Stand your ground, but don't start trouble

There was a recent shooting, which is being promoted as a"stand your ground" incident, in Florida. It has turned into one of those "big things" on the internet, with people picking sides.

In some ways it seems like exactly the sort of thing anti-gun bigots warned would happen-- trigger-happy bullies looking for a fight (because they can and because they feel confident they can win)... and finding one.

To others it seems a clear case of self-defense.

Personally, I'm torn.

Without more information I can't come down definitively on either side. The information it would take to make this clear-cut either way is unlikely to ever find its way to me.
So, let me tell you what I see from both sides.

Yes, it looks like the guy who got shot initiated force-- it seems clear he was the first to touch the other. But to me, it also looks like he was backing away and was no longer a threat when he was shot. "Stand your ground" wouldn't apply if that's the case. But maybe he was just staging for a charge. Or maybe he was de-escalating at the sight of the gun. I don't know. Without knowing what each person was saying it's not possible to know for certain what was going on.

It is known that the shooter first approached and exchanged angry words with the soon-to-be-dead guy's girlfriend. (It is claimed that the shooter has a history of confrontations over handicap parking spaces, but who knows if this is true.) What did he say to the woman, and was he making a credible threat to initiate force? If so, then he's the one who started it, even if he wasn't the first to actually use physical force. You don't have to wait until someone takes a swing at you to rightfully defend yourself if he's telling you he's going to swing at you.

How can you tell if a threat is credible or not?

Some random blowhard on the internet saying he's going to come to your house and kill you, when he doesn't know where you live, is hundreds of miles away, and has no real way to carry through with what he's saying is not making a credible threat.

Someone in your face screaming that he is going to beat you (or your friend) to a bloody pulp is making a credible threat. He is clearly saying he intends to initiate force, and due to his proximity, he is able to carry through immediately. You have the right to believe him and to use force against him in that case, even before he actually touches you. The Zero Archation Principle isn't a suicide pact.

Now, since I wasn't there I don't really know all that went on. Parking in the handicap space was a loser move, not because of the state's permit system, but just for the human decency of healthy, capable people leaving the close spots for those who need them, blue paint or not. Getting bent out of shape because someone parked there without the "required" permit is also a loser move. After those two things, I can't have much sympathy for either combatant, even before admitting I think fighting over such trivial things as a parking space is always a loser move.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Letting reality upset me

I shouldn't let myself get upset that there are bad people and injustices. Those things are just part of reality and aren't going to go away just because I don't like them.

On the other hand, I shouldn't pretend they don't exist just so I feel better. Refusing to see reality as it is, or refusing to speak up just because it's not what "polite society" does, isn't healthy. It's not honest.

Turning a blind eye to those things would make me a part of the problem. It takes away any possibility of being part of the solution. If there is a solution.

I will not pretend archators are good people or are doing right. I can't. I would be lying to myself and others, including to the archators. That's doing no one any favors even if it spares "feelings" and makes me a welcome part of society.

Finding a way to recognize the bad stuff without letting it get me down is a balancing act I've not perfected.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Evil in the pew

If you attended a church where an admitted serial killer often showed up, or even attended faithfully, with no intention of ending his murderous hobby and no admission he did anything wrong by murdering, would you speak up?
Would you find the church leadership credible if they didn't point out the guy's evil ways?
Would you continue to attend this church?

How can church attendees sit approvingly, or at least silently, while cops attend? At the very least they should be asking them to repent and police no more.

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide if I get paid.

Krimes which didn't happen

If you get mugged, your home gets burglarized, or your car is stolen, you would be right to say the Blue Line Gang (the armed government employees often known as "police officers") didn't prevent that krime.

But cop supporters would point out that you can't know how much of something was actually prevented since it didn't happen. Maybe you avoided being robbed multiple times rather than the once, just because cops exist. And they do have a point.

It's impossible to say how much theft doesn't happen because cops exist. It's impossible to say anything meaningful about events which didn't happen. "Alternate history" is "alternate" because it isn't history.

But it is possible to know exactly how much theft is committed openly in order to fund police, and through them just doing their "job" because they don't generally hide it. It's a huge amount of krime caused by cops, but the relative amounts of each type of krime is irrelevant. One doesn't justify the other.

I don't want cops infesting my surroundings no matter how much you feel you need them. I'm perfectly willing to take my chances because the theft that comes with cops being cops is too expensive. They aren't worth it to me.

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide if I get paid.

Libertarian criticisms miss mark

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 20, 2018)

Recently, I read a rant describing libertarianism in unlibertarian ways. This is normal. I've never seen a criticism of libertarianism which hit the mark. The point is usually that libertarians are selfish and don't care about other people; a claim which only works on those who are in the dark.

It is said we don't care about the poor because the taxes and regulations we're against are for their protection. Yet taxes and regulations hit those hardest who are least able to afford them; much harder than those with a stable of lawyers standing ready.

Detractors say libertarians don't believe in altruism and would destroy the "social safety net". They are mistaken. Altruism never involves robbing some for the benefit of others. The truth is, instead of relying on a safety net bought with the anti-social practice of taxation, libertarians prefer to help people voluntarily. This is true altruism and is safer for everyone than today's system.

