Actions matter more than identity

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 19, 2018)

Instead of worrying about who someone is, it seems smarter to focus on what they do. Anything other than their actions is none of your business and can't harm you, and not many of their actions are your business, either.

The color of someone's skin isn't my concern, nor is the language they speak. Who you love is between you and those you love, and your religious beliefs don't involve me.

I'm not worried about where someone was born or what government permission slips they may lack.

What people do is all that can matter.

I would hope people don't harbor beliefs which they use to justify violence, including the violence of laws, against those who aren't harming anyone else. Yet, unless they take action, not even those twisted beliefs can hurt anyone.

If you aren't creating a victim through your actions-- and being offended isn't being victimized-- those who oppose you are wrong.

What you wear, what you carry, what you ingest, what you do in your own home-- none of those things could possibly be any of my business unless it harms others or makes a credible threat to do so.

If you aren't complying with zoning laws, property codes, licensing schemes, or other illegitimate laws, I'm on your side.

Why would I care if you break laws as long as there is no individual victim; not an imaginary victim like "society" or the state? And, although I don't want you to harm yourself and would do what I can to help, no one has the right to violently intervene to stop you.

Those who worry about who someone is rather than what they do often complain about government until they can use it against someone they don't like, especially if they notice their target ignoring an illegitimate law. Suddenly, they are in favor of government violence. If they weren't against the person, they wouldn't care about the law. Hypocrisy is ugly.

But what if you fervently believe you need to meddle in someone else's life? Do I care why you do the wrong thing? No. I only care that you act to violate someone's life, liberty, or property. Your excuses don't matter.

Whoever you are is fine with me. Anything you do is OK with me as long as you aren't harming someone, even if I don't understand it. It's a waste of time to fret over shallow things which can't possibly matter. You be you; that's good enough.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Assume government?

When someone asks what government ("The State") "thinks" on some issue-- what the "law" says or what the general statist thinking [sic] is-- my first thought is always along the lines of "Who gives a ...?"

And I'm not only talking about whether or not something is "illegal".

So many people assume government. I assume liberty.

They can't imagine liberty, so they obsess over this or that justification for governing others. They feel the need to know what George Washington said about some subject before they can form an opinion about it. They worry over what the Constitution says. They can't consider anything outside the box of what some long-dead statist molester believed.

They act as though they believe government is to be considered first. Anything else comes later, if there's still room. They pretend discussing government is the adult thing to do. They are misguided.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Fauxcahontas, Grey Owl, and Dull 'Hawk

So, professional archator Elizabeth Warren may have a trace of Native DNA-- assuming the expert who interpreted the results of her DNA test isn't politically motivated to confirm (however trivially) her claims. A trace doesn't make her Native.

If it was an honest mistake on her part, that's easy to understand.

If it was an intentional lie, it was worse than that of Grey Owl. Much worse.

She used the claim, whether an honest mistake or a lie, as some sort of entitlement to govern people other than herself. That's wrong on every level.

My mountainman name, Dull 'Hawk, has been mistaken for an "indian name", but I've never claimed it is. It's just the mountainman style. I have a respect for many Native things, while not idealizing them in any way.

I had been told my whole life that I had Native ancestry. From both sides. My dad's adoption paperwork even said so. But a couple of years ago, both my parents had DNA analysis done, and there's not a trace from either of them. (So much for government record inerrancy.)

I was surprised, but it really made no difference.

I am curious whether, had our DNA samples been somehow mixed up, the expert who examined and interpreted Ms. Warren's DNA would have found evidence of Native ancestry in a sample of my DNA which he thought was hers.

When I believed I had Native ancestry I didn't use that belief as an excuse to bully, boss, or otherwise govern anyone. I didn't use that belief for gain. I had Native friends who opened their arms to me, asking unprompted if I had Native blood, and I said I thought I had a little, but that wasn't the basis of our friendship. Two of them have said I have a "Native Spirit". Not that I believe in such things, but I accept the compliment in the spirit in which it was offered.

Yes, I like wearing buckskin and bone (or dentalium) chokers, but I've never claimed it was for any reason but that I liked them and it was a mountainman style. Same with my long hair. And, if asked now whether I have any Native blood, I would say "no". But I'm still me, and since I never tried to use it to my advantage or as an excuse to get anything from anyone, my conscience is clear. I was mistaken; now I know better. No harm done.

I wonder how Ms. Warren's conscience feels, assuming a professional archator has one which functions.
_______________

Reminder: I could very much use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

"Proportionality"

--This post is necessitated by this and this. It expresses my feelings, not rights nor right and wrong. Just human feelings and emotions. I am probably wrong for how I feel, but it doesn't change how I feel.--

I have never been a fan of "proportionality", and have mentioned this many times over the years in this blog.

It is easy for critics to cry "proportionality" after the fact, when they weren't there for the violation and weren't the victim. It is also a wonderful hiding place for violators.

If someone shoots you and you shoot back, but after the dust has settled it turns out his bullet "only" grazed your arm while yours ventilated his cranium, that wasn't proportional. Shame on you for not aiming to graze. Right?

Or, he could shoot at you and if he has time before you shoot back, he could claim he didn't kill you so you had better make sure to only do proportional damage to his body.

Obviously, a kid stealing candy from a store isn't as bad as an adult stealing your car or backing a trailer up to your door and cleaning out your house. Yet, at heart, the acts are the same; it's just a matter of degree. The kid needs to understand the seriousness of what he did so he might decide to never do it again. If you pat him on the head and say "It's OK" you are not doing him any favors. Each situation will be different, including whether he actually understands that he stole the candy. But there needs to be some awareness instilled in the kid.

Because, yes, if someone is in the process of stealing your car I do think shooting him is perfectly proportional, whether anyone agrees or not. I don't want the child thief to grow up and become an adolescent or adult thief, because then I believe it would be a great service for someone to kill him. I would like to avoid that outcome.

