The day cops surrounded me

(This is a re-run from August, 2008)

I used to give a presentation on the mountainmen of the Rocky Mountain fur trade each year for fourth grade at the local elementary school. I went to the classroom in full mountainman gear and talked about the history and the tools. I gave a few demonstrations to the kids, such as showing how to set a steel trap, start a fire without matches (both with flint and steel and with a bow drill; the kids' favorite), and how to load a muzzleloading rifle.

For years, there was no problem. Then one year my wife-at-the-time needed to use the car during my presentation. "No problem", I thought. I was mistaken.

That day I finished my program and went to the parking lot to wait for my wife to arrive. I sat down upon my blanket-roll near the school sign; holding my rifle upright at my side. After a few minutes I saw a cop car drive past slowly, but the cop inside didn't look at me. I thought that was odd. He pulled into a driveway and turned around and parked. A minute or so later, another cop car pulled up a little ways from me and also parked along the street. He sat in his car for a minute before getting out and approaching me with his hand on his gun. Out of the corner of my eye I could see the other cop now approaching from behind. I don't appreciate being stalked.

The cop greeted me politely and asked what I was doing. I explained the situation while the other cop stood off and watched. Then the principal of the school made an appearance. We explained what was going on to him, mentioning the teacher who had arranged my program. He knew nothing about it. A passing motorist had reported an armed person at the elementary school. Had I had mayhem in mind, the event would have been over by the time the cops arrived.

The teacher later apologized to me for forgetting to inform the principal of my presence. As it turned out, that was the last year I did the program since I moved away several months later. Amazingly, I survived to tell my tale, but for months townspeople would tell me they saw me sitting there between the two cops, looking rather unhappy.

-

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

Encounters with bureaucRats, episode 2

The bureaucRatic mind-- if it exists at all-- is a small, rigid thing. It has no capacity to deal with things it doesn't already understand.

My first car was an electric car-- yes, I have always been an environmentalist. When I went to the DMV office to register the car, they had their standard questions about the vehicle. But the answers weren't standard.

The DMV-bot asked the make and model. She'd never heard of either the make or model, but she dutifully typed that into the form. Then came the really confusing (to her) parts.

She asked how many cylinders the car had. Well, it was electric, so it didn't have any cylinders. That's not how electric motors work. I said "Zero". The woman said she couldn't put that- it had to be 4, 6, or 8 cylinders. I told her again it doesn't have cylinders. She just looked skeptical and moved on.

Next question: What fuel, gasoline or diesel? I said-- for the third or fourth time at this point-- that it was electric. It didn't use gas or diesel; it had no fuel tank. Only batteries and a charger. I plug it into an extension cord. Its fuel is electricity. That's all.

I got blank stares from her. She typed, collected money, and when she handed me the registration I discovered I had probably the world's only 4 cylinder electric car that ran on gas. I just laughed and showed it to people to illustrate the stupidity of those people.

And people wonder why I consider the bureaucRatic mind to most likely be a myth.

-

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

Losers become cops

Just in case you ever wondered what kind of damaged person would ever want to become a cop, here is the answer in full color.

Pathetic "Jay Gee" is bullied (and not too terribly literate), so he (?) intends to grow up and turn the tables. How often do you think he'll fear for his safety, because he just wants to make it home at the end of his shift?

Cops are losers, and losers become cops.

-

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

Encounters with bureaucRats

I recently told you about the town "tax" collector's issues with me when I owned a shop. Here are a couple of earlier encounters which happened when I was only an employee.

This was at a pet store. Every year the State tried new ways to make it too hard to comply with all the rules in an attempt to shut down pet stores. One year the State decided that customers who bought certain critters, like parakeets and iguanas, needed to fill out a State form. We also had to give them a State-mandated sheet detailing all the ways the animal could infect them with horrible diseases. So I would hand the customer the sheet and tell them "This lists all the reasons the government doesn't want you to have this pet. They require me to give it to you as a warning. You can read it or throw it away." Then I'd pass them the State's record book and say "The State says you have to fill out this form. I won't know if you use your real name." Most customers just laughed. I sold several pets to Mickey Mouse over the years.

Another time an inspector from the state department of agriculture came visiting. The shop owner wasn't there at the time. I can't remember now what his issue was, but he was trying to make me do something I wasn't going to do, possibly because it wasn't my store. (I wish I could remember what it was!) I just kept saying "no, I won't". He didn't understand why I wasn't bending over backward to comply. He made the mistake of saying he just had to enforce the law, and I wasn't against laws, was I? That BalderdaSh didn't improve my desire to cooperate with him. He ended up fleeing to the front steps, to talk to his boss on the phone, trying to figure out what to do about someone who wasn't in awe of his "authority". He ended up driving 200 miles back to the state capital, empty-handed. I guess he should have waited for my boss to be there.

I'm not rude. But if you try to threaten or push me using "laws" as your justification, it may not go according to plan.

-

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

"Happy" Blowback Day.

We were told they hated us for our freedoms (instead of for the US government's crimes). Now those freedoms are all but gone; attacked and shredded by the US government, continually, without a break for the past 17 years.

So, do they love us now? If not, that must not have been the real reason.

Government is the only terrorist organization capable of doing such society-encompassing harm. So why do "we" continue to negotiate with these terrorists? Why do we continue to comply as they criminalize more and more liberty? Why doesn't everyone see them as the true bad guys? They'll never stop until they are stopped. Why would they? They are getting just what they wanted.

-

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

Must be "opposite day"

I read a blog post where the act of v*ting was characterized as "prosocial" behavior.

Really?

When someone v*tes they seek to exert political power over others. Either to get a cut of other people's stolen property, to impose "laws" which violate the life, liberty, and property of other people, or to choose someone to rule over them. That certainly sounds like antisocial behavior to me.

So where does this idea that v*ting is "prosocial" come from?