Libertarians are scolded for heartlessly refusing to admit the protection government provides society against bad guys. Except when those bad guys are politically connected, hold an office, or run one of the thousands of bureaucratic positions used to rob and control members of society in the name of governing. You can't protect society by sacrificing the individuals who comprise it. I refuse to admit this "protection" for the same reason I refuse to admit the health benefits of cancer.

Libertarians, we are told, should realize not all politicians are out for themselves; some have the best intentions. We shouldn't blame them for using institutionalized theft and coercion to impose their good ideas on others. It's the system's fault... but don't question the system's legitimacy either.

Finally, libertarians "only care about their own freedom", despite the fact I spend more time trying to inspire others to exercise their rightful liberty than I do worrying about my own.

The list goes on, never getting close to the truth. Every criticism is the equivalent of saying how much I dislike people who collect stamps because they sit on a boat baiting hooks all day. It's total nonsense.

Which brings me to the most dishonest anti-libertarian statement of all: "Libertarians believe that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." Replace the word "libertarians" with any other political stance out there-- Democrat, Republican, socialist, whatever-- and I couldn't have summarized the pro-government position any better myself.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Serving up hot coercion

If you work for the State you are not "serving".
If your "job" comes with a paycheck extorted from people who didn't value your effort enough to pay for it voluntarily, you are not serving.

You don't "serve" in the military, in congress, or "on the bench". You prey on people's life, liberty, and property, but you don't "serve" anyone beyond the political bullies who hold your leash and steal money on your behalf.

If you really wish to serve, provide a service which people will be willing to pay you for. One which they won't have to force their neighbors to chip in for. Be a good guy like Ross Ulbricht, not a bad guy like Donald Trump or Barack Obama.

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide whether I get paid.

Pigs... in... Space!

Can we engineer liberty in space by designing "just the right kind" of government?
Can we achieve liberty with just the right amount of slavery?
How does anyone imagine that would work?
Why build failure right into your plan from the start?

And yet, that's what some people believe is needed. Government and its "laws". In space. What other types of pollution are needed out there?

Some people are crazy, and not in a good or amusing way.

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide whether I get paid.

Political poisoning

I don't talk "politics" at home much. If at all.

I certainly don't talk about politicians. So it's interesting how my daughter has picked up on the Trump hate from... somewhere. Maybe the Roblox gaming videos she watches on Youtube, I suppose. I can't think of anywhere else.

There might be several reasons for this just showing up now. Her age might be part of it. She wasn't old enough to be aware of what was going on with the rule of Barack the Great. I do know her "teacher" at kinderprison a couple of years ago worked very hard to indoctrinate Hillaryism into the prisoners at her disposal. I did have a little talk with my daughter about evil politicians-- specifically evil politicians I knew a bit better than most-- over that episode.

I have a yardstick that I use-- if someone is having fits about Trump doing something they would have ignored (or even praised) Obama for doing, I see them as a hypocrite in the throes of Trump Derangement Syndrome. And I see this a LOT!

There are no good presidents; no good politicians.

I have no problem with her hating politicians. I see it as the beginning of wisdom. But, in the post-Trump years, if she doesn't express the same feelings for the next Bully in Chief, I'm going to have a sit-down and see why.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide whether I get paid.

Encircled, enclosed, and trapped

Someone recently brought up the scenario of being encircled and trapped by other property owners so that you can either not access your surrounded property or you can't escape from it. At least, not without giving in to the other property owner's demands, whatever they may be.

Specifically, his comment was:

...Curious what your current thinking is about the problem of locking people out of their property, or the property to which they are invited, when one or more people acquire all the surrounding property and then deny you ingress or egress. Example: someone acquires the property rights to all the roads surrounding a subdivision of houses or businesses, and then either flatly refuses to allow anyone to cross their property, or charges extortion tolls (say, $100,00 to cross the road -- or demands that you hand over the property you own for $1 in order to leave the trap they've created).
Clearly you have to right to stay alive. Is that aggression if someone locks you into your own property by buying the surrounding property, and thus you have the right to self-defense to use whatever force is necessary to leave it?

Somewhere I have written about this before, but I can't find it now, and my opinions may have changed since the last time I discussed it, anyway. So... time to delve into this again.

As I have come to see, "aggression" isn't the whole picture, which is why I now prefer the concept of archation. Imprisoning someone on their own property is archation. Keeping someone from accessing their own property is archation. Even if they would have to cross your property to use theirs.

If someone bought property with the intention of blocking someone's access to their own property, I definitely see this as blatant premeditated archation.

I firmly believe property rights are essential (but not sufficient). But that doesn't mean you have the right to use your property to injure others who are neither initiating force, nor violating property. Equal and identical rights for all. And simply crossing your property may or may not count as "violating" it, under the circumstances.

As I have opined several times over the years, you don't have the right to enslave someone as a condition of them being on your property, and you don't have the right to use your property as a prison. You have no right to say "Well, you're in my house, so I am within my rights to force you to have sex with me".

