook a meal. They simply can't understand. Do they have a hole in their mind where liberty should be? I don't know. Is there a way to help them understand, anyway? I'm not sure.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

It's logical and factual

If theft is defined as an act in which property is taken from the owner against the owner's will, and if taxation is an act which (ever) involves property being taken from its owner against that person's will, then taxation is theft. If taxation is theft, and theft is wrong, then taxation is wrong.

In the same way...

If you can't archate and remain a good person, and cops have to archate to keep their "job", then cops who continue to be cops can't be good people.

You can rail against either point all you want, but you can't change the truth.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
A few more helpers would be wonderful about now...
Follow me on Steemit

You can't handle the truth- so you bully

I'm sure you've seen it yourself.

Someone doesn't "properly" worship Holy Pole Quilt, and offended statists threaten to come beat up the unbeliever.

Someone doesn't promote the lies hiding the truth about "The Troops" and the US military, and the fanboys start spouting desires for aggression against the heretic.

Someone tells the truth about cops, that they are nothing but a nasty gang of thugs, and their supporters lose their minds and start advocating your murder-- usually at the hands of the cops.

Someone refuses to give up their guns "in spite of" of the actions of some evil loser, so anti-gun bigots call for their government goons to go door to door stealing guns and killing anyone who resists.

Way to admit you just lost the debate.

Threatening aggression against someone who disagrees with you is a cowardly thing for a loser to resort to. It is also an indication that the statist is stupid. If you have no arguments, just threaten to punch or murder the person who exposed your lies.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Many misunderstand Declaration of Independence

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 20, 2017)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence

Those are some of the wisest words from American history. Sadly, they are almost entirely ignored today, other than occasional lip service to keep up the charade.

As stated, all humans are born equal; with identical rights. This doesn't mean people are equal in ability or that outcomes are guaranteed. "Unalienable" means no one has the power to separate anyone from their rights in any way for any reason. No one has the right to deny anyone their right to life, liberty, their pursuit of happiness, or any of the other rights which it admits those three are merely "among". A government office doesn't grant this power, nor does "national security" or any other excuse.

Government is not the "Creator" of the people, nor of their rights. Equality and rights do not come from government, nor are they only possessed by people under particular governments in certain lands. The Declaration doesn't claim any rights depend on citizenship, or even residency, but exist in all humans, for all times, wherever they may be.

I wish more people understood this.

In fact, I wish more people would read and understand the Declaration of Independence, noticing how it applies to today's situation. The US government has become far more tyrannical than was the government of King George III. Eighteenth Century Americans were bothered enough by the king's violations to divorce Great Britain; backing their decision with deadly force when their right of self-determination was opposed.

Less than one hundred years later, these lessons had already been forgotten. They had become an inconvenience to the ambitions of a home-grown tyrant.

The Declaration doesn't say the union which became the United States of America was to be a suicide pact; no one able to leave after joining. In fact, it states the exact opposite quite clearly. All political bands are dissolvable, as a human right, when the rights of the people are violated by a government which refuses to back down. Notwithstanding the outcome of Abraham Lincoln's war. Lincoln was on the wrong side of that bloody debate.

If you respect the Declaration of Independence, you can pretend its principles don't still apply to each and every person alive, but only at the expense of your honesty.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The evil loser's bump-fire stocks

I am probably alone in this opinion, having seen several saying otherwise, but I don't believe the use of bump-fire stocks by the Las Vegas evil loser necessarily saved lives.

The argument is that a bump-fired rifle is difficult to aim accurately, bouncing around as it does due to how bump-fire stocks work, and had he aimed more carefully, he could have killed more people. I think this is completely irrelevant.

That's because if you are firing into a dense crowd, from a distance (and at height), you're probably not going to be really aiming, beyond generally pointing at the crowd. You aren't going to pick out individual "prey animals", but you're going to spray the "herd" with bullets and see what you hit. A bump-fire stock would mess up aimed shots, but not indiscriminate rapid fire. And, someone choosing to carefully pick targets at that distance would probably have chosen an entirely different type of rifle, to begin with.

Of course, I'm suspicious that the narrative around that event is being manipulated and lies are being pushed. But, it doesn't matter.

No one has the right, or the "authority" to make up "laws" against weaponry, weapon parts, or add-ons. It doesn't matter what some evil loser uses a particular weapon for. The right is absolute and not subject to a v*te, majority opinion, or anyone's feelings. It doesn't change after a tragedy or a malevolent act.