Maybe it comes from the idea of "civic duty". Where you are expected to participate in, or at least endorse, society's worst behaviors so that no one else feels bad about the nasty things they do to others. Or, at least that's how I see it.

I know I absolutely don't see v*ting, or otherwise participating in politics, as "prosocial" in any way.

-

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

Just Believe? Even if you don't really?

In a list of things you can control, I saw "What you believe" listed.
I don't believe that's even slightly true.

I don't think belief is a choice.

If I truly believe something, to change that belief I'd need reasons. Reasons that change what I believe. Reasons showing why my belief is wrong. Not just reasons to believe differently. I could pretend to believe differently, but it would be a lie.

I can't believe I have a right to archate just because it would be convenient, or because I can't get what I want otherwise. I believe if I have no right to do something I shouldn't do it. Unless something changes my belief, that's what I believe. And the belief doesn't change just because I choose to change it. I would know I was only lying to myself.

It's like if I "decide" to believe rain is dragon urine falling from the clouds where the dragons live. I know that's not true, so I couldn't really believe it even if I tried to convince myself I do.

Same thing with the "(political) government is good" lie. I know it's a lie. I believe it's a lie. I can't believe what I don't believe, even if it would let me fit in better. My beliefs aren't arbitrary. Are yours?

-

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

3D printed guns might actually help

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 8, 2018)

Why all the uproar over 3D printed guns? It has always been fairly easy to make guns at home. Having the computer code available online won't change anything. People enjoy weeping, wailing, and gnashing their teeth over the silliest things.

For now, 3D printers are too expensive for common muggers to bother with; guns are cheaper to buy and easier to steal. Even if thieves start stealing 3D printers as well as guns, I doubt it will be much of a problem. Few burglars would be smart enough to figure out how to operate 3D printers-- stupidity, along with poor impulse control, being an almost universal trait of thieves.

3D printed guns will end up being occasionally used in crime. It's inevitable. Yet, this will usually be a case of the 3D printed gun being used instead of some other gun, not a crime which wouldn't have happened without 3D printed guns.

Those who believe they should control the content of our pockets are worried these guns, being made of plastic, might end up in places where they don't want us to have them. Even if plastic guns were undetectable (and they aren't), the ammunition isn't. Without ammo, any gun might as well be a brick.

I see this as evidence that 3D printed, non-metallic ammunition is the next essential innovation. At least until reliable electronic weapons, like those in science fiction, are perfected and available for common use.

Home-printed guns may have signaled the death of "gun control" as anything other than the tantrums of political control freaks. I can hope.

As long as government employees are armed, guns will be in the wrong hands; an angle which isn't even seen as an issue by those most adamant about disarming the rest of us. Tell that to the homeowner killed by the responding police officer in Aurora, Colorado last week. If he had survived the encounter he might disagree.

I doubt 3D printed guns will ever become anything more than an imaginary crisis for those who don't want you able to resist them doing things to you which you wouldn't permit if you were properly armed. Murder will still be illegal for most of us. As will theft. It will still be (unconstitutionally) illegal to sell printed guns without government approval. If laws could solve anything, there would be no crime. Since they can't, 3D printed guns aren't going to do any harm, and they might even help.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Upsetting thieves with truth

Unwanted

Years ago, long before I had a blog, I had a retail shop. I hated robbing my customers in the name of "sales tax", but if I didn't, armed goons would have come and murdered me. Insanity, I know!

But every time I wrote the check to the town's "tax" collector, on the memo line I wrote something like "sales 'tax' extortion for August". The "tax" collector called to question me about that-- or to whine-- a few different times. It drove her mad.

I wasn't rude to her, I simply said I didn't appreciate being recruited to rob my customers on her behalf-- that if she wanted to rob them she should go do it herself.

She would object, "but it isn't robbery, it's a tax!" Same thing, I'd tell her.

She would sputter, "but don't you want police and paved roads?" No, I really don't. There's nothing the stolen money buys that I want that bad. Can I stop robbing my customers now?

She actually showed up in person once, just to get me to stop writing that on the checks. Why did it even matter to her? I paid the extortion, but I never stopped editorializing on the memo line.

-

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

If you're only decent when threatened...

Then you aren't really decent at all!

I can get along with others without going to war. Even when I don't agree with them. In the absence of government, I'll not change into a monster. And I believe I have a good chance of fending off those rare pathetic losers who do.

I'm not that different from others, am I?

So why does everyone seem to always assume war, murder, and aggression are the default if there's not someone acting as a Big Parent to make them behave?

I think it tells a lot about a person if they believe that without a big bully making them behave, they'll go all "Lord of the Flies" or Mad Max on everyone around them.

-

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

Why all the socialism?

If it seems I've been talking too much about socialism lately, there's a reason.

I've been listening to someone who deeply believes in government. Believes it has the best interest of the people at heart. Believes it has a place in society. Believes it is necessary and usually good, even if it sometimes messes up. It's painful for me. The mental gymnastics it takes to believe such nonsense staggers my mind.

It's disappointing because I usually enjoy listening to Scott Adams, but his recent socialism kick is extremely misguided and dishonest. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it, just like right is right, no matter who you're listening to.

He constantly talks about how it isn't helpful to call anyone a socialist, not even if they are loudly advocating socialism. (I consider most Republicans to be socialists, too, promoting their own vile socialist programs, so I'm not picking on Democrats. To me, they are all DemoCRAPublicans.) As I've pointed out, you can call me an anarchist and it doesn't bother me, because that's what I am, and I know it's the right way to live. There's no shame in being called what you are if you really know it's right.