Even in cases where you are within your rights, sometimes it's not the right thing to do to exercise your rights in certain ways at particular moments. This would be one example if you were within your rights to imprison them on their property, or keep them off their property.

If I were to arbitrate such a case, both sides being non-archators otherwise, I would decide in favor of the trapped property owner, even if I felt he owed a reasonable* access fee. Any such fee would depend on the impact of his passage and probably on his ability to pay.

If someone is crossing your property to use theirs, they have no right to damage your property as they pass through, be it by taking things, leaving trash, destroying things, or whatever. They have no right to make a nuisance* of themselves, by screaming or otherwise impacting the property they are crossing. Their passage should be as light-footed as possible, and any damage or nuisance would create a debt subject to restitution.

I would expect the encircling property owner to designate the path of least impact, and not make it unreasonably* difficult. If more than one property owner were part of the encirclement, I would probably suggest a path along their property lines so neither would bear the full burden, unless one volunteered a path.

I would probably encourage a permanent easement agreement, maybe through the purchase of a small strip, or just the right of passage along a certain path which is non-revokable.

Of course, there is air travel, tunneling, and Star Trek transporter technology (just kidding) which can be used to reach an agreement for access to encircled property. And possibly things no one has thought of yet.

Sometimes, too, there's just not a good solution that works in the real world to everyone's 100% satisfaction, but I really think this is a solvable problem. Do you have any better ideas?


*Subject to arbitration, if need be.

Here is someone else's take on it.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide whether I get paid.

Cops don't stop

-

This blog is my job. YOU decide whether I get paid.

Balance

Between too much chaos and too much order, there's anarchy. Balance.

Between aggression and pacifism, there's self-defense. Balance.

Between a locked-down prison state with militarized "borders" and mass invasion of hordes of handout seekers, there are property rights. Balance.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Humans and rights

Pointing out that all humans have the exact same-- equal and identical-- rights isn't the same as saying all humans are exactly the same.

I notice "bordertarians" and other borderists making this nonsensical mistake over and over again in a desperate attempt to justify their anti-liberty position.

Rights don't depend on where a person was born, where they stand, or which State claims ownership over them. Rights only depend on their species and on them being alive.

Some cultures are better than others because some cultures (by which I mean the individuals who make up that culture from the "bottom up") "tolerate" liberty and respect rights better than others. This doesn't alter anyone's rights.

Some individuals are better than others because some individuals archate less often, and don't support archators as much as others do (they are more ethical than those who archate and support archation more often).

Some people are smarter than others, and everyone is smarter about some topic than just about anyone else.

Humans hold a variety of beliefs; often contradictory beliefs inside the same brain. It only matters what people do, not why they do it, or what beliefs led them to act. Some beliefs are better than others, and some are outright reprehensible-- those which convince a person it is right to archate being among the nastiest beliefs. Yes, some people believe it is OK to govern others; these people are holding a barbaric primitive belief. Everyone else has the right to defend themselves from the people with this belief if they try to act on it. No one has the right to govern because this is a right which can't exist. If it did it would contradict itself.

Humans come in a variety of sizes, shades, and shapes. This is irrelevant to their rights.

Humans are equal in the rights they have, and in nothing else.

This truth doesn't justify devotion to a theft-funded, anti-property rights, Big Government welfare/warfare program at "the Border". Nor does the intentional and dishonest conflation of political "borders" and private property rights. It's amazing to me how they can turn this around inside their own minds and call a rejection of their favorite type of communism "leftist". How can you twist your mind that much? I have no idea.

If someone who is otherwise libertarian believes something to the contrary, they are mistaken and internally inconsistent on this topic-- perhaps only on this one topic. They might be a fine person otherwise, but on this, they are wrong. And I would be dishonest if I failed to point this out.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Discrimination should be left legally alone

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 13, 2018)

Who would be desperate enough to eat a cake baked by someone who doesn't want to bake it? Would you want a wedding cake someone was forced to bake-- at gunpoint?

Even if the gun is hidden at first, every law comes down to "do as we say or we'll kill you".

At best, the newlyweds will get a cake they dare not eat.

So why follow this path? Perhaps they claim to only want things to be fair. Guess what-- fairness isn't a feature of the real world. You may as well accept the fact now. What you consider fair, someone else will call unfair. The reverse is also true; what someone else sees as fair you'll believe is unfair. The appearance of fairness depends completely on perspective. Dilbert's Scott Adams goes further, saying fairness is a concept invented so less-than-intelligent people could feel like they are participating in conversations.

Despite my skepticism about fairness, I'm in favor of everyone doing their best to make others feel as though fairness is real. There's really only one way to do this.

Just stay out of the way and let everyone exercise their right to choose who to do business with. Both as a provider and as a customer. Don't infringe anyone's right of association.

It's not only about religion. If you don't like someone's politics, the color of their skin, the way they speak, how they worship, or anything else, you have the right to decline to take their money, or to refuse to spend your money with them. It doesn't depend on the Supreme Court agreeing; this is simply a natural human right.