To me, once someone has demonstrated a total lack of concern for your life (including taking your property, which you traded your life for) they have shown that you shouldn't concern yourself too much with their well-being. Your mileage may vary.
_______________

Reminder: I could sure use some help.

-

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

Killing thieves

Is theft worth a death penalty?

I bring this up because it's related to my newspaper column from yesterday.

The only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack by the victim or a rescuer. Anything later-- including anything done by government employees-- is revenge. And murder.

Back in the old days, horse theft was a capital offense. However, unless they shot the guy in the act, it was murder (ethically, if not "legally"). For example, if they "strung him up" later.

The reason horse theft was treated so seriously was that horses were essential. Horses were a matter of life and death. You lose your horse and you may die because of it. Today cars take the place of horses for most Americans.

I think you are completely within your rights to shoot a car thief to stop your car from being stolen, even if "the law" disagrees. Probably not right to chase down a guy you know to be a car thief and hang him.

If it's a kid stealing candy from a store, then I wouldn't be in favor of shooting him. Same with a starving man in the wilderness stealing food from a cabin-- as long as he doesn't do unnecessary damage and tries to pay restitution.

But then, I'll never grieve a dead thief no matter what he steals, and not even if I consider his death to have been murder. I can separate my feelings from what I think is right.

I've said it before and I'll say it again-- I don't really believe in proportionality very strongly. I'll say more about that in tomorrow's post.

But maybe I'm just overly emotional about thieves at the moment.

Just a few weeks ago my mom's last remaining uncle-- the last of that generation of the family, at 94 years old-- had everything stolen from his house. Everything. Inside and outside. He has been living with his daughter since his wife died and only going out to his house once a week or so to check on things. Someone knew and used the opportunity to clean him out. Would I have shot the thief had I caught him in the act?

Fortunately for my mom's uncle, upon finding out about the theft, his granddaughter decided to cruise through a trashy part of town along the main road from his house. Over a fence as she drove along, she recognized her grandfather's pickup. Looking over the fence, she also saw his lawnmower and other stuff. She called the cops and they all went inside and found all his possessions (along with a lot of other people's stuff, too). They didn't find anyone there, but they took all the surveillance cameras (he had many of them watching every bit of his property) and got video of the thief bringing the stolen items to the house (not the sharpest guy, apparently). The cops know who the guy is, and said he's on probation. Do you think I would be sad if someone killed this guy, whether or not it was defense? As long as he lives, he's going to be a thief. He needs to be dead.

But, would it be right to kill him? Not unless he's caught in the act, and some would say, not for "only stealing". I suppose there's room for debate.
_______________

Reminder: I could sure use some help.

-

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

Reaching out-- with updates

Lots of recent medical bills mean I'm severely short of money*.

I realize no one wants to hear that.

If you can't help, or don't care, or don't want to help, etc. then I'm not talking to you. Go in peace.

If you want to help and can help, then I would sure appreciate it.

However, I would rather not be the helped by the same people who are the ones who always rise to the occasion. I would prefer they sit this one out, even if it means no one helps this time.

Anyway, I hesitate to even mention how much I need, but it's around $500. Even more would be better, but anything would help some. And, at this time, Paypal is probably more helpful than anything else. Here's my link: PayPal.Me/Dullhawk

Thank you.

*Update: And I just lost $50 per month from another source, unrelated to the blog. This is getting disastrous. This will be an ongoing problem until that money is replaced from another source. Please subscribe.

*Update again: I just found out I will no longer be paid for the lawn work I do for my parents. There's another decrease in my income. Yay. I guess we can just assume this trend will continue.

Income always seems to decrease, while expenses always seem to increase. How is that even possible?

I sharpen knives locally-- that's the only thing I really feel like I do well. I'm not comfortable shipping knives, so that's why I don't offer that service online.
I sell things on eBay. Not enough to really help, though.
I also do some lawn work. (Which, as noted above, I found out I will no longer be paid for.)
I'm not just sitting around. But things are getting worse and worse, financially. I know I'm not the only one-- almost everyone who has canceled their subscriptions and given a reason has said it was because their financial situation got worse.

-

..

What does "race" have to do with it?

There are a lot of things called "racism" that I don't think qualify. Such as the recognition that some cultures are "better" than others, or that people should be rewarded for their merits and abilities.

But there are some things not necessarily considered racism that sure seem like it to me.

Such as... I don't understand unnecessarily bringing "race" into conversations where it is irrelevant. Like if someone is saying: "This Black guy at work gave me half of his hamburger..." or something like that. Why mention "Black" at all? What does it matter to the story? It almost never does.

Now, if you are trying to help someone identify an individual, I can see the point. "Look for the Black guy wearing the fedora" makes sense. Just like if you had said "look for the guy with the big nose and long red hair". That is a basic description to help you know who you are talking about. It's useful information.

It probably doesn't really matter, it's just something I notice, especially when it comes from people very proud of their post-rascism.

-

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

That's not a duck

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if something doesn't fit the minimum definition, then it isn't the thing being discussed. No matter how much someone might invoke the "No true Scotsman" fallacy to try to make you ashamed of noticing.

Ducks are not mammals, even if one type of mammal has a bill and lays eggs.

A knife is not a dill pickle, even though I can imagine ways to make a knife out of a dill pickle.

And people who don't at least reject the initiation of force (more generally: archation) are not libertarians.

This includes those initiations of force and property rights violations they really like and support. Things like "taxes", "tax farm borders", and other property violations; arrests, imprisonment, and other forms of aggression.

They might be really close to being a libertarian in most ways, but just like an ichthyosaur was really close to being a dolphin in a lot of ways, the differences blow the comparison to pieces. The differences break the definition.

Yes, I know recognizing this is intolerant of me. I'm not saying I can't work with them where we agree, even while pointing out why they aren't what they claim to be.