But he also constantly conflates socialism with sharing. It's bound to be on purpose. "You're not against sharing, are you?" Every time some socialist idea comes up in his podcast, he'll call it "sharing", totally ignoring the coercive nature of the act. In a recent example he claimed Uber is sharing, just like socialism, so if you're opposed to socialism, you must be against Uber, or any sharing. No, it's not the same at all. Uber is mutually consensual and voluntary, and you won't be forced to pay for my Uber ride. If I decline to use Uber, an Uber driver won't come to my house and murder me for not participating.

And that's the difference between ethical behavior and socialism. And, yes, ethics matters. It's not only about being pragmatic or utilitarian.

I'm not even against socialist (or even communist) societies as long as they let anyone opt out. I believe they will collapse, but let them. People have to be free to make their own mistakes, even if they die as a result. Otherwise, they aren't free at all. Let the socialists try socialism as many times as they want, but keep your filthy government-- socialist or whatever-- OFF my life.

-

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

The truth is too harsh for some to handle

I have come to see that the truth is unwelcome.

Anymore it's "wrong" to call self-avowed socialists socialists. It's not "helpful" to call them something they are proud of being. And their actions and preferences which confirm the label don't matter either. All they are advocating is "sharing"... right? Who could object to that?

It's "wrong" to call clear and obvious theft theft. As long as the thief calls it "taxation", a "fine", "eminent domain", "asset forfeiture" or some other made-up name, calling it "theft" is just being mean to those who support the thieves and their acts of theft. How else do I expect the thieves to survive? (I'd actually rather they didn't.)

It's "wrong" to hurt the feelings of people who live as parasites, because without them... what? Other freelance parasites would replace them?

The truth is "unhelpful". It's not polite. Those who point out the truth are Big Ol' Meanies! They hurt the feewings of the people who are trying to molest people instead of doing honest trade. I have a long history of hurting these people's feelings. But it's their choice. They are free to stop molesting any time.

-

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

Voluntary or barbaric?

There are some terribly confused people out there. I've been hearing some ideas expressed lately that show just how bad this confusion is.

Here are some hints that could clear it up, if they'd listen:

If it's voluntary, it's not taxation. It's giving.

If it's voluntary, it's not socialism. It's sharing.

If it's voluntary, it's not political government (the State). It's cooperation.

Taxation, socialism, and political government are not voluntary but are barbaric offenses against humanity. You can't hide this truth by calling the coercive act by the voluntary act's name.

Why does this seem so hard for government supremacists to understand?

Because understanding these simple truths doesn't advance their agenda. It's so much easier for them to have their way with you if you don't understand, either. That allows them to pretend they have the high ground. It allows them to pretend to be the "adult" in the room, scolding you for being hysterical and unreasonable.

Yet, the reality is simply this: Being against the coerced version of something doesn't mean you are against the superior voluntary version. And that's the reality which will be ignored, minimized, and poo-poo'ed if you allow it. They'll demand you allow it in the name of being reasonable and civil. How do you like that? Barbaric behavior as "reason" and "civility". No thanks. I won't cooperate with that nonsense.

-

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

XII

This blog is 12 years old today. Twelve years!

I can't even believe it.

There is a term I've seen repeatedly used to describe this blog: "under-appreciated".
Occasionally I've seen the phrase "undervalued" used instead.

It's nice to hear, but I'm not sure it is true. How can something be under-appreciated? Either it has value and people know it and appreciate it, or it doesn't. I'm not even sure how you could measure such a thing.

It is a nice sentiment, though. And I take it to mean I'm producing content (what a pretentious word!) that people believe is worth more than the recognition I get for it. That's a nice thing to hear.

So, thank you to those who have said that about my blog over the past 12 years. And thanks to all of you for reading and putting up with me.

-

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

New tariffs nothing to cheer about

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 1, 2018)

Some American workers are cheering President Trump's new tariffs. They know not what they cheer. Tariffs are as bad for you and me-- economically-- as taxing corporations. It's a great plan-- if your goal is to economically cripple America.

No one who truly understands economics would ever try to make the case otherwise.

When you tax a corporation, it never pays a cent of the tax, but passes the expense along to the final consumers-- you and me.

A tariff is a hidden tax which makes everything you want to buy cost more. Yes, even the things made in America. When foreign goods are artificially inflated in price by tariffs the American producers have less incentive to keep their prices down. I can't afford higher prices, can you? If you can, why not volunteer to pay more on every purchase without raising prices for everyone else?

I realize the American workers may believe their jobs are being protected by tariffs, but if everything they try to buy with their subsidized paychecks costs more, and less of the things they produce are being bought by consumers who can't afford higher prices, how have they gained anything? It's a comforting suicide pact between the workers and the government. But the government won't keep its end of the bargain.

There is a way to help American jobs-- kill the taxes. All the taxes, by whatever name.

Some people would worry that this starves government of funds it needs to carry out its programs and its mission. I call this a feature, not a bug.

This one act would boost the economy to levels never before imagined. How much more money would you have if there were no taxes on your income, on your purchases, nor on the production of anything you buy? You can't even begin to imagine.

Yes, you would still end up paying for some services you are currently taxed for. So? You're already paying, and paying the most wasteful, unaccountable organization ever created. Wouldn't you prefer to choose between offers, pay someone who provides the service you want, at the price you find comfortable, without being forced to pay for things you wouldn't pay for if someone weren't forcing you? I'll take competition and free choice over a coercive monopoly I'm not allowed to opt out of any day.

Taxes, even when you call them a tariff, always cost the little guy. Support them if you feel you must, but don't expect my help.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

"What if?"

It shouldn't surprise me, but it does, how many people want to rob and enslave others based on "what if?".

Yet, that's what I see every day.

They believe in the DMV's "job" because, otherwise, "what if" someone doesn't know how to drive? Or steals a car? Or doesn't have insurance?