Someone will always step up to fill a gap if certain businesses choose to turn away customers. Think of all the willing and eager cake shops who never got the chance to show what an excellent cake they would have been happy to provide for the wedding which precipitated the recent cake ruling.

Discrimination goes both ways, and needs to be left legally alone. If bigots are out there, let them openly expose their bigotry. How else can you know who to reward with your business, or who to punish by going elsewhere?

There is one exception, of course: government doesn't get to choose who it serves until people are allowed to stop paying for services they don't want. As long as government exists as a monopoly, it is the only organization which can't exclude anyone for any reason other than non-payment.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

What's hiding beneath?

Statism has a thin, shiny scale of pretty-looking ethics hiding the evil beneath. It's sort of like nail polish on an infected, fungal fingernail.

Some statism shows its concern for the less fortunate while hiding its approval of theft. Other statism shows the world its concern for "family values" while hiding its family-destroying policies from casual view. And, the ethics don't hide just one evil, but a huge library of evils. All excused by the thin superficial layer of goodness.

The nice-looking ethics are good, but they stop short. They don't go far enough and don't redeem the evil that exists right beside them. It doesn't make you a good person to give the shirt off your back to one person while raping and murdering another.

All the aggression and theft is just below the surface, while the pretty, distracting scale of ethics hides it from view. But it only hides the corruption and evil from those who don't want to look.

The ethics embraced by any form of statism are only surface deep, used for less than ethical purposes, but the evil goes all the way to the core.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Delusions of "authority"

You know what strikes me as funny, pathetic, and arrogant... all at the same time?

Governments believing they can (or should!) impose "laws" which apply to people in outer space, on asteroids, and on other planets.

That's some serious delusions of grandeur, right there.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Childish, adult, or mature?

I recently heard someone who was making a distinction between the "childish approach" of the political "left" and the "adult approach" of the political "right". I believe he missed something important. He was so focused on "right" and "left" he forgot to consider right and wrong.

The childish approach: "That's not fair! It's hard. I don't want to do that! I just want to do stuff that I like."

His amoral "adult" approach: "This will hurt right now, but we need to do it anyway for a better long-term result."

The ethical mature approach (which he ignored because it is neither "right" nor "left"):
Don't do the wrong thing, no matter your justification or excuses. The right way might not feel as good. It might not bring the results you want as fast as some other ways. But if you can't get what you want or believe you need without archating, then you're just going to have to live with it. Unless you want to be a monster. You never have the right to archate.

As you can see, many times there are more than two choices (and there may even be more than three). Don't let people fool you into missing the best choice by trying to force you to choose between two contrived choices they prefer you consider.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Individuals and differences

Everyone is an individual. (Duh)

There are differences between individuals. These differences are real.

Some of those differences are affected by things which have been used historically to limit or deny natural human rights to some people. This is wrong.

Then there are differences which aren't as real. Even some totally imaginary things have been used as excuses to limit or deny natural human rights of some people. Things like nationality or "citizenship", for example.

Rights don't differ among individuals. Not based on any criteria. Not for any reason. No matter how you feel about it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

More options

And, I guess the buttons are way down somewhere at the bottom
 if you're on a mobile device

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Cops-- Abusing your bosses

The fact of the matter is, if you are a cop, the lowliest crackwhore is your moral superior... and your boss.
And if cops don't like that they can always quit and get an honest job.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

"Be realistic" = be a jerk

If someone truly believes it is "Utopian" to expect human interactions to be voluntary, how would you like being one of their family members, or a neighbor?

Do you think they'd be a good cow-orker or employee? (Be careful while orking cows!) Could you trust them at all if you weren't holding them at gunpoint?

Are they really that barbaric, or are they talking through their hat; not understanding the concepts they feel the need to preach at you about? Perhaps they are just saying what they feel needs to be said to justify archation. I suspect it's that last one, since they are apparently still alive and able to speak, so they must be choosing voluntary interactions the vast majority of the time.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Dear Badgescum...

How disgusting! What other molesters does the letter writer appreciate for their crimes?

If you fear "traffic stops", stop molesting and robbing drivers.

If you don't want to be filmed "doing your job", get a job that doesn't come with the obligation of letting your bosses see exactly what you are doing every single second you are on my clock, collecting a paycheck funded by money stolen from me and others who neither want nor need you.

The mainstream media can't crucify a character which doesn't exist.

Everyone gets tired at work. Everyone feels misunderstood. I promise you no one misunderstands you more than those deluded people who support you in spite of what you do.

So, you hurt when your fellow molesters die. If cops die, it isn't just because they are guilty of wearing a uniform and a badge-- it is because of the crimes committed by the gang they are announcing their membership in. A gang they would be kicked out of if they refused to commit the same crimes. You are guilty of the same things the dead armed government employees were guilty of. You can't show up for your "job" without violating life, liberty, and property. 

Yes, you are flesh and bone like me. And so is the rapist, the mugger, the serial murderer, and other people who make the decision to violate others. So?

The only thing you serve and protect are the politicians who give you the power and excuses to molest and steal, and the Blue Line Gang.

I don't want you or need you. Go away. Forever. Find an HONEST job and stop being a hired gun for the State. It's a mistake you could correct in less than a second, if you have a gram of principles and ethics.

It should HURT to be this much of a copsucker.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

America's Sharia Law

(Updated for reposting-- originally posted 1/19/2011)

One of the reasons I hear coming from "conservatives" for invading and occupying Islamic countries is so "they" won't take over America and force Sharia "law" on "us". You know, kind of an extension of the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" excuse.

True, I have no wish to live under such a brutal and primitive, and painfully stupid, system. But doesn't that mean we should deal with the mote in our own eye and get rid of our own version of Sharia "law" too? Otherwise we are just being hypocritical. Again.

Sharia law is no more obscene than most of the counterfeit laws in America. Kidnapping and murdering people over plants? Or chemicals? Or because they refuse to facilitate their own muggings? "Laws" based on what people claim their god wants?

If we refuse to put up with being ruled by Sharia "law", why don't we refuse the US equivalent and refuse to tolerate drug laws, gun laws, sex laws, tax laws, seatbelt laws, property codes, obscenity laws... and the list goes on almost infinitely to embrace any and all "laws", based on a religion, which attempt to control or regulate anything other than actual aggression or theft.

Sorry, but if your god approves of the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, or government sanctioned (or prohibited) marriage, or 99%+ of the rest of the things that "The Law" concerns itself with, your god is a monster. And if you continue to follow your god (whatever name you call him) in spite of his monstrosity, then you are no better. And if you think it is a good idea to impose "laws" like this, and enforce them against your neighbors who may not share your religion, you should be happy with Sharia "law". As for me, I'll take liberty and respect yours as well.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Rule by majority unfair to minority

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 6, 2018- I don't write the headlines*)

Politics might be an amusing hobby, but it is a horrible basis for a society. One should never confuse government with society. Society grows naturally from the voluntary interactions of people, while government is anti-social; imposed by those who imagine themselves at the "top" onto everyone they see as beneath them.

Unanimous consent is the way to get things done without coercion or theft. Let those who agree work together without forcing anyone else to go along. If your idea relies on forcing people to participate, it's probably a bad idea. Anything which depends on force or coercion to survive should be allowed to die. Never use mob rule-- democracy-- to force people to do things they oppose.

Allegiance to a group shouldn't be assumed, mandatory, or dependent on where you live. Let people choose their own groups, and let the groups' territories overlap the way those of clubs or churches do. Let people switch between groups, or opt out, as their needs and circumstances change.

If your culture can't survive contact with a different culture, it may not be worth saving. Are you so dependent on the behavior and opinions of others that you can't live the way you believe you should if you don't have company? Yes, there is comfort in numbers, but you'll often find yourself in the minority over the course of your life. Embrace it. Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority you should re-evaluate your position. The majority is rarely right.

You have no right to enslave people for their own good, or what you imagine to be their own good. Let people find their own path, as long as they aren't stealing or attacking the non-violent.

You are responsible for yourself. You can take some responsibility for others, as long as you aren't imposing yourself on them. It's OK to allow others to make mistakes; to be wrong. It's usually how people learn. Don't let them drag you down with them, but realize when you need to back off.

You don't need others to live as you do, and everyone has the natural right to defend themselves from anyone who tries to force their way on them.

Remember that your ideas of what people should be doing may not be their ideas. If it would be wrong for them to force you to live as they want, then it would be wrong for you to force them to live as you believe they should.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

From the Ministry of Propaganda

It's no wonder people are confused about guns.

I was sent this in an email "news" alert. Here's an easy exercise... Spot the propaganda:

"Frustrated by state and federal lawmakers’ reluctance to address gun violence, local officials are starting a movement to control firearms within their borders. It’s an uphill task given that all but seven states have laws prohibiting them from doing so, but their work is slowly catching on.
In recent months, local governments have limited certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles, created “gun-free zones” and adopted zoning laws to keep out gun stores. “The failure of the Congress to pass policies that keep our communities and children safe means towns feel compelled to act,” Stephen Benjamin, mayor of Columbia, South Carolina, said

"Frustrated"? "lawmakers"? "reluctance"? "address"? "gun violence"? "officials"? "starting a movement"? "uphill task"? "their work"? "catching on"? "limited"? "created", "adopted"? "keep out"? "failure"? "policies that keep our communities and children safe"? "feel compelled"?

That's a lot of propaganda in only two paragraphs. I probably even missed some.

Why the dishonest phrasing? Is it because of the anti-liberty bias of the "news" organization? Yes. Yes, it is.

No matter your excuse, if you propose, pass, or enforce anti-gun "laws", YOU are a BAD GUY. YOU are as bad as the evil losers who shoot up crowds of ("legally") disarmed victims. You can try to veil your evil acts in all the glowing lies you want. It's still nothing but lies.

And when your lies warp people's opinions about something as critical as natural human rights you may actually be worse than the evil losers who shoot up crowds. Yes, "mainstream media", including the fly-by-night outfit which crafted this propaganda piece, I am looking at you and judging you. You don't measure up.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Statists: Blissfully unaware

How many statists-- even the flaming statists-- realize they are statists?