-

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

High court's power unconstitutional

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 12, 2018)

Every time there's an open spot on the Supreme Court, a political free-for-all erupts to fill it. Those who believe they have a claim on your life, liberty, and property take the nomination of a Supreme Court justice very seriously, indeed. It's no wonder, given the power those calling themselves "government" currently enjoy.

Almost none of this power is constitutional; even less is legitimate.

In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court decided to steal for itself a power not granted by the U.S. Constitution: to be the final arbiter on what the Constitution allows government to do. They stole this power so long ago that almost no one even realizes the coup took place.

That was the end of the Constitution as the operating manual for the U.S. government. The brakes on government were disabled, and now almost every part of your life is under some form of government control. Everything not prohibited is mandatory.

For any branch of a government to decide how far that government is allowed to control or meddle in your life is a conflict of interest. No one working for government should ever have this power.

The people are supposed to have power over government, not the other way around. As has been said many ways, by various people: when government fears the people there is liberty; when people fear government there is tyranny. If you have ever stopped to wonder whether something you were about to do was legal or not, though it would harm no person or private property, you've felt the birth of tyranny.

How did we get here?

Constitutionality isn't difficult to judge. The Constitution wasn't written for lawyers, but for average people. It's not up for interpretation or "judicial review", it says what it means. If a law limits what government can do, it is probably constitutional. If it limits what you can do, or would force you to do anything, it is almost certainly unconstitutional. Read the Constitution yourself if you have doubts.

Only the Supreme Court, acting outside what it was allowed to do, could have misinterpreted the document so badly, leading to a government which is at least 95% unconstitutional, and laws which are approaching 99% unconstitutional. Just kidding-- it's much worse than that but few would believe the truth.

Under these conditions, you don't have to wonder about the hysteria surrounding a Supreme Court nomination. It's a consequence of the power the Supreme Court has but was never intended to possess.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Do you care if someone benefits "unfairly"?

A lot of people are very concerned with making sure no one gets anything for free. Very concerned with not allowing anyone to have the opportunity to be a "free rider".

This confuses and amuses me.

I do lawn care, with another person, for my parents. As part of that, we mow and trim the alley behind their house. I also trim around the dumpster my parents use. It isn't exactly in their part of the alley but is next door, adjacent to their part. No one else trims around it. But since my parents use it, and they both worry excessively about snakes, I take a few seconds and keep the grass and weeds in front of the dumpster cleared away.

Yes, I know this act benefits others who haven't paid to get the benefit; I don't care. But it annoys my assistant that I do this. Badly. She says that's "not our job". She doesn't want other people to benefit in any way from our work.

That's how the statist mind works. It's sad.

-

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

Government is creepy

Feel free to ignore the LP plug on the bottom; it doesn't change the truth of the rest.

So, imagine you were in a relationship with someone and they gave you this note. 

Imagine it was an arranged "marriage" set up long before you were born, by superstitious ancestors. 

What if the "partner" also refused to abide by the conditions that were put on them at the time this arranged "marriage" was written up?

Would you feel obligated to abide by these rules? 

Would you love the one who imposed these conditions on you?

How could anyone see this as anything other than maximum creepiness?

-

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

Dishonesty and double standards

There's a mistake I run into a lot, in completely unrelated places. People labeling non-governmental aggression as "anarchy". And only non-governmental aggression.

Aggression isn't anarchy; it is archation. It's unrelated to anarchy.

Aggression is aggression, and it doesn't matter whether it is freelance or justified by "law". You have no right to commit aggression or other forms of archation. Period. Nothing can create that imaginary right.

If there is looting after a hurricane or after a sportsballing ritual, that's not anarchy. It is archation.

If a cop "arrests" a person at a checkpoint for "drug possession" or for having a gun, that's aggression resulting in a kidnapping. Nothing can make it right. Not your fear, not "laws", and not "safety". This is every bit as much archation as the looting. But even worse.

If one were "anarchy", the other would also be "anarchy"-- but neither is. They are archation.

Aggression performed by freelance idiots isn't somehow worse than aggression committed by armed government employee idiots. Archation isn't made better or worse depending on whether a "law" allows it or not.

Is this dishonesty, or a double standard, or is it both?

-

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

Your rights end where the rights of others begin

You have the right to an education. You do not have the right to rob people, or force them to ransom their property, so you can have a "public" school.

You have the right to health care. You do not have the right to rob people, or force them to serve you, so you can have "free, universal" health care.

You have the right to control your property. You do not have the right to rob people, or control their property and consensual trade arrangements, so you can have "secure borders" and unconstitutional "immigration control". Other people's property is not yours to control, not "even" if you call yourself government.

You have the right to own and to carry a weapon. You do not have the right to rob people, or force them to give you the gun you want, so you can exercise your right without cost. It's funny that those who want to enslave others for "positive rights" always seem to overlook this identical argument.

The ONLY responsibility others have with regards to your rights is to not violate them. To not ban books, to not declare a War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, or establish medical licensing or an FDA, to respect private property, and to not make up anti-gun "laws" of any kind. If they are doing something which actually interferes with your rights, they are the bad guys. If you expect others to be enslaved so you can have what you want, then the bad guy is you.

-

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

"Why bother?"

The argument that it's useless to abolish government ("The State") because someone will just come along and establish another one is very weak. And irrelevant.

Someday you are going to die. Does this mean there's no point in defending yourself from some evil loser who wants to murder you? Does this mean it would be pointless for me to step in to save you if you were hanging to the edge of a cliff?

Illness and pain are a fact of life. Does this mean you should never bother taking a painkiller or trying to medicate your way back to health? Maybe you shouldn't even bother trying to avoid getting sick or needlessly injuring yourself.

Government is death and illness in a (largely) self-imposed form. You don't need it. It's holding you back and making you weak.

Sure, some moron would probably try to set up another government if there were none. So? It's still better to kill off the superstition now and then deal with any remission later.

-

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

Government and astrology

Government (by which I actually mean The State) is "real" in the same way astrology is "real".

They both exist as a collection of related beliefs. No one can doubt that the beliefs exist and this belief has effects. People truly believe in them and will argue about their "reality". They can point to the horoscopes in the newspaper or online, to the jewelry created in the form of the various astrological signs, to the "laws", and monuments, and giant buildings full of people. But those are just indications that people believe in these things and act on their belief, not that there's any concrete reality beneath the beliefs.

People actually alter their behavior based on their beliefs in these things. People choose who to date based on astrology and choose people to kidnap, rob, and murder based on government. But the beliefs are equally stupid.

In the end, you have nothing but beliefs and people willing to do things based on that belief, but nothing real holding up those beliefs.

Aren't you glad you aren't superstitious like those people?

That being said, sometimes it is necessary, when you are speaking to the believers, to refer to the thing as if it's real in order to point out the flaws in that system of belief. This way you can show that it doesn't actually work as advertised-- although they probably won't listen.

-

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

Enough problems without government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 5, 2018)

If you build a house in certain neighborhoods in Hawaii, you run the risk of having your house swallowed by lava. Along most coasts, hurricanes and tsunamis are looming dangers. In mountains, avalanches and landslides are seasonal threats. If you choose to build in Moore, Oklahoma, remember that tornadoes seem to enjoy the local scenery, and build below ground.

Pick your spot, then deal with the risks which come with it.

Unfortunately, no matter where you choose to live on this planet, political government-- imposed on you by a ruling class or by your friends, family, and neighbors-- is a constant threat to your life, liberty, and property.

While the other risks are natural, the threat posed by government is completely artificial and unnecessary. People chose to create it, then struggle to maintain it in their minds; the only place it really exists. The government buildings (and the employees who inhabit them) are things the believers will point to as proof of government's reality, yet those physical things are nothing more than idols built to the idea-- concrete monuments to a figment of the imagination.

Frequently, the natural disasters are made worse by relying on this figment. A news story about the people of Puerto Rico, who were still without power or fresh water months after their devastating hurricanes, said they were questioning whether the U. S. government cares about their survival.

It doesn't. Government cares about its own survival. As long as your survival doesn't get in government's way, it is content for you to survive. Your survival takes a back seat, though. This is why the U. S. government has a plan for "continuity of government" in case of a civilization-ending disaster, but no plan to save America's productive people. Those who are the embodiment of government believe their survival is more important than the survival of the rest of the world.

You might claim having government around protects you from some bad things. Burning your house down prevents bedbugs in the same way, but seems similarly drastic.

The threat posed by belief in government is greater in some areas but seems unavoidable everywhere, and that's insane. Getting away from government is part of the reason the frontier has been historically popular, and without a frontier or other state-free spaces, there's a ticking time bomb which can't be defused. Society will eventually pay a price it can't afford.

The world has enough trouble. Why create and perpetuate a completely unnecessary problem?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Should women be believed?

Well, sure. If there's reason to believe them. Not as a collective, but as individuals. And not automatically just because they are women. No one should be believed automatically, especially without good reason.

All women sometimes lie because all humans sometimes lie.

To believe someone just because they're a woman is sexist. You have to have a better reason than that, no matter what they are claiming.

Some women have falsely accused me of things in the past; claims they made as a way to try to get some sort of power over me. Most women haven't done that. I know which ones were lying; other people have no way to know. It would be ridiculous to consider me guilty just because someone says something about me.

And, yes, just like in all cases, I believe it's better that one hundred guilty people "get away with" something than to have one innocent person punished. But that's just me and my bias against punishment/revenge.

-

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

If guns were banned

If you managed to ban guns, you haven't made any good people safer. You've only made lesser weapons in the hands of evil losers deadlier. Since anything is a weapon when used as a weapon, you can't get rid of weapons without removing everyone's brain.

Against a good guy with a gun, a 2x4 isn't terribly dangerous. Take away the good guy's gun, and unless he has something at least equal to the 2x4, and the will and skill to wield it, he's in serious trouble.

Remember too that evil losers have often trained their whole lives to aggress against others; most good people don't have that much commitment to learning to be defensively violent.

And that's assuming you were able to get the guns away from the evil losers, which is a fantasy. So the actual situation would be much worse: evil losers with guns against unarmed, or insufficiently armed, good guys. And anti-gun bigots are OK with that. They are your enemy.

-

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

Politics is a symptom

If someone uses politics to force their will on you (or anyone) they have something wrong with them. Something's not right inside.

Pity them, but don't let them hurt you.

It's OK to defend yourself from them. Really. It may not be "legal", but it can't be wrong.

-

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

I aim to misbehave

Click to magnify

Because doing the right thing, and refusing to do the wrong thing, are so often "illegal", I'm glad to be an outlaw.

How about you?

-

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

Other people's emotions

I mentioned my own emotional reaction when exposed to nasty anti-liberty ideas, but there's another kind of idea which can cause a negative reaction.

Some people get angry when exposed to the truth. Angry enough they advocate using government violence to make people shut up. If you speak a truth these people don't want to hear, they want to make sure you suffer for it. That's evil and stupid.

If you make it painful for people to speak the truth, you will get more lies.

Some truth is ugly. It's not how you want to believe reality is. Something else would be nicer. Seeing truth of this sort can make you mad, but being mad about it won't make the truth stop being true. Maybe you can change the truth if you are motivated enough, and if it's a truth which can be changed (many can't).

People can also get angry when they don't like something poking holes in their beliefs. Even, or especially, when it's true.

So I can understand why the truth would sometimes cause a negative emotional reaction. But that doesn't make it less true.

If the truth makes you mad, you might want to figure out why.

Are you more attached to the belief than to reality?

Does letting go of one bad belief take out a critical piece of support for other beliefs you want to protect?

Of course, you might try to find a way to keep believing that the truth is a lie. A lot of people choose this path-- it's easy and feels safe.

The truth doesn't care how you feel about it. It is what it is, for good or bad.

-

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

Sabotaged by emotions

Sometimes I really hate having emotions. Hating emotions? How's that for irony?

I often get angry when people around me express statist, sexist, racist, nationalist opinions. I don't want anger to be my reaction. I want to be able to laugh them off as fools, then (if necessary) wipe the floor with them using well thought out truth presented without emotion.

If nothing else, it would be better to annoy them with Socratic questions.

Anger gets in the way of that. It sabotages me.

So, recognizing this, I try really hard to get over my emotional reaction before I respond to nasty ideas. That's easier when writing than when face-to-face.

-

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

'Democratic' socialism no less evil

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 29, 2018)

Over the next few years you're going to be tested. Socialism-- the politics of envy, parasitism, and entitlement-- is growing in popularity again. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have recently been its elder cheerleaders. Now socialism is being given a fresh make-over. It has a new, young, and apparently articulate voice in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

It's being re-branded as "democratic socialism" as if adding mob rule (democracy) to socialism makes it less evil. No matter who's pushing it this time, expect more attempts to portray socialism as kind, fair, and generous. As "common decency" toward the "less fortunate".

Don't be fooled-- it's still the same old evil under shiny new paint.

It's not kind or generous to give away what isn't yours to give, whether you got the ill-gotten goods in a mugging or by collecting a tax. Theft is theft even when you call it something else. And spending stolen money on popular things doesn't make theft right.

Socialism isn't "sharing" because non-consensual "sharing" doesn't exist. Socialism tries to build a society on a foundation of theft.

At some point, the people you are robbing are going to give up. Why put in all the work only to have your effort stolen? Right now most of these people say they would never go on the dole and will keep working. But they haven't had all hope pulled out from under them yet.

When they see themselves working to support more and more who aren't putting in any effort, at some point they'll decide it's not worth it anymore. Then who will keep your system afloat?

Sure, maybe the money can be created out of thin air. But more dollars in circulation, backed by nothing but promises, means each one of those dollars is worth less every day. Eventually, no one will accept those worthless dollars for products or services-- even if you can find someone still producing or serving. At that point your choice will be barter or starve.

It doesn't matter how many times people come up with the bright idea of socialism. It doesn't matter if you claim "real socialism" has never been given a chance. Neither has real capitalism.

Maybe the democratic socialists are right and all the failures of socialism in the past hundred years or so were "not real socialism", but the closer you get to real socialism, the deader everyone gets, while the closer you get to real capitalism the wealthier everyone gets. Choose your future, choose your fate.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Economic realities and government "jobs"

I recently heard the claim that the economy is "going great". This doesn't match with the reality I'm experiencing, although I might not be representative. Nor is it what I'm seeing in some others I know. Some of them have even settled for government "jobs" because that's the only thing they could find.

I think it's a terrible shame when the economy is so bad that people are reduced to looking for, or accepting, government "jobs".

And I see this a lot. People can't find a job in the market, so they lower themselves and take a government "job".

They would deny this is lowering themselves.

But, to take a "job" financed with stolen money, which people don't get to opt out of funding-- or, in many cases, using, even if they don't want the "service"-- is low.

I know; you've got to make money. Food must be bought; bills must be paid. Believe me, I understand. Probably more than most. But there are certain "jobs" I just couldn't bring myself to do.

I couldn't live with myself if I had a government "job" which required me to impose the dictates of the State on people and violate their rights with violence. This means I couldn't be an armed government employee of any sort; I couldn't be a cop, or a forest ranger, or an IRS agent, or an employee of any other Alphabet Agency. I couldn't work for the DMV. Nor the military. I couldn't work for the TSA, nor any sort of "border security". I can't bring myself to use violence, or threats of violence against anyone on behalf of the State in exchange for money.

I also couldn't live with myself if I worked in a government "job" which violated people "nicely". I couldn't work in a government school, library, or other "helpful" service. The gun is still there, it's just hidden a little better.

Yes, this means that in this economy I am kind of screwed. I accept that reality. But I still won't violate you for money. Neither in a mugging, nor through a vulgar government "job".

-

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

Picking nits

It's weird to me when someone pops up with "but that's the local government, not the feds" doing some evil thing or another. Or the other way around.

And I can't figure out why it matters. Maybe to "state's rights" [sic] people... but to anyone else?

Government is government. To distinguish between federal, state, and local is to miss the point. Yes, they can all hurt you in different ways, and sometimes you can pit them against each other to protect yourself a little. But to fall for the belief that one isn't bad, while the other is? Ridiculous! They are all bad, just in slightly different ways.

-

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

Siding with evildoers

Being in favor of illegal searches and seizures is kind of a rapey position. Isn't it?

-

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

Orphan stew

No, this isn't advocating cannibalism, it's a bunch of little thoughts that have collected and never made it to blog or column status, but that I didn't just want to throw away.

You've been warned....

__


Alternate history:
Quill and Tattler-- Medieval jesters who make fun of the ruling elites while practicing sorcery. Tattler never tattles because he doesn't speak.

__

Liberty lovers need to come together, because the enemies of liberty are united against us. But liberty lovers fight over "borders" and American Sharia Law (including "vices") and the illusory "right vs left" nonsense, each insisting on each and every exception to rightful liberty that they want to have incorporated into the deal. It won't work.

__

I've never been one to give much credit to conspiracy theories. People are simply too tempted to show off to keep big secrets for long-- even under threat of death.

Government runs on conspiracy theories.

Some may be true, but you and I will probably never know. Roswell.  JFK.  FEMA camps... Fun, like horror movies, and just as credible.

Some are easily disprovable but remain popular with those who want to believe in them. Such as "Flat Earth" and "dinosaurs never existed".

Then there are the real conspiracies: Federal Reserve, the IRS/income tax, the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.

__

Libertarianism offers real solutions. But you won't see those solutions if you refuse to look outside the political sphere-- to see things that go against what you've always done.

If you would rather imagine what solutions you believe a hypothetical libertarian might suggest, based on your misunderstanding of libertarianism, then you'll just keep going in circles with yourself.

__

Natural disasters are a problem, one that no one can eliminate through education alone. But education still helps.  What can be done about natural disasters is to cause people to see that these things will happen, and that the best defense is being prepared. The only connection to government here is that government both encourages people to prepare, and grows increasingly suspicious of those who do.  Well, government also exacerbates natural disasters through incompetent response and by preventing voluntary, free market solutions from working. And by making people believe they don't need to be prepared, because government (or someone) will come and save them.

__

How can anyone believe it is right to use politics to control others?
Wouldn't it be better to find a way to work with other people without sticking a gun in their face?

-

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

(The?) Ten Good Suggestions

1. Do not use violence against the non-violent who are not taking or damaging your property.

2. Do not take or damage the property of any other person.

3. Do not seek to govern anyone but yourself, nor should you choose others to govern them on your behalf; do not enslave.

4. Mind your own business until or unless someone asks you for your help with their business.

5. Try to not unnecessarily offend others, but if you are offended, suck it up. You haven’t been harmed.

6. Tell the truth, unless you have to lie to keep someone from violating an innocent.

7. Keep your word, as long as you can do so without violating any of the above.

8. Defend others from those seeking to do the above to them.

9. Treat others as they wish to be treated.

10. Do not use wishes or beliefs as an excuse to violate these guidelines.

-

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

A word from the author (UPDATED)

Posting may be sporadic until or unless I can come up with the money to get the internet turned back on. Just a heads up.
I'll try to schedule posts if I can get to a hotspot.

Update:
I'm back. For now. Things aren't going well, financially. That's not news. Donations and subscriptions are down to about half what they were just a few years ago. Either the economy is tanking, or my value is declining. It is what it is, and I'll keep looking for new sources of income-- so far, nothing has clicked.

Again, I'll beg: if you use Medium, PLEASE "clap" for my posts there. Just a few claps gets me enough money to help me out-- and each post can be clapped for, by each individual, 50 times. But no one claps. I got 2 cents from Medium last month. Yes, the site is wildly leftist. If my posts there would get a little notice, maybe that could shift a little. If not, at least it would help me out monetarily

.

Always on-duty

The theft-funded molesters of The Blue Line Gang are "special". They are expected to ignore all "no guns" signs because they "have to" remain armed while on duty. It is their job; their responsibility.

The thing is, that's not special at all.

It is YOUR duty and responsibility to remain armed at all times, too. In fact, your duty and responsibility are much more fundamental than theirs. Their "duty" only comes from a "job" and a paycheck; yours comes from the fact that you are a sovereign individual. The buck stops with YOU.

As long as you are on duty-- and it is your never-ending duty to defend life, liberty, and property-- it is your responsibility to be armed. You are never off-duty, and you can't escape your responsibility.

-

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

Looking in the mirror, I see...

I am conservative, but I am not a conservative.

I am liberal, but I am not a liberal.

I am a conservative in that I believe there are some things from the past-- some values-- which need to be conserved. Including such liberal values as true generosity and compassion.

I am liberal in that I value liberty for ALL and want it spread to everyone. That was once something liberals stood for.

Not so much since they re-branded as "progressives".

For that matter, I am progressive, but I am not a progressive.

I am progressive in that I believe in progress. I believe progress is necessary and good. I do not believe giving our enemy, the State, more power is progress. I think it is quite the opposite. I see those who want to give the State more power as backward throwbacks. As Proglodytes.

It's funny how words get stolen, perverted, and end up meaning the opposite of what they once meant. It's how we ended up with "conservatives" who want to trash things worth conserving, with tight-fisted, thieving "liberals", and with regressive "progressives".

-

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

You can solve problems or play politics

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 22, 2018)

When you imagine solving some problem, what kind of solution do you envision: permanent or political? Win-win or win-lose? How would you rather fix things? Permanently and where everyone wins, or politically where someone wins at the expense of others who are harmed?

If you choose the political option, those you harm will keep trying to turn the tables. They may claim to only want to stop the harm they are suffering, but when they get the chance they'll repay everything they suffered, with interest, and the problem will keep coming back.

This shows the difference between using the economic method to fix things or the political method to kick the can down the road a ways.

Sometimes you'll even run into someone who doesn't really want a solution. Often, as in the case of crime, they profit too much off the problem-- financially or politically-- to want it gone. This is behind much of the resistance to ending both drug prohibition and "gun control". A solved problem makes political power evaporate. Certain people fear this happening.

But why hand your destiny to sociopaths? Work around them. Ignore them. Shut them out of the conversation. Find solutions in spite of their stubbornness.

True solutions will never violate natural human rights nor stand in the way of exercising those rights; of living your liberty.

I can't respect those who believe your rights and liberty are subject to their opinions (which they'll call "laws"), and who back their opinions with threats of violence (known as "law enforcement"). I don't understand this type of thinking.

Your right to live in liberty doesn't scare me, because liberty is self-regulating. You can never have too much liberty since you never have the right to violate others. Your liberty to do anything you want stops where the other person's rights begin. No outside force, beyond self-defense, is needed.

You only get the liberty you respect in others. If you don't respect the rights of others, you seem to be giving others permission to ignore your rights, too.

If I invite you into my home or business I'm never going to ask you to leave your rights at the door. If I'm afraid of what you might do, why invite you in? It doesn't make sense.

Liberty can solve so many problems, but you have to want the problem solved before you'll consider it. How about you? Do you want to solve problems, or would you rather keep doing politics?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Defense against the Dark Arts (of Archators)

Those who are against you owning and carrying effective weapons, and using them to defend life, liberty, and property, like to pretend the bad guy is your ethical equal. That his death, as a consequence of his attack on you, is some sort of tragedy.

For an anti-gun bigot to say that using a gun in self-defense "costs a life" makes it sound as though you traded a random innocent life for your life. As if, one day for no apparent reason, you feel threatened so you go out, find some little kid who is minding her own business and kill her as she sits at her "unlicensed" lemonade stand so you can live. It's not like that at all. (That's more along the lines of how The Blue Line Gang operates.)

Instead, in such a case, someone has chosen to show you they don't value your life. I would say they also don't value their own life as much as they value their desire for attacking you or taking your stuff. They are trading their life for their desire to violate you. They decided on the "game", they know the rules, so the outcome is on them when it doesn't go how they'd like.

It's not that they "lose their right to self-defense" once they attack you. Rights can't be "lost". But their right to self-defense doesn't do away with your right to self-defense, your right to not be molested, and your right to not have your property rights damaged-- at their hands. In the current circumstance, chosen by the archator, you have the biggest stack of rights at stake. I hope when the smoke clears the archator is on the losing end. Every time. If fairness were a feature of reality, that's how it would be. Since it isn't, you need to do all you can to stack the deck in your favor.

The bad guys, including the anti-liberty bigots, aren't going to cut you any slack.

-

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

"Let me see your ID first"

Cody Wilson's situation really bothers me. Aside from the ridiculously statist "age of consent" stuff which goes against biological and mental reality (not discounting the real age of consent which is going to vary among individuals, and probably isn't any of your business to determine for someone else).

One thought that keeps running through my mind is that believers in the State must expect everyone to swap "government-issued ID" when they meet (and be able to tell if it is "real"), just in case anything happens later on. Maybe they believe the State should issue "Approved for Sex" cards, with age restrictions on which partners you're allowed, of course. Otherwise you are going to have to rely on someone's word, and people lie (and believe lies) when they really want something. And you can't always rely on what your eyes tell you about someone's age.

Years ago, there was a mom and daughter who regularly came into the pet shop where I worked. Both of them flirted with me a lot, and I flirted back. It was all completely innocent, but I really did like them both and thought they were both very attractive. I think "hot" was the word which came to mind.

One day they were in the shop and the daughter told me it was her birthday. I told her "happy birthday!" and asked how old she was.

I had always figured she was 16 or 17; maybe a bit older. She certainly looked and acted like she was.

She said, "I'm 12".

I was totally shocked and didn't believe her, but her mom confirmed it. Maybe her mom was lying in order to play a joke on me, but if so, she never admitted it.

So, all the time we had been flirting, she had been 11 or younger? The other store employees gave me a lot of good-natured ribbing over that-- having overheard the whole thing. But they admitted they thought she was much older, too. I should be thankful the pair of them never offered me a threesome.

-

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

Pockets full of lint

I'm terribly low on funds. My side-hustle isn't exactly popping at the moment. Well, none of them are. It's not an emergency, but if you've never donated or subscribed but feel led to do so, or if you have once upon a time and would like to again, this would be a good time.

But if not, that's OK. Relevant links below and to the right.

-

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

Stupid Against-ocrats

Being against guns is as stupid as being against candles.

Both are tools.
Both are mostly used for good (in non-political hands).
Both are useful and can save lives.
Both can kill if misused.
But being "against" either one is stupid.

-

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

When a "child" isn't a child

Cody Wilson, of 3D-printed gun fame, has been targeted by the State for "sexual assault on a child". This is a lie.

If it's consensual, it isn't "assault". If it's a business deal-- a trade-- it is mutually consensual. He is said to have paid her for sex; that makes it a trade.

But then we get to the part that trips up even supposed liberty-lovers: that she is claimed to be a child.

The girl in question is said to be 16 years old. Very few 16 year-olds are still a child. I doubt very strongly this girl is one of those rare exceptions.

Biologically, childhood ends at puberty; very few people are still biological children at 16 years of age. Mentally it ends somewhat later-- some people never mature-- but it would be a rare person who is still a mental child at 16.

That doesn't mean the person who is no longer a child is an adult.

To pretend a person is either a child or an adult is dishonest. No, adolescents are not adults, but neither are they children. They shouldn't be treated as children, nor considered children.

Biologically, adulthood is reached at about 25 years of age, when the wisdom teeth mature and the prefrontal cortex of the brain finishes developing. The brain development also indicates mental adulthood, and (hopefully) emotional and psychological adulthood. Thank goodness the puritans of the State haven't (generally) insisted on biological adulthood before considering a person to be an adult.

So, maybe the 16 year-old in question wasn't an adult, but she almost certainly wasn't a child, either.

It is said she was a prostitute, and like it or not, that's going to be the end of mental and emotional childhood no matter the biological reality. This is one reason child prostitution (and child sexual abuse of other kinds) is so horrific-- it forces the end of emotional childhood much too early.

I know people want a clear line in the sand, and this causes them to buy into the State's convenient lie that under 18 equals "child". That's no excuse; it is intellectual and ethical laziness.

If Cody Wilson did what he is accused of, it wasn't smart. But neither was it "assault" or "sex with a child", and it shouldn't be a crime.

This is purely a politically motivated charge, and was most likely a set-up from the beginning. Stop supporting Wilson if you feel you must, but don't turn on him like the true perverts of the State want you to.

-

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

"Scared" yet?

I've been accused from time to time of using "scare quotes" around certain words; words which I feel are generally misused or are nonsense. Like "taxation", "good" cops, "immigration", or "common good".

But those quotation marks are not there to scare you; they are there to illustrate my sarcasm. They aren't "scare quotes", they are sarcastiquotes.

The very name "scare quotes" is dishonest and biased-- an attempt to shame writers into going easy with the truth. Not gonna happen. I'm going to continue to use sarcastiquotes to illustrate the dishonesty of others.

-

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

You are being watched

Don't assume the cops don't know things about you just because you are quiet and peaceable.

About 19 years ago, around half-past dusk, in an average town in a nearby state, I was riding in the passenger seat while my wife-at-the-time drove. Pulling a particularly blatant act of poor driving in the middle of town, she made a left turn and cut off an approaching coproach. She seemed completely oblivious when I mentioned this error. Unsurprisingly, the gangster in question made a turn, followed, and stopped her.

As he did the "your papers, please" shakedown on her, he bent over to get a better look at her passenger-- me. He shined his flashlight in my face for a moment and uttered words that still echo in my mind to this day. He said "You're that guy with all the guns."

I am not certain now if he actually added something to the effect of "we better keep an eye on you" or if my memory has added that in the years since. I feel it was implied, if not stated. I never said a word during the encounter.

I seriously doubt I had more guns than the average person in the area. I did usually open-carry around town, and I dressed "uniquely", yet I had never been involved in any "incident" of any kind. I was quiet and reserved, and never really made waves. I did know people who were more outspoken, though. I didn't yet spend my time writing anything more than the rare letter to the editor (2 or 3 over the years) and didn't even have an email address, much less a computer. I hadn't bought any guns since I had moved to town (as far as anyone in government knew, anyway). I was still months away from being surrounded by the police due to a lack of communication at the elementary school. Yet, he recognized me as "that guy with all the guns".

Was he joking? Did he mistake me for someone else, as unlikely as that was? Did he know something about me that I still don't know how he knew? Either way, it was a moment of paranoia made real for me.

How would this event have turned out in today's "shoot first, ask questions if he survives" police state? Regardless of the intent behind the comment, it was just another brick in the wall that made me the delightful anarchist you see before you today.

(An edited re-run from September 2009)

-

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

Seeds on fertile soil

Sometimes... well, most of the time... advocating liberty seems like a losing battle.

Socialism, the politics of envy and theft, is getting more and more popular among the ignorami-- almost no one notices the lies told to promote it.
Hatred of migrants is over-the-top, and those who don't hate the migrants excuse horrible things done by a tiny few of them just because they feel that they can do no wrong since they are "victims" of one thing or another.
There are too many cops (one is too many) and they are growing more brutal, whiney, and entitled every day.
And the only "solution" people talk about for any of this is v*ting.

Some days it drains all my energy and makes me want to give up.

But, occasionally something turns that feeling around.

I've told a few select people about this already, but because of the personal nature of it I haven't spread it around too much; I don't want to violate anyone's privacy. A couple of months ago, out of the blue, I got a nice private message on one of those Evil Socialist Media Platforms.

The writer doubted I would remember him (but I did). We'd had an online conversation about 14 years ago (I remember where I lived at the time, and that was a time of great turmoil in my living arrangements), only for a couple of days. He was a Republican and a Constitutionalist. I pointed out that Republican politicians didn't obey the Constitution any better than the Democrat politicians, and that if that was what he really valued, he should probably be a Libertarian instead. Note that I don't remember ever saying I thought the Constitution was a good thing, or that I was a Libertarian Party supporter (although I was closer to both of those positions 14 years ago). I was just pointing out something I thought would better fit him, personally. And I always love to see people abandon the DemoCRAPublicans for any reason.

But he didn't seem to like it much. In fact, I felt like he really hated me. So I let it drop. I actually did think about him a few times over the years, feeling bad that he seemed to hate me. But I didn't expect to ever hear from him again. So to say his message surprised me would be an understatement.

Because in his message he admitted that back then he thought I was a wacko, but he no longer did. He said he becomes more libertarian every day, and so does his wife. He still has a ways to go, but that's one person I would have never dreamed would budge an inch.

So, you really never know who will hear you and let it fester in their mind until it sprouts and takes root. Keep scattering the seeds. Some WILL make a difference.

-

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

It's time to free all speech again

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 15, 2018)

Last week some of the biggest social media corporations colluded to silence a voice they didn't like.

No matter how you feel about Alex Jones and his Infowars media brand, this wasn't good for free speech. It was the escalation of a war which has been building for some time, where voices running counter to the political biases of the dominant social media empires are being silenced.

If your argument is so weak you feel the need to silence the other side rather than respond with your own well-thought out points, then your opinions are probably wrong. Censorship is a loser's move.

It's not just voices from the political right which have been silenced. Libertarian activists are being targeted as well.

Private companies have the right to kick anyone off their platform for any reason. However, is a corporation, which has sought and received special privileges from government, still a "private company"? Corporations, through this special relationship with government called "crony capitalism", have become, in all but name, a branch of government. They use this relationship to encourage legislation which makes entering their field too expensive for most newcomers, thus stifling competition. In exchange, they sell your data to government.

Considering this special relationship, they should be held to the same standards the rest of government is supposed to be held to, which includes the responsibility to abide by the Bill of Rights even when they don't agree with it.

If they don't like the deal, they can remain private and stay out of government's bed.

Even if you still believe they have the right to censor those they don't like, in spite of this special relationship with government, it wasn't smart. If it becomes acceptable to silence voices you don't like while you are in power, you make it seem OK for others to do the same to you once the tables are turned.

What if they use liability as their justification? It's a valid concern, due to tyrannical government overreach. Government has already prosecuted a website owner for things others published on the platform, in the case of the Silk Road site, and has threatened to do the same to others. It's a dangerous, speech-stifling situation.

I'm never in favor of government regulating companies, even when they do things I don't agree with. Nor am I afraid of hearing dissenting voices. In fact, they often help me put my own thoughts in order. It's time to free all speech again.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com