Gotta love those cops, because without them, "what if" some freelance bad guy steals a fraction of what is stolen to support the State? "What if" you tried to use your property in a way the town council decided you can't be allowed to? Or "what if" someone (who isn't a cop) physically attacks you? Or "what if" someone wasn't there to take pictures of your murdered corpse? "What if" you drove as "irresponsibly" as the police do? Who could force you to pay the government for this crime?

Prohibition, anti-gun "laws", speed limits and seat belt "laws", are all supported because "what if" someone got hurt because no one was there to force you, at gunpoint, to do things the State has decided you should do, or to stop you from doing things the State has decided you can be murdered for doing?

To me, it looks like ethical weakness and cowardice. In every case. It's all I see in "laws" or government.

I will never advocate robbing or enslaving you for a "what if". I'm not that pathetic.

-

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

Ignorance of "the law"

What's one of the most ignorant things a statist can say? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." That's just about the dumbest thing that can ever come out of someone's piehole.

It's completely wrong. It has zero truth. It has no merit whatsoever. It is a lie told to justify molestation.

Not only that, but police are always enforcing "laws" which only exist in their own minds. If that's not "ignorance of the law", then what is? And they seem to always get away with it, so it must be a very good excuse-- at least for the Blue Line Gang.

Instead, making up a "law" is no excuse. A "law" can never give anyone a real excuse to molest people.

It doesn't matter if it's "illegal" to not wear a seat belt. That "law" is no excuse to stop and rob someone for not wearing one.

It doesn't matter if a particular weapon is "illegal" somewhere, or that carrying it in a certain way is against the "law". The "law" is no excuse to violate the natural human right to own and to carry weapons.

It doesn't matter if it's "illegal" to ingest certain substances. No "law" can ever give someone the excuse to behave as though they own your body.

It doesn't matter if it's "illegal" to fight back against molestation by armed government employees. No "law" can ever abolish your natural human right to defend your life, liberty, or property.

Ignorance of the "law" is not only a great excuse, it's the only excuse needed when the "laws" are almost all counterfeit. Ignorance of ignorant legislation which violates natural law can never be a real crime. Anyone claiming otherwise is looking for an excuse to molest you while pretending to be the good guy. You are not obligated to allow yourself to be victimized by that person.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid. Or not...

Disasterama

Why are socialism and other horrible, destructive ideas so popular?

Much of the national news media, social media elites, and "entertainment" figures seem to want socialism and other manmade disasters because of the drama they create. Lots of people love drama. It's not boring. It can make them feel important.

A nice day with good weather and no major attacks by evil losers? Boring. Who will listen to your belittling sermon about what they should give up if there's nothing to be worked up and scared about?

Hypertornadoes and a volcanic eruption causing "civil unrest" with riots, looting, and killing? "Tune in to the Breaking News to find out what you need to know! Brought to you without interruption by our sponsors and FEMA."

Archation-- both freelance and State-- create drama. If you won't freak out on your own, they'll hand you a State which will prod and poke you until you snap. It's good for business.

Politics is the failure of society and socialism is the Sharknado of politics.

-

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

Be the weed

We've had an unusual amount of rain this summer. Where I had sand dunes starting to form a few years ago, I now have a lush growth of various weeds*. And some grass, but mostly weeds.

One weed in particular, amaranth, is driving me crazy. Yes, I know its leaves and seeds are edible and nutritious, but just like I wouldn't want every square inch of my yard covered with pumpkins or parsley I'm overwhelmed with amaranth to the point of near-hatred.

Two kinds (maybe more) grow here. One is soft and doesn't hurt when I try to pull it up, the other kind is spiny and leaves my hands stinging for a while if I grab it by accident.

I won't spray it, because I just don't do that, and it would kill off the stuff I want growing there. So I keep fighting it physically.

It has been a daily battle this summer. I mow it, and the next day it looks like I did nothing. I use the trimmer to cut it off at ground level and it takes several days for it to recover, but it does recover. Then, instead of growing tall, as it does where no one bothers it, it spreads along the ground, going every direction out from its stalk. You'd think this kind of abuse would stop it from going to seed, but you'd be wrong. No matter how tiny the plants are, when they are ready to seed, they seed. I've never seen anything so resilient.

And I want to be like that.

Be the weed. If they keep chopping you down, keep coming back. If you can't grow as tall as you'd like, go to seed right at ground level. Just don't let them win.

-

*"Weed"-- a plant growing where it isn't welcome. Don't be that. Just be resilient and anti-fragile like a weed.

-

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

Mollie the racist tweeter

Maybe Mollie would have been better off to not judge people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Maybe we all would.

-

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

Hero of the Proglodytes

I am not "pro-Trump".
I am not "anti-Trump".
I'm not impressed by anyone's stance on Donald Trump.

I'm completely opposed to the office of "president" existing, just as I am opposed to every other political office. I don't want anyone holding those offices and using them to molest anyone or their liberty. I don't think decent people hold political office. If a decent person finds himself in a political office, they won't stay decent for long. And I'm talking nanoseconds or less. I also believe that holding a government "job", even of the most benign variety, causes ethical (and perhaps, moral) damage to the employee in that "job". I would never wish that on anyone I like.

For these reasons, I get indigestion hearing people going on and on about Trump, either for or against. He simply doesn't matter to me one way or the other. No "president" would.

And this brings me to today's aggravation:
The ONLY reason the dead dirtbag anti-liberty bigot John McCain is being treated like he was some kind of hero is because he was vocally anti-Trump. That's it. If he hadn't come out of that particular closet none of the national mass media proglodytes would have spent the past couple of days praising his corpse's "legacy". In fact, they would probably have taken the position that his being dead is a good thing. But because he was anti-Trump while being "Republican" he is praised. No, his status as a former troop isn't the reason, nor is the fact that he was a POW. Those are used as justifications, of course, but they aren't the real reason. His greatest value was in being anti-Trump. Well, la-dee-dah. Anyone can do that.

-

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

Evil plus evil equals doubly evil

From here. Tip the artist if you can.

"Democratic socialism" isn't better than other kinds of socialism because it's democratic; it's worse because it's democratic.

Democracy is horrible. It is mob rule made "socially acceptable".

Socialism is horrible. It is the attempt to make a society stand on a foundation of envy, theft, parasitism, and entitlement.

Who could possibly imagine that combining these two nasty concepts could make something good?

Politics isn't like chemistry where you can combine two deadly poisons like chlorine and sodium to make something beneficial and necessary like table salt.
Politics is already the path of failure and evil, and when you mix those two political toxins it makes something even more deadly.

-

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

Good to treat enemies as humans

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 25, 2018)

The political left, and much of the political right, keeps putting me in an uncomfortable position where I almost feel the need to defend President Trump. Almost.

It's not a position I enjoy.

I see no legitimacy in the office of president, nor in any other political office for that matter. I don't care about Donald Trump one way or the other; he's irrelevant to my day-to-day life. But the way the political left overreacts to everything he does goes beyond criticism into delusional territory. Pointing this out is seen as "defending" him. It's really not.

How could any sane person object to the people in charge of a couple of governments deciding to shake hands and put off threatening to annihilate each other's subjects and territories for a while?

Personally, I think it's a good thing he treats the U.S. government's enemies like fellow human beings. The other option is to encourage them to go to war. I can't see that as a good idea.

I'm glad Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un aren't behaving like some politicians and pundits seem to want them to behave. It's as if those other people are itching for a war. They probably are.

While I'm glad neither of them seems to want to start a nuclear war right now, I'm horrified the situation has been allowed to get to the point where such a thing is even possible.

I also prefer Trump and Vladimir Putin acting friendly instead of being at each other's throats. I see no benefit in the two governments wanting to fight each other. None at all. People I care about might get caught in the middle.

Sure, maybe Russian government hackers exposed the DNC's corruption, but which is worse-- the exposure or the corruption? And the U.S. government is always interfering in foreign elections so the possibility someone may have done the same thing to the U.S. doesn't upset me. You'd have to believe elections are a legitimate process for choosing a ruler to get worked up about it. I don't.

When Trump uses "alternative facts" people lose their minds, but when he tells the truth about the U.S. "intelligence" apparatus' complete lack of credibility, they don't like that either, and lose their own credibility through their hysterical reactions.

There is plenty to criticize about President Trump, but until his dedicated enemies of the Loyal Opposition stop screaming over figments of their imaginations and things which don't matter I can't take them seriously.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

When Failure is your solution

It gets me how often people notice (or imagine) a problem, and start hollering for government to fix it. It's that pathetic "there oughta be a law!" syndrome.

And it's as wrong as it is possible for anything to be.

Government is never a solution. It is a cover-up. A band-aid. It might hide the problem, but it can't fix it. It can't solve anything. It makes problems worse every time it is tried. It shifts problems, creates new problems, and makes problems where none existed before. Government is the way of The Failure.

If you can't think of a way to solve a problem without resorting to theft and aggression you aren't thinking enough. Maybe you aren't thinking at all. But don't give up. You don't have to be a Failure. Keep thinking. Keep searching. Either the answer is out there among the various voluntary options, or it's a problem without a solution in the real world. They probably do exist. But don't pretend government is a solution-- you're lying to yourself if that's what you believe.

-

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

I want more, more, MORE!!

Here's another dark confession: I am practically obsessed with kerosene lanterns, flashlights, bags and packs, carry knives, solar chargers, and batteries. Probably a few other items, too. And I'm not even sure why since I can do without most of those things just fine (especially the higher-tech things), although maybe being able to do without makes me appreciate them even more. I know that's the case with fire-starting.

I have a hard time passing up any of those type things when I see them at a thrift store or yard sale. I mean, I do pass them up, I just don't enjoy doing so.

I can't afford to buy more of things I probably have "enough" of, and with at least one kerosene lamp in every room of the house (and maybe one power outage of any duration in 8+ years) even I can admit I probably don't need another kerosene lantern. In fact, it's been years since I bought one. I'm sure I'm in a similar position with the other things I mentioned, as well.

I never really feel like I have enough of any of those items, but I probably have everything I need, even in case of TEOTWAWKI, since I know not to rely on "stuff". (You can never have enough skills!!)

So I can still understand how people get obsessed with certain things (or non-things).

-

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

How's the view down there?

While ostriches don't actually bury their heads in the sand, most people do. At least figuratively.

It's much more socially acceptable to bury your head in the sand than to speak up and say "No, this isn't right. Good people don't support this!"

How do I know? Because I live it.

No, I don't go around handing out unsolicited advice. Usually. But there are lots of things I won't condone when it seems everyone else is on board with it. Refusing to support these activities or people doesn't do much for one's social standing.

At least almost no one ever asks me to praise kinderprison staff, "the troops", or law enforcers anymore. Almost no one ever tries to convince me of the usefulness of a "law" these days, or why more are needed. And that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

-

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

Proglodytes and conservatrolls

That's what I see all around me when I look at how people interact with each other. Of course, the simpler name for proglodytes and conservatrolls would be "statists", but that just leaves them staring at you with no comprehension in their dull eyes. Most don't understand that word any better than they'd understand the more fun descriptive terms.

Depending on where you live, the local government kinderprisons are either brainwashing kids to be proglodytes or perhaps, in rare cases, they are brainwashing them to be conservatrolls. Either way they are being turned into statists who will usually deny that they are statists ("I'm NOT like Mussolini!" as one complained to me once). The option of helping kids figure out how to think for themselves, and be responsible people who respect the rights of others isn't on the agenda. It's not useful to the State. That's up to you whether you accept your responsibility or not.

But it's not only the State turning up the statism.

Much that is created for broadcast and mass viewing is created by proglodytes, advancing the false narrative that their way is kind, compassionate, generous, and caring... while the others guys are just so mean and greedy.

And if you work at it a little bit you can find the message created and advanced by conservatrolls, which says their opposition is so gullible and dumb that they'd blame you for not caring how your murderer feels after sawing off your head... and then your survivors should be punished for your crime of making the murderer feel he had no choice but to murder you. And you can listen to conservatrolls claiming to love the Constitution while demanding unconstitutional "immigration control". And supporting police-- which may be their worst failing.

None of them, on either "side", want you allowed to run your own life, to keep your own property to use as you see fit, or to live in liberty. They want you controlled and enslaved so they'll feel safer.

So each side squeezes your liberty just a little bit more, twisting and breaking you "for your own good", or for the sake of a "culture" which isn't worth saving and which has no room for people like you who understand and value liberty.

I see both proglodytes and conservatrolls as monsters. I don't care which parts of the State they resist because they still embrace some of it. Embracing any statism is harmful to humanity. It's not compatible with human flourishing. Statism is backward, brutal and barbaric no matter what you call it or how you dress it up.

-

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

"Not all cops..."

Some police are racists. Some police aren't.

Some police like to bully. Maybe some don't.

Some police rape. Some police don't.

Some police are looking for opportunities to shoot people. Some police aren't.

For any individual belief, some police hold it, and some don't.
For any individual action, some police take part and some don't.

Anything you can say about police will be true for some, but not true for others... except for one thing: all police are bad guys because of the things they do-- things inseparable from being a police officer and enforcing "laws. Just as you can't say "not all rapists are bad guys", it makes zero sense to say "there are some good cops".

-

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

The ZAP is my promise

Whether you adhere to the Special Principle of Libertarianism (the Zero Aggression Principle/Non-aggression Principle) or the General Principle of Libertarianism (the Zero Archation Principle) you personally accept that this reminds you that you have no right to either initiate force or to archate, depending on your favored version.

Now I can't speak for you, but if I have no right to do something, I take that to mean I shouldn't do that thing. Maybe you see it differently.

And whether you do or not is up to you, and changes nothing on my end.

When I say I'm a libertarian and that this means I live by the ZAP, I mean that this is a promise from me to you. I accept that I have no right to archate, and I will always aim to live up to that. If I fail, I accept that you have the right to defend yourself and your property.

It's also a warning of sorts. If you choose to archate, there is no law (or legislation) which can void my right to self-defense, defense of others, or defense of private property. None. If I believe you have the upper hand, I might choose to not employ defensive measures, but it's not guaranteed. Take the risk if it means that much to you.

Accept my promise or ignore it. It remains the same either way.

-

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

No virtue in upholding bad laws

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 18, 2018)

It's more important to do the right thing than to obey laws, and it's wrong to obey laws which violate life, liberty, or property. Even if you agree with them or believe they are necessary. When the laws are wrong it's your responsibility to break them rather than wait until the law is changed.

All laws are ultimately enforced by the threat of death, so supporting any law is admitting you would be willing to kill people over an opinion.

Using laws to solve problems is like using a sawed-off shotgun to take out a bad guy in the middle of a crowd; firing at him from too far away. Sure, if your aim is true you may get him, but how many innocents will be harmed along with him? Even one is too many.

Legitimate defense against an individual bad guy is more like a derringer pressed into his ribs.

Laws always have innocent victims; people you didn't mean to harm, but did. A dishonest name for such victims is "collateral damage", and a common justification is that they must have done something to deserve it.

"I was just doing my job" or "following orders" didn't cut it at Nuremberg after World War II. Today's excuse-- "I have no choice. I don't make the laws; I just enforce them"-- is no better.

So what if the law orders you to separate children from their parents, or demands you enforce anti-gun laws, prohibition and checkpoints, seat belt laws, or runaway slave laws? You have the responsibility to ignore a bad law and refuse to harm people, even if it means you'll have to walk away from a steady paycheck.

The responsibility for all your actions lies with you. You get to choose what you do, even in the face of someone giving you orders. You are not a puppet.

It's probably a mistake to allow yourself to be in a position where you'll be given orders in the first place, particularly if any of those orders demand you do the wrong thing. There's no virtue in upholding wrong laws, and they constitute most of today's laws. Why take a job you know will require you to do wrong? It's not honorable.

Yes, each of us has a choice, even if the choice came before agreeing to do a particular job. If a job would require me to do things I know are wrong I wouldn't take the job. Why would anyone?

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

Above the law

It's not that I believe I'm "above the law"; that the "law" doesn't apply to me.
It's that I recognize everyone is above the "law"; that the "law" doesn't apply to anyone -- other than those who pass, enforce, or explicitly agree to be subject to the "law".

The only people legitimately subject to "arrest" for using drugs, smuggling, prostitution, migration, or any other mala prohibita "law" are the people who support those "laws", the lawgivers who made them up, and the cops who enforce them. No one else is subject to them. Everyone else is above those "laws".

"Law" or no "law" everyone has the right to defend themselves from archation, so don't make the mistake of believing this means that since murderers don't agree to "laws" against murder they get a free pass. The "law" isn't what makes murder wrong, nor is it what creates the right to fight back.

-

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

When people disappoint

If someone I know and like supports politicians, child molesters, cops, Nazis, etc., I don't want to know. I expect such from people I don't like, so they can't really disappoint me. But people I like, I expect to be better than that. I don't want to be disappointed in them.

Unfortunately, that's not how real life works most of the time.

Most people have been so brainwashed that they see the bad guys as good guys, and when one of these bad guys is exposed, they see it as a "bad apple" instead of an accurate representation of the type.

I don't often point this out or say "I told you so"-- but I sure do think it often. And then I go on with my life, with a slightly lower opinion of someone's intelligence and ethics.

-

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

Your right to yell 'FIRE!' in a theater

In almost any rant calculated to justify any government violation of a natural human right (especially those specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights; in particular the right to own and to carry weapons) someone will invariably bring up the belief that rights can be limited because “you can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater”. This belief is based on one Supreme Courtjester's tired old lie, used to justify another lie.

Yes, you actually can yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater, especially if it's on fire.

The actual historical statement asserts you have no right to falsely yell “FIRE!”, but almost everyone misses that distinction, either through ignorance or by design. And it is still wrong anyway.

It is your absolute human right to say (or write) whatever you want to say. It may not be wise, and in a free society you will be held accountable for any harm you cause by doing so. You have the responsibility to NOT say something untrue which can cause trouble, but no one has the right to silence you.

Most people suffer from a tragic misunderstanding of where rights come from. I’ll give you a hint: they don’t come from government or any of its documents. The Bill of Rights doesn’t create any rights at all. In fact, it doesn’t even apply to you or me at all unless we work for government. And for those to whom it does apply, its entire purpose is to stop them from violating the rights of individuals.

That's right: the Bill of Rights is simply a “government shall not…” list and a warning that government has no "right" (governments can't have rights) to violate natural rights. It makes doing so a crime. Government is thus prohibited from enacting “laws” that violate natural rights by the very document which foolishly created it and "allows" it to exist.

Since the First Amendment places ALL speech beyond government regulation or control (among the various things it prohibits government from doing), it makes no exception for things that can be destructive or stupid.

So, say what you want to say, after you've weighed the consequences and decided whether they are worth it, then face the consequences like a self-owning human being should.

(an update of an old post)

-

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

The enemies of the people? Yes.

National press and media are complaining today, in a bunch of coordinated editorials, about being thought of (or rather exposed) as the enemies of the people.

Is it a truthful accusation?

Well, here are just a few examples of times they have been the enemies of the people:

• When they helped Bush 2 promote the "weapons of mass destruction" lie and got a lot of people killed.

• When they did everything they could to push Hilary Clinton on the v*ters.

• Every time they use the words "gun violence", "common sense gun laws", "reasonable restrictions", "assault rifle", or any of the other terms which make anti-gun bigotry seem mainstream.

• When they promote the words of government extremists (Paul Krugman comes immediately to mind) as if they are reasonable people who have something of value to contribute to "public discourse".

• When they encourage support or pay raises for government employees.

• Any and every time they push a "tax" increase, for any reason.

• Every time they breathlessly promote socialized health care or "Universal Basic Income".

And there are so many more.

These are times they did things harmful to life, liberty, and property.

So, yeah. The national press (and similar media) are the enemies of the people. Enemies of individual rights and liberty. Their whining just shows how out of touch they truly are.

But they could change.

If they would start reporting the news, without a political slant, they could stop being the enemy of the people.

If they could leave their wish to enslave us all at home, instead of bringing it to work and putting it in the pages of their papers, they could stop being the enemy of the people.

If they would stop trying so hard to create death and destruction to give their news "color", they could stop being the enemy of the people.

Report what happened, don't analyze it, and leave the editorializing on the opinion page. And STOP being the enemies of the people, and maybe people will stop thinking of you that way.

-

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

Free speech in action

The above comment was posted on the newspaper's FB page in response to my most recent column. The comment was deleted, the commenter banned by the paper, and a screenshot (without the redactions) was forwarded to me.

I say the guy had the right to say what he said, and the newspaper had the right to delete the comment. The actions of neither seem out of line.

I would have been angry had FB chosen to intervene and remove the comment (of which they were not a party) since they supposedly invite the public to use the platform, but no individual has to leave anything that bothers them on their own page or a page they are responsible for. Had he waited to leave the comment on my post on my FB page, I would have left it. I do appreciate the paper's efforts at defending my honor, though. I realize they were also trying to protect their advertisers.

The comment didn't upset me. It was just too far off-base.

Just how far afield is the commenter? Well, I'm not "known", I don't worship (or believe in) anything supernatural, I don't rape or otherwise initiate force, I respect the rights of children just like I do anyone else, I don't have a basement (but I do have a cellar), and if I did have a basement I wouldn't invite a crowd of people into it to watch me do something I consider evil. And if someone did witness me doing such a thing they would have the right-- and the responsibility-- to shoot me in order to stop me.

If a comment were negative and too close for comfort it would probably be a different story. (Occasionally I've had people accuse me of being an anarchist! That just gets a "Yeah. So?" instead of the outrage or denial they had hoped for.)

Personally, I think the commenter was either trying to be funny or was trying to make a point. I was slightly amused by the comment. And, I can see a point to be made with such a comment. More than one, actually.

Yes, speech can offend people (as it did the newspaper) and it can cause harm. Perhaps he was trying to illustrate this point. No one ever said speech doesn't have consequences, nor that you get a free ride just by claiming "free speech". You are responsible for the consequences of what you say or write, whether your words are true or false. If you don't like that, you have the option to keep your thoughts to yourself.

Maybe he was testing my commitment to freedom of speech, even when it targets me. If so, bravo.

Anyway, it was just a little feedback to add to my information stack.

-

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

The creepy Obsession

I am against pedophiles. Especially pedophiles who act on it.

I am also against obsessive pedophile hunters and obsessive pedophile punishers.

They like to think of themselves as knights on a Holy Crusade. I see them as the spiritual descendants of Torquemada.

I've come to believe that most people who claim to be hunting or fighting pedophiles are simply hungry for someone it's socially OK to obsessively hate; someone they can safely post revenge porn about. It's their version of Nazi hunting. Most even misdefine "pedophile" and "child" so they'll have more targets available.

It's a witchhunt; one libertarians seem particularly prone to joining. Perhaps they hunger to behave like the statists they see around them-- with revenge and force-- so they've found a target that's socially acceptable to those who reject the initiation of force.

It's somewhat understandable; libertarians are all about defending people, especially those who aren't able to defend themselves. Children are vulnerable. People who prey on them are evil. But there's such a thing as jumping off the deep end and being drowned by your obsession. Yes, even in cases like this. In their zeal, libertarian pedophile obsessives become indistinguishable from the statists. This is wrong even when the cause is right.

And you're not "allowed" to question these self-anointed pedohunters in the slightest.

This makes me suspicious of their actual motives. I'm reminded of the loudly anti-homosexual televangelists. I'd be willing to bet some are more similar to those guys than they'd ever admit. No, not all of them, and probably not even most of them, but some.

Surely I'm not the only person who wonders about this, or who sees their obsession as a bit creepy. But even if I am the only one, I'm OK with that.

I realize that pointing this out will make them claim I'm defending pedophiles-- I'm not. If that's what they get from this they are hallucinating and imagining they can read my mind. They may even claim I am one-- I'm not. But it's their go-to reaction. I've seen it before, more than once.

All because someone dared question their untouchable obsession. To them that's unforgivable.

And this illustrates what I see as wrong with their crusade. It's not reasonable or rational. It's rabid and emotional, and anything is OK as soon as they accuse their target. In their minds, accusation equals guilt. No real proof is needed to convict and execute once the accusation has been leveled. The accusation settles it. "For the CHILDREN!"

I'm not saying there aren't sexual predators out there, because there are, and I know some of them target children. This is wrong. It is archation. No one molests kids by accident. If you do, you intended to. If you don't intend to, you don't do it. (You could still be falsely accused, though.)

When I encounter one of these obsessives, I just quietly back away. I don't support pedophiles, but I don't support their creepy doppelgängers, either. I'll probably regret ever saying anything, but it's been weighing on my mind and needed to be said.

-

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

Not everything is acceptable

I have been told I'm judgmental. Probably so.

And I've never met anyone who wasn't (but I'm not judging). It's not necessarily a bad thing, depending on what you're judging about someone.

I don't judge people for what they wear, the color of their skin, their favorite food, the length of their hair (as long as they aren't sporting a thug rug), their sex lives, their hobbies, or whatever, but I'm convinced it's OK to judge people for archating. In fact, it's probably essential.

If you won't judge those who are molesting others, it seems to me you have no principles at all. Where do you draw the line? Will you stand for anything?

-

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

Gun safety essential to gun rights

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 11, 2018)

Gun rights, like all natural human rights, are a foundation of a functional society. And every right comes with an equally important responsibility. You must handle and use your gun so that you don't harm anyone who doesn't deserve to be harmed.

Gun safety is more than important; it is essential.

Contrary to what some people insist, gun accidents do happen. Once a tiny sliver of wood flaked off the inside of a black powder gun I was using and lodged in a bad spot. As soon as I pulled the hammer back and released it, the gun fired even though nothing was touching the trigger. Because I was following the rules of safe gun handling, the only casualty was my nerves.

However, most so-called gun "accidents" aren't accidents at all, but are negligence; someone not observing the rules of safe gun handling.

Colonel Jeff Cooper standardized and popularized the rules of gun safety, which I'll paraphrase as follows:
Rule 1: All guns are always loaded, even when you're sure they aren't.
Rule 2: Never let the gun point toward anything you're not willing to destroy.
Rule 3: Keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until the gun is aimed where you want the bullet to go.
Rule 4: Be sure of your target and what lies behind your target. Don't shoot on a hunch, and don't forget to look beyond the target.

It's also not a good idea to handle a gun when your mind is dulled.

People who hate or fear guns won't change their minds just because you are a safe and responsible gun owner. Those who are undecided about guns can be pushed off the fence onto the anti-gun side by the publicity surrounding tragedies. Don't be the one who gives them a push.

I prefer a universally armed society. Any rules which seek to keep guns out of the "wrong hands" will inevitably do more to keep them out of the right hands, because those "wrong hands" won't follow the rules anyway.

This doesn't mean I trust everyone to be armed. I don't. But I don't trust those who would decide who gets to be armed, and who doesn't, either. I'd rather there be armed bad guys than government employees rationing natural human rights. After all, the good guys vastly outnumber the bad guys, otherwise society would be impossible.

Be responsible. A negligent shot is precious ammunition for the anti-gun activists. Don't give them this coveted gift.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Nicer than the alternatives

Is it rude to shun someone? To exercise your right of association?

I shun cops and would probably shun politicians if I ever had the opportunity. Especially state-level politicians. I would probably be flexible on more local levels, depending on how enthusiastic a dirtbag they happen to be. I'm willing to chalk up some bad behavior (archation) on their part to ignorance and brainwashing.

But it seems people around me believe it's rude of me to shun cops.

I don't think I'm rude to them-- I simply ignore their existence in "social" situations. Isn't that better than puking at the sight of them? Or making faces? Isn't shunning more polite than flipping them off or shooting them?

It seems so to me. But I could be convinced otherwise.

-

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

"Think of the CHILDREN!!"

Or the old, disabled, or ill! Those who might be considered, by some, as "unwhole" in some way.

I appreciate when people stand up for the "unwhole"; I'm less than impressed when someone imagines that being "unwhole" bestows or creates extra rights. I'm downright angry when someone insists my (or others') rights don't matter because they might somehow offend the "unwhole".

Certain people bring up the "unwhole" in discussions to try to find a reason to justify archation, such as "taxation" or "laws".

Recently one such winner objected to my dismissal of laws as either unnecessary or harmful because he didn't understand how the "unwhole" could defend themselves without "laws". I wonder how the "unwhole" can defend themselves from "laws".

I understand the desire to protect the "unwhole"; I don't like the tendency to throw everyone else (and their rights) under the bus on behalf of the "unwhole" due to their imagined extra rights.

-

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