A friend's comment made me stop to consider the question. Her observation-- that the ones she knows are completely unaware of their statism-- is right on the mark.

They are like fish, unaware of the water they are immersed in. They can't feel it, taste it, see it or otherwise experience its existence. It simply "is". It is their "normal". They expect (if they are aware enough to expect anything) their experience to be universal.

I, however, can feel statism choking the life out of me sometimes. I'm drowning in the statism the statists can't notice.

Forget draining "the swamp"; their beloved cesspool of lumpy statism needs to be drained and dried and sterilized.

My life has been a case of learning to swim so that their filthy statism doesn't snuff out my life. It hasn't been easy. I think I'm getting better at it. And, I do what little I can to drain their treasured cesspool.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Follow your arrow

I don't know best how to run my own life most of the time; I certainly don't know best how to run yours.

I'm suspicious of anyone who claims to know how to run the lives of others; anyone who says they know what's best for you or me.

All I know is you and I have no right to archate. That leaves a lot of room for experimentation.

The path of archation isn't a good one, as it interferes with how others are choosing to live. Beyond that, you try your way and I'll try mine. If yours looks good, maybe I'll try to adopt some of it into my life.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Taking statists seriously

I know I shouldn't be mean to statists. I shouldn't ridicule them or point out that they are no better than molesters. Even though it's true.

That's not how you get people to listen and (possibly) change. This knowledge requires a change in me. And that change is hard and unpleasant and unnatural.

Statism-- the belief that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor-- is ripe for ridicule. This notion that people can't be trusted to run their own lives, so we need to have some (who can magically be trusted-- going against the original assumption) with power to run the lives of others is a demonstrable mess. It makes no sense. It is internally inconsistent. It doesn't work in the real world, with real people in real situations.

It's hard to not be mean to people who advocate something so stupid. It's hard to not point out how they promote evil acts. It's hard to not compare them to others who believed similar things with similar results.

I know I shouldn't, but it's not likely I'll stop. Too many people treat them with unearned respect and act as though they are actually contributing something to the human conversation. There needs to be another side to it. Someone needs to be pointing and laughing at their nonsense.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Not worshiping the State hard enough

I posted this to FB:

Hey..."great" job, Idiots. Declare independence from a state then turn right around and set up a new state which turns out to be far worse than the relatively weak state you rejected.
When you finally get rid of a tapeworm you don't rush out to swallow another one. Well, not unless you're an utter moron.
I reject your "4th of July" and embrace independence from all your states and other control freaks.

And was immediately graced with this comment:

You are totally lost!...I pray God for your salvation!.

And then she "unfriended" me. (I have no clue who she is, so I'll get over it.)

I find it interesting how some people tend to conflate their gods; confused over which one I'm not properly worshiping this time.
-

Related: Put independence back in the day

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Archators-- we are watching you

Sometimes I get the feeling that my readers and I are a quiet, secret little conspiracy for liberty. Quietly undermining the status quo-- at least the rotten parts of it-- below the radar.

It's probably just a symptom of an inflated sense of self-importance. But it's kind of a pleasant one.

"Hey, archators. We are here; watching, working, and undermining you and your gangs. Laughing at your claims to "authority" and legitimacy. You can kill us, but you can't stop the signal. And, if we feel cornered, you might die in the attempt."

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

"Reparations"-- You can't owe imaginary debts

The odds are almost certain that some of my ancestors were enslaved by the ancestors of someone else sometime in the past. When do I get my "reparations" for this slavery?

Of course, the odds are just as good that some of my ancestors also enslaved the ancestors of someone else sometime in the past. I guess any "reparations" cancel out.

And I'm OK with that because I have never personally been enslaved (if you don't count the attempts to govern me) nor have I ever personally enslaved anyone. I'm against enslaving anyone for any reason... and always have been. Even the kinds of slavery the "majority" approves of.

Abolitionists like me carry no guilt over slavery which was committed in the past-- long before we were born-- and can't owe anyone for krimes (which were then legal and "moral", but never ethical) of the past which I didn't commit and don't support. It's ridiculous that anyone could believe otherwise.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

'Nothing' is best government activity

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 30, 2018)

There is one thing government could do which I will support. One thing I believe it needs to spend more time doing. It's the one thing government can do best, the one thing government can do which will actually help, and the only thing which can justify taxation.
What is this extraordinary government activity? Nothing.

I support government doing nothing, and I believe it needs to spend more time doing nothing. Nothing government does is better than what the market can do. Government does nothing which helps, and nothing justifies taxation.

This doesn't mean I'm against everything government currently does; I'm against those things being done by government with money stolen from my neighbors who may not want such "services" at all. It's an important difference.

As long as people are going to imagine government is necessary or even desirable, I want it sitting in a donut shop day after day gossiping, eating, and drinking coffee rather than being out there meddling in our lives. I may still have to pay for it, but at least this would limit the additional abuses. If people are truly desperate to encounter government, let them go find it napping in its office, never running free in the community among the people.

It's why I favor gridlock. It's as close to government doing nothing as we're likely to get.

As lawyer, newspaper editor, and politician Gideon J. Tucker once observed, “No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” He noticed this fact back in 1866; the situation has only gotten worse since then.

Gridlock is a partial solution-- the one way, under the current circumstances, we can stay a bit safer from government's probing fingers.

As long as gridlock is paralyzing Washington, DC, neither side will let the other have a win, so new laws aren't being imposed.

While the politicians are at each other's throats, trying to prevent the other side from having its way with us, perhaps they'll be too distracted to find new ways of grabbing for our wallets, touching our bodies, and fighting against our liberty. It may be the best we can hope for until the people stop tolerating a distant gang of criminals always seeking new ways to control their lives.

I'm in favor of anything which helps government approach the ideal of doing nothing, even if it's only temporary and limited in scope. Gridlock is a good start.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Misplaced trust

If someone hated you and wanted you to die, would you follow their health advice? Would you let them talk you into behaviors you knew were risky? Would you listen to them at all?

Yet, people let government employees tell them what rights they have.

I see this all the time in responses from people when I say something about the right to own and carry weapons. Particularly on Quora, and especially among those who are saddled with a government which doesn't want them to have guns. (Even more than the U.S. government's aversion to an armed population, I mean,)

They constantly tell me what that specific gang of bullies says their rights are (and are not). They act as though I'm a barbarian for recognizing natural human rights.

If I pointed this out to them they might object that "their" government doesn't hate them nor want them to die; that it is only looking out for their best interests. Judging by the actions and the results of those actions, they sure could have fooled me. If they want the best for their subjects, that is.

It's a sad thing to see. I don't want to see people enslaved, especially when they do it to themselves. I don't want them trusting a gang of thugs to tell them what their rights are, or fooling them into believing rights are only privileges, and that only Neanderthals like me would expect anyone to respect rights.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Someone is confused

Terribly confused. (And I don't believe it's me.) He even stated it for the record, too!

How can he be a lover of Big Government, while being a hater of government? He can't.

On the "Hates government" side he has:

• Taxation is theft. (Yes it is. Even if you like what it pays for)
• "government hating" (which seems a dubious claim, considering)

On the "Loves government" side he has:

• "military and law enforcement supporting" (HUGE welfare programs, and what other molesters does he support?)
• "illegal immigrant hating" (it takes a government to declare something "illegal" and to decide something is "immigration")
• "border security" (HUGE welfare program, and why does he hate property rights?)

On the "irrelevant to the topic" or "insufficient information" side, he has:

• "Gun waving" (Cops wave guns. Troops, too. Government extremists love guns-- as long as they control them. Guns are just tools and it depends on who you are pointing them at)
• Free speech (speech can be pro-liberty or against... but where is he throwing it?)
• anti-abortion (I know people who are pro-liberty, and reasonable, on both sides of the issue)
• school choice (is this school I'm allowed to choose regulated and funded by government? Does my choice include not funding schools at all?)
• anti-handout (except when he's handing other people's money to military, law enforcement, ICE employees, etc. apparently)

So, yes, this guy (who I probably should have redacted, but I'm not going to) is mighty confused. That's why he's a "conservative".

No, "liberals"/"progressives" (who are neither) are not more consistent. I laugh at their confusion and hypocrisy just as much. And when I find a comparable hilarious example, I may share it as well.

Statists-- they don't get that way by being smart or consistent.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Don't archate, part 2

More accurate; too wordy

So, why shouldn't you archate?

The biggest and best reason is that you have no right to do so. Admittedly, most statists and kriminals (archators by another name) don't care. That doesn't change the reality, though.

And if someone is doing what they don't have a right to do, anyone has the right to use force (or whatever it takes) to stop them. If you don't like the consequences of archating, don't. This is a utilitarian reason, so not really the best, but it is still true.

If everyone archates constantly, a functional, positive society isn't possible. Trade wouldn't be possible. "Don't steal the stuff I stole from others" just doesn't work in the long run. Once again, this is too utilitarian for my tastes. And again, statists and kriminals won't care anyway.

But that's the thing, statists and kriminals don't care about a lot of things. If they did care, they wouldn't choose the path they chose. If someone isn't going to care about right or wrong, it's pointless to try to convince them an act is wrong, expecting it will make a difference to them. It won't matter to them. You're not going to talk them out of their wicked ways. So don't waste time trying. State the facts, then let the chips fall where they may. Facing unpleasant consequences is all that will matter, and it will matter most when they lose. Make them lose.

The fact is, "Don't archate" is just what I tell myself. I hope it's what you choose, but I'm only responsible for my own choices, not yours.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Statism isn't working?-- redefine "working"

I notice a lot of people have a hard time admitting when something isn't working.

They'll pretend it does work.

They'll redefine what "works" means to them-- in a way that often goes against how they originally defined it.

They'll ignore the failure as long as they don't have to change what they are doing.