Any "laws" against bump-fire stocks are evil and stupid, as are those advocating them. Regardless of what an evil loser chose to do with them. The "laws" against self defense and against the proper tools to successfully exercise it are the problem-- one which could be solved so easily, if anyone actually wanted to.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

If someone chooses to archate

One of the most common objections to a free society is that some won't go along with the principles. Some people will choose to be bad guys. When this objection is brought up, the objector seems to believe no one has ever pointed this out before, and that this is the final nail in the coffin.

That's dumb.

Yes, in a free society there will be thieves, murderers, rapists, con men, and every type of bad guy you might run across here and now. The only difference is that they won't be justified by a badge, a title, or a "job". If they mean to make excuses for their behavior, they are on their own, with nothing to hide behind.

This is a pitiful objection. So, when someone chooses to archate, what will you do about it?

The solution for such behavior is the same here or there-- but there wouldn't be unethical obstacles erected to protect the bad guys from the consequences of their behavior there, as is the case here.

But, in either situation, when someone does archate, then what?  Do you just give up? Lie down and die? Beg for a gang of thugs to save your pathetic self?

I hope not!

You still have no right to archate by attacking anyone who didn't do it. You have no right to archate by making (or enforcing) a "law", or otherwise governing others. Their archation doesn't justify yours.

What you can do is to defend yourself (or your property) against the person doing the violating. You can defend other people from their molester. When they "start it", you don't archate by responding, as long as you don't go beyond what you have a right to do. Don't cause "collateral damage", and if you accidentally do, pay up (figuratively and literally).

Self defense isn't archation. Self defense is a fundamental human right; one which can't be eliminated by "laws" or cops. Those nasty things can make self defense more costly-- more dangerous. But the right can't go away.

I understand if someone chooses to not defend themselves and others in this governed "society" which basically criminalizes self defense, but there would be fewer excuses in a free society.

So, yes, there will still be bad guys, but they shouldn't be much of a problem unless you refuse to take responsibility. And if you won't take responsibility, you are part of the problem anyway. Here and now, as well as in a future free society.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Trump vs Kim vs Everyone else

If you see the problem between North Korean bullies and United Statesean bullies as a problem between North Korea and America, you may be a statist.

The North Korean bullies need to keep the North Korean prisoners from seeing them as the enemy (as they are), so they say they want to build nukes to protect their "country" from American aggression. But, it's not Americans who are the problem; it is the US government-- a totally different critter.

And the US government is an aggressive problem, not only to North Koreans, but to every individual on the planet. In the grand scheme of things, the US government is a much greater threat to someone living in a tiny town on the Great Plains than "North Korea" could ever manage to be.

However, this doesn't matter to the North Korean bullies, since it serves their need either way. Just as the boogyman of "North Korea" does for the US bullies trying to manipulate their prisoners into not storming the castle with torches and pitchforks.

Governments and their supporters are so pathetic. But they do play an effective game, as long as people don't think too much or too clearly.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

When, deep down, you know you're wrong

It seems almost nothing gets statists as stirred up these days as declining to participate in their religious rituals.

Isn't that just the silliest thing?!

It's not even as though I am wanting to forbid Holy Pole Quilt worship rituals. If that sort of thing makes you happy, go right ahead.

But, I guess that's how you can tell a person is a statist: they are never content with doing their own thing-- they demand you do it, too. If you don't, they'll threaten you with physical harm, or worse. Or demand you get out of their country, without noticing the irony of their demand.

Statism is a very childish set of beliefs and behaviors, backed with aggressive extremism. And "laws".

All of which makes me even more certain they are wrong. If you are right, you won't need to threaten and bluster; you can calmly speak and reason. And, if someone isn't convinced, you go your own way and leave them alone to go theirs. You know, like a mature person.

Since statists seem incapable of behaving this way, it shows me how vacuous their "philosophy" truly is.
It's the Way of The Loser.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

No, I'm not running away

Just a heads-up: After tonight my internet is going to be shut off for a couple of days (until I'm able to pay the bill).

Depending on the weather, I may plop the laptop in the bike trailer and ride over to borrow a cup of wifi from my parents' house.

Otherwise I'll try to have some posts set to automatically publish without my help, but if I don't respond to comments or emails for a couple of days (or not in a timely manner), that's why.

(Added: Not looking for anyone to bail me out, just letting people know.)

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Reasonable" non-solutions

When did it become "reasonable" to violate others?

This is something I see as very strange, and it is part of why I despise "pragmatism" so intensely. It has gotten to the point that if you can't find a way to get what you want voluntarily, while respecting the identical and equal rights of everyone else, you claim you are being "pragmatic" while advocating the opposite of what your supposed goal is, and get a pass. Your "heart is in the right place". You "care".

I understand it is inconvenient to work strictly within your rights, and respect the rights of others. It is easier to cheat; to use the political method to get what you want.

I will always see that as a cop-out. As lazy and wrong. Even if you claim it is necessary to get where you want to go.

You are upset that a bad guy used a gun to kill a lot of innocent people. OK. Fine. So am I. So find a way to deal with that problem without becoming like the bad guy. Without violating people's rights. Because, quite honestly, if you choose to cheat and make up new restrictive "laws", you are no better than a mass murderer. And you won't solve the problem anyway.

You don't like drunk driving? Neither do I. So find a way to fix the problem without violating everyone's rights. If you can't, you'd be wise to do nothing rather than to become a bad guy by using "laws" to violate the human right to travel unmolested.

You don't like that people cross the government's imaginary, property rights violating "borders" to v*te against your rights or otherwise archate against you? Well, there are dozens (or more) ways to approach the problem ethically. Building a wall, increasing "border security", and "papers, please" checkpoints aren't among them. Just because you feel powerless to strike at the root doesn't excuse your hacking at the branches and violating the rights of others. Dig up the root, because this is the only way to solve a problem without violating anyone. The problem is "free stuff" socialism. The problem is "laws" against defense and the proper tools to carry it out. The problem is v*ting and politics and "taxation". The solution is freedom of association, property rights, and self defense. I know those things are hard to advocate. I know how unpopular they are. But that is no excuse to do the wrong thing.

You're unhappy that medical care has been priced out of your reach. It's a huge problem for me, too. The right way to approach the problem is to recognize what caused it in the first place. Government has been allowed to meddle with, regulate, ration, and prohibit medical care. The solution lies with stopping that, not with stealing from some to finance the health care of others. The solution doesn't involve enslaving doctors and nurses and hospitals to force them to work for you. It's cowardly and lazy to assume it does, rather than doing the hard work of getting government out of health care (and the rest of life).

And yet, in all those instances, the extreme individual-violating ideas are the ones portrayed as "reasonable", while the ones which would actually fix things are dismissively laughed at. Solving problems without molesting, robbing, and murdering has become "Utopian".

A "solution" which violates the rights of even one person is not a solution; it is an additional problem.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Socialistic Theocratic Statism

All statism is socialism. The only disagreement among the socialists is how to impose socialism on each other, and on the few of us who aren't socialists.

Also, all governments are theocracies. They only differ in which specific god they want controlling you. Some want Jehovah. Some want Allah. Some want the god of government-- they may call it "democracy", or "the republic", "the Constitution", or some other name. But it's still their god, and they want it to rule YOUR life.

I reject imposed socialism and all theocracy. You do what you want, but keep your filthy government off my life.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Ready to welcome you to free society

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 13, 2017)

Are you ready for liberty? How ready?

Few people are sufficiently ready for liberty to be willing to let go of government. At least not totally. Even while complaining about the corruption, expense, and incompetence that infects government at every level, they look for excuses to keep it around. They believe it can be fixed. I shake my head in wonder. What could they be thinking?

Do they fear a free society? A society without someone else to run their life and make their decisions. Without someone imposing their ideas of right and wrong on others; making everyone less able to recognize the difference for themselves with each new law. A society where no one is able to pretend they are made safer by trying to delegate their responsibilities to others. This is to say without the specter of government hanging over life. Is fear what keeps them from finding better solutions to life's troubles?

Good news! If you feel the need to keep government around for any reason, I am not out to stop you.

I don't mind if you keep your tax-funded government schools, police, military and whatever else you feel you need-- as long as I can completely opt out without being forced to leave. I would be exempt from all taxation ("taxation" is just a fancy word for theft). I won't be paying for those things I don't want, so I agree to not use them.

I have no problem with paying users fees for things and services I do use, such as roads. At least until I don't need them anymore. You don't get to use government to stand in my way and prevent me from trying non-government alternatives, though. So if I invent a flying car with built-in collision avoidance you don't get to force me to get FAA approval or a pilot's license.

None of this would exempt me from the consequences of violating you. If I harm your person or property, I wouldn't expect you to be able to handle it yourself, so I accept I could face your government's hired guns coming after me. Since I don't plan to violate you, this won't be a deal breaker.

Keep your post office, prisons, courts, and whatever else you believe you can't live without. Just leave me out of it. Then we'll see whether I come crawling back or whether you quietly join the free society with me. I'll be waiting to welcome you.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Putting grit in the clockworks

Scott Adams almost gets it (again) (and again), but just misses the mark right where you'd expect. Right where "pragmatism" excuses violating people.

"...laws are not designed to stop the most motivated criminals. We’ve never seen a law in any realm that stopped all crime. At best, laws discourage the people on the margin. Gun control is no different. The objective is to add some friction and reduce the risk that someone angry enough to pick up an AR doesn’t also have a bump stock in the house." 

What is he missing?

The "friction" doesn't only work against bad guys. The fact is, if you add "friction", it prevents some percentage of good people from owning the gun they need to defend themselves, just as it might prevent some percentage of bad guys from having some specific tool.

It's convenient to ignore that part of the equation when you feel the desire to justify the unjustifiable.

This is why all anti-gun "laws" are evil. They are always going to be a net negative, because there are only two kinds of "laws"- the unnecessary and the harmful. Anti-gun "laws" are harmful, because for every hypothetical life saved, there is a hypothetical life lost. Plus added expense, time lost in trying to comply or maneuver around the "law", and risk of being caught doing nothing wrong, only "illegal".

I continue to think it is better to fail to act and maybe allow someone to be harmed, than to act to cause someone to be harmed. One is just a consequence of the Universe, the other is a consequence of you causing harm.

Anti-gun bigotry (which is the basis for every anti-gun "law", whether admitted or not) is nothing but "feelings" over rights and reality. Cowardice. My feelings don't trump your rights. And I'm OK with that. I wish other people would stop pretending otherwise.

Back to the blog linked, Adams makes other flawed claims: "Both sides pretend they are arguing on principle, but neither side is."
Really? respecting the absolute right of humans to own and to carry weapons isn't arguing from principle? You might not like the principle involved, but it is there. But there is no principle involved in violating human rights, so the anti-liberty bigots are always on the wrong side.

He also says "Both sides are arguing from their personal risk profiles, and those are simply different. Our risk profiles will never be the same across the entire population, so we will never agree on gun control."
Here's the problem with that... if you believe that owning a gun is "risky" for you, then I am in favor of you making the personal choice to not own one. However, your "risk profile" places no obligation on anyone else. Ever. My gun is not a risk to you as long as you don't try to archate in my presence. No matter how it makes you feel. Cowards, and those who want to be able to archate in relative safety, will never agree with me on anti-gun "laws"-- and I'm OK with that, too. They are only testifying against themselves. And it isn't my responsibility to coddle them, or allow myself to be violated on their behalf.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Different opinions

Yeah, I know you're not supposed to consider people with opinions which differ from yours to be evil or stupid. And, I really do try.

But...

This means I'm not supposed to consider people who think rape is an OK way to interact with women to be evil. Their opinion simply differs from my opinion. Right?

Just like my opinion is that it is NOT OK to make up "laws" against self defensive tools, and if you do you are violating people. How can it be otherwise?

It means I'm not supposed to consider someone who believes "taxation" isn't theft stupid, regardless of the plain facts of the matter. Which do they not understand? What makes an act "theft", or how "taxation" is carried out? And, once both are explained to them and they still refuse to believe "taxation" is theft, I'm supposed to not think them stupid? They might as well believe fire is the breath of fairies, as far as I'm concerned. One belief is no less rational than the other.

OK, so maybe the people aren't evil or stupid, even if they keep refusing to change opinions that are. I understand that people get so invested in their opinions that they become immune to facts. It's human nature. Maybe opinions don't make a person stupid or evil until acted upon.

But how can a person hold opinions they don't act on? How could a person's opinions fail to guide their life? And, wouldn't this cause people with stupid or evil opinions to act evil or stupid? How consistently does a person have to behave in an evil or stupid way for me to consider them evil or stupid?

Really, if you can pretend that people with evil or stupid opinions, who act on those opinions to cause harm to others, are not evil or stupid, you can probably justify anything.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit