None obligated to obey bad laws

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 6, 2019)

While I appreciate when governments express support for natural human rights, I wonder if they really understand the rights they claim to support.

Roosevelt County was recently declared a "Second Amendment Sanctuary" by the county commission. How serious are they?

Are they only concerned with additional violations of the Second Amendment by the state? What about enforcement of all the violations on the books beginning in 1934 with the National Firearms Act?

Do they understand the only purpose of the Second Amendment was to make it a crime to pass or enforce any laws against weapons?
Do they understand that the Second Amendment recognizes and protects the right to own and to carry weapons however you see fit, everywhere you go, without asking permission?
Do they understand this right existed before the first government was established and will still exist unchanged long after the last government has been forgotten?

These are rhetorical questions because I know the answers. I also realize they call the resolution "not legally binding"; a symbolic nothing.

I wonder how seriously anyone would have taken politicians in the 1850s had they "symbolically" declared their region to be a sanctuary for escaped slaves, yet continued to allow slavery in their communities, and allowed slave catchers to brutally capture and return runaways to the individuals who claimed them as property.

You aren't a Second Amendment Sanctuary if you allow even the slightest anti-gun "law" to be enforced on your watch.

To posture over additional infringements if they are "unnecessary, duplicate, and possibly unconstitutional" is to miss the point of the Second Amendment. To try to weasel out of responsibility, claiming you "cannot determine the constitutionality of a law" is dishonest.

As pointed out in a previous column, the Supreme Court stole the power to be the final arbiter of constitutionality-- this power was not theirs to claim. Constitutionality is yours to judge. Would you wait to see if the Supreme Court says the Constitution permits the federal government to murder a peaceable neighbor over the church he attends before you know it's unconstitutional? The federal government will never allow unconstitutionality to stand in the way of established rules and bureaucracies.

No one needs to fight unconstitutional "laws" since even the Supreme Court has ruled that a law which violates the Constitution isn't a law at all, and no one is obligated to obey. All who enforce such non-laws are criminals.

Don't stop at symbolism. Respect human rights; all of them, completely without reservation or hesitation. It's the right thing to do.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Moccasins

I like feeing the texture of the ground under my feet, but I've never enjoyed being barefoot.

The only barefoot walking I ever did of my own free will was walking barefoot through the snow-- sometimes a quarter mile or so through the woods. The ice balls which form between the toes and get uncomfortable are the biggest downside. When my late daughter Cheyenne was small we had a ritual where she, my son, and I would go for a quick barefoot walk in the snow together at least once every winter. More often if she asked. She looked forward to the first substantial snowfall every year for just that reason.

Other than that, I've never been much of a barefooter.

But I love the feeling of walking in moccasins.

For a large part of my life, I wore moccasins almost all the time. Not the padded abominations with rubber soles that some call "moccasins", but moccasins with nothing but one layer of leather between the ground and you. I did always wear socks or wrap my feet in wool blanketing, though, so there was some padding.

I had a few pairs of moccasins in the closet which didn't fit well. I have been wanting a new pair of Navajo/Kaibab moccasins for years. Those seem to work best for me in civilization.

So several years ago when I had some "extra" money (haha!) I ordered a new pair. I ordered them early because we were heading to Colorado and I wanted moccasins to wear while wandering. And I waited and waited, and got excuse after excuse. A month or so after the trip I gave up and asked for my money back, and it was grudgingly refunded.

I just put the moccasins on hold after that. For almost 7 years. Then, a few weeks back, I did some closet cleaning and decided to sell my 3 pairs of old too-small moccasins. They all sold quickly and with that money I ordered (from a different place) a new pair of moccs. I've been wearing them a lot since then and relishing the feeling.

Why did I wait so long?

When you wear moccasins almost exclusively you learn a different, quieter, (and I suspect, more natural) way to walk, where you meet the ground first with the ball of your foot and then roll the rest of your foot to the ground. It's not as awkward as that makes it sound. The heel doesn't end up bearing much weight. In fact, it's also how I walk when in sock-feet, due to years of developing the habit. It's hard to walk this way in modern footwear because the shoe heel gets in the way, so then I usually revert to the clunky modern style of walking where the heel strikes the ground first, then you fall forward onto the rest of your foot. I can still walk relatively quietly this way (which is why so many people have threatened to put bells on me over the years), but it doesn't feel as right.

I had flat feet when I was a kid, inherited from my mother. My feet may still be flatter than normal, and shoes with "supportive" arches feel like there's a golf ball in the shoe, but my feet are not as flat as they were when I was in my early teens, before I started wearing moccasins. Could use have strengthened the muscles and ligaments of my feet over the years? My mother has only worn shoes with good arch support and her feet are as flat as it is possible for feet to be. I don't know if there's a correlation or not, but it's just data to ponder.

Footwear is a personal thing. I'm sure the preferences are completely subjective. I wear stove pipe boots when I'm going to town or I know I'll be walking on abrasive pavement. But for the sheer pleasure of having feet, I just really love moccasins.

Note: The picture shows my new Navajo moccasins on the left and my old mountainman moccasins, which I made from braintan buckskin, on the right. I don't wear the mountainman moccs in the modern world for multiple reasons.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Giving up on alchemy

A show I was watching on Netflix, showing an alchemist at work, gave me an idea.

I could be wrong, but I suspect alchemy gradually evolved into science because of alchemists keeping the stuff that worked and tossing out the stuff that didn't. The magic failed, but the occasional experiment succeeded, It was a process. No one intended to abandon alchemy; it just happened over time.

I can even imagine some people clinging to hope, still searching for the Elixir of Life, the philosopher's stone, or a way to (easily and cheaply) turn lead into gold, as others were pursuing the more realistic natural sciences.

In a parallel way, politics is alchemy; libertarianism is science.

I can see how politics slowly evolved into libertarianism over the centuries as smart people tossed out the stuff which didn't work and kept doing the stuff which did. Getting closer to anarchy with each winnowing. I believe the Tao Te Ching shows some early faltering steps in that direction from around 2600 years ago. It takes time to get things right.

Yet, there are still a lot of delusionally hopeful alchemists still searching for the best kind of government, the right people to run it, and the law which will solve a problem. The shocking thing is that anyone takes them seriously.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Ammo.com's Not-So-Wild West

It has been stated before, particularly in The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry Anderson and P.J. Hill (which is also referenced in the following piece), but the "Wild West" was more peaceful (and anarchic) than any modern region.

Ammo.com presents a good overview of the topic, as they often do.
Find it here:
The American Old West: How Hollywood Made It “Wild” to Make Money & Advance Gun Control

Personally, I think I'd rather live in the Hollywood version of the "Wild West" than in modern America. But that's just me.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Red flag laws"

The only reason it looks to anti-liberty bigots like "red flag laws" are needed is because of the "laws" which make it harder for individuals to defend themselves from evil losers.

Again, as in so many cases, too much government gives an "excuse" for even more government. At least, the dumb people see it as an excuse.

I see it as a reason to get rid of the "laws" which caused the problem in the first place.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Sorry, Scott. "Climate change" IS a power grab.

On a recent podcast, Scott Adams almost had a meltdown when confronted by the evidence that many of his listeners believe "climate change" hysteria is all about a power grab by those promoting it. He says this means people have been hypnotized by the media they get their news from.

There's a flaw in his belief: I don't partake of the "news", and the "news" I accidentally get exposed to is from all over the statist map. I also don't know whether AGCC is real, whether it is a net negative, or anything else about it-- other than the fact it doesn't justify violations of life, liberty, or property by any government.

Yet I do know he's wrong to deny "climate change" is about a power grab, and here's why.

He makes the mistake of insisting that someone show him the one person who is seeking to consolidate his or her power using the excuse of "climate change" through something like the "new green deal". That's looking for the wrong thing.

Every "law" increases government power. This means any new "law"-- no matter what it's about-- is a power grab for the whole collective known as "government". Any individual who has hitched their wagon to that coercive collective is going to gain power with each new "law". Of course, any individual connected to government, who lusts for power, is going to advocate for something which will increase government power and will, therefore, increase the individual government cog's power. Maybe not to the point of that one person being the King of Earth, but enough to cause that person to advocate for the new "law". In the hope of gaining power. That's a power grab.

It's neither mysterious nor a conspiracy theory. It's human nature and the nature of the political means.

Added:
He came back the next day and said that obviously, all government is about power, so calling "climate change" a power grab is the same as literally saying nothing.
Nice backtrack... not.

I enjoy his stuff when he's honest, but he's such a flaming statist he can't even see the statism he floats around in.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Gear post: My first EDC

How did I get into the habit of carrying "gear"? Well, let me tell you.

I've always carried a pocket knife, since first grade. Always. That's kind of the foundation to build upon. And I did.

Once I got to high school, I was reading a lot of books on wilderness survival. Most were full of fanciful advice and drawings that looked cool but didn't work in the real world. But they got me to thinking about having some items on my person at all times, "just in case" (...of being magically transported, without warning, into a primeval world?).

I was also spending a lot of time in the woods during this part of my life. A LOT of time, in all weather, at all times of day, even when I was supposed to be elsewhere. This is how I learned which things from the books wouldn't work in the real world: experience.

I began to want a survival kit on my belt. At least I attended kinderprison in an era when I could get away with carrying such things, even if I wasn't "officially supposed to".

I took a metal Band-Aid box (remember those?), sanded off the paint, cut some belt slots into the back so I could carry it on my belt, and filled it with items I had seen recommended in books and that I could imagine needing.

I packed in some plastic sheeting (for a solar still or other things), some cordage, a folding knife (besides the pocket knife I had in a pocket all the time) fishing line, and fishhooks. I put in a lighter, a candle stub, some cotton (for tinder), and other little odds and ends I had seen recommended in one place or another. The stuff was useful, for sure.

A lot of the items actually did come in handy out in the woods, although I soon realized skills were better than stuff. And the metal box was always getting dented and needing to be re-shaped so it would close again.

I've learned so much since then. But sometimes I am nostalgic for the simpler times when I felt I was ready for anything with my Band-Aid box full of "survival gear".

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Bad decisions

A couple of years ago, someone (a "Right" Statist) told me a young person I hadn't seen in years was going to become a cop. I didn't react as expected.

I was expected to be happy and supportive, but you know I wasn't.

I didn't say anything directly unpleasant, just expressed concern over someone I care about joining an aggressive gang of thugs. I was berated for my concern. I was told this person was looking to "make something" of herself-- doing something "for the good of society". All the normal statist selling points.

I said that even if a good person becomes a cop, they are no longer a good person once they put on that badge. They can't be. I said I cared about the person and her family too much to support such a tragic choice. I was scoffed at for saying it was a tragic choice.

And I haven't heard from the person who told me that since then. I don't even know if the young person went ahead with it or not. I don't want to know. The answer might make me sad.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Don't make politician your leader

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 27, 2019)

It was once a common theme in science fiction humor for a flying saucer to land in front of witnesses, with Little Green Men coming out to say: "Take us to your leader".

If this happened to you, to whom would you take them?

Do you have a leader, and if so, who? Most people seem to think of a politician in this case-- perhaps a president-- but who in their right mind wants to follow a politician? Why would they?

It's similar to the mistake of looking to politicians as role models. No one who seeks political power is worthy to be your role model.

If you mistake a politician for a leader you will be led astray. You're better off on your own, even if you don't know for sure where you're going. Your own mistakes will not be as disastrous as the mistake of following a politician, even under the worst case scenario.

Politicians rarely lead. Their normal approach is to rule. If you doubt this, refuse to "follow" where a politician tells you to go. If you're allowed to take your own path without punishment, then perhaps the politician was also a leader. If, instead, threats of government violence result from your independence, you aren't dealing with a leader, but with a ruler.

You don't need a leader most of the time, if ever, and you never need to be ruled. You know your own life better than anyone else. Why follow someone who doesn't know where you need to go? Especially a person who probably can't even run their own life very well, as seems to always be the case with politicians, much less run everyone else's life successfully.

A leader will be on the front line when a threat is faced. Not hiding behind wave after wave of cannon fodder, nor sitting in an office getting reports and sending orders. If they send you into danger while they stay safe, facing nothing more deadly than the risk of losing the next election, they are not a leader.

I've never seen a politician I would want as my leader. You may feel differently. I wouldn't forbid you to follow whoever you like, nor force you to follow someone you didn't want to follow. I ask the same in return.

So if Little Green Men ever walk up and ask you to, "Take us to your leader", I hope you'll respond with, "That would be me. What can I do for you?"

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Pro-crime people

You can't be pro-police and anti-crime. If you say you are, you're lying.

I see this delusion all the time. People support the largest organized crime gang in existence-- the Blue Line Gang-- and pretend it's because they hate crime. That makes no sense whatsoever.

If you are pro-police you are pro-crime.

Sure, maybe you choose to be violated by the members of this crime gang instead of being violated by the members of a competing crime gang, but I don't see that as a plus.

Freelance gang members are generally seen as fair game