It's probably smarter to stop as soon as you notice something isn't working, or if you feel the desire to redefine "works" in the situation. Think about how else you might approach the problem. Try something else. Don't keep doing what you've been doing just because it's what you've always done.

And, even if it does work, there's probably a better way just waiting for you to discover it. See if you can.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Don't archate

Don't tread on me > Don't tread on anyone > No one tread on anyone > Don't archate.

Seems simple enough. Why is it so hard for some to understand?

Probably because they don't want to understand, because it would show they need to change. To make themselves a better person.

Again, it's a suggestion. A promise from me to you. I think you'd be better off to adopt this philosophy, too, but I don't expect you to. Just know that it's how I will relate to you and others, including how I might react if you do choose to archate. For your own sake, and for the sake of humanity, don't archate.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Hair!

How many times throughout history have bullies sought to humiliate and dehumanize their victims by forcing them to grow their hair long? I doubt this has ever been the case.

Yet, how many times has the opposite been done, where thugs and bullies sought to humiliate and dehumanize their victims by chopping off their hair, or even by shaving their heads? Over and over again this has been a tactic used by vile archators against their victims. It has been done in Nazi concentration camps, U.S. government's Indian "schools", prisons, etc. Some of you history buffs may have lots more examples I'm not aware of.

Why is this the case? What gives the bad guys this idea repeatedly throughout history?

I understand some people, many people, choose short hair or a shaved head. I would never seek to force them to grow their hair out, even though the opposite is so often the case.

This is why I see long hair as a way to feel my own liberty, and why I don't cut it off. To me, it would feel wrong. I would feel less free. It would feel like giving the bullies what they want. Plus, I just like long hair (on everyone, regardless of how they believe it looks on them).

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Laws themselves a senseless crime

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 23, 2018)

Droughts are a serious problem. They cause wildfires, dirt storms, crop failure, and they deplete the aquifer. Droughts are harmful and dangerous. Someone should do something! Why aren't droughts illegal already?

On the other hand, you don't want floods, either. Or property-damaging hail or tornadoes. Those should be criminalized as well.

There needs to be a legal minimum and maximum amount of rainfall each month, and bans on assault weather, so everyone is safe and healthy.

Reasonable people understand it is absurd to criminalize nature. People who advocate, write, pass, and enforce laws are not reasonable people. When nature and laws collide, nature will always make a fool of laws.

I once had a short hedge which grew berries every summer. Nothing was interested in the berries until they fermented, then the robins would gather to eat the fruit and get drunk.

It was funny to watch and proves a point.

Robins aren't arrogant enough to threaten other robins with a cage for eating berries, and to kill them if they resist hard enough. Only certain humans are this arrogant.

Seeking mind-altering substances is not just a human trait. It goes much deeper into the nature of living things-- at least those with a mind to alter. Trying to make the behavior go away with laws is as stupid as criminalizing weather.

The potential to cause harm doesn't justify laws, either. Everything can cause harm, so laws covering anything could be justified by that standard.

Crime only occurs when an individual's life, liberty, or property has been harmed by the actions of another. Crime-- harm to individuals-- is the most common result of writing and enforcing laws. It's the same whether the laws are against substances, tools, or the victimless behaviors commonly called "vices".

Even in the case of harm, do you really need a law against murder before you'll accept it's wrong to murder? Would you wait to make sure murder has been properly criminalized before defending someone who is being attacked? I hope not. What is the point of a law telling you what you already know? Does putting it in writing really change anything? It justifies hiring judges, police, and prosecutors, and paying them all with money stolen "legally" through the act of taxation, but it doesn't solve anything.

You don't need laws to make acts which harm life, liberty, or property wrong, and laws which criminalize other acts or objects harm life, liberty, and property by their existence. Laws are a senseless crime.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Blogger might not like me

Just a heads-up.

Blogger has stopped notifying me about posted comments. I have no idea why, and making sure the settings are right hasn't fixed the problem. So if I miss a comment for a while, forgive me.

They've also stopped showing me search results on this blog earlier than about the past 2 years, making it hard for me to find older posts I want to link to. No idea what that's about, and my inquiry was ignored.

I'm also cross-posting on Wordpress (and just about always have, although it's somewhat of a mess) just in case Blogger decides my blog is unwelcome here. I prefer to keep this one as the primary blog, if possible.

.

Problems with "authority"

I don't mean I have problems with "authority, I mean there are problems with the concept of "authority". Besides it being The Most Dangerous Superstition.

Obviously, I'm speaking of political "authority", not expertise. Two unrelated concepts; one word used for both. Confusing by design.

"Authority" is the power to molest. That's really all it is. This power is based on superstition, but beliefs have consequences.

Probably, in the big picture, this is the thing "conservatives" get most wrong. Along with their absolute rejection of their greatest responsibility, while crowing about everyone else's "responsibility", that is. They don't understand what "authority" is, so they end up worshiping something nasty and disgusting, and criticizing others who see it more honestly than they do.

Political "authority" isn't a real thing. You shouldn't respect it. But you should realize dunderheads will murder you if they feel you have disrespected their delusional "authority". Individual beware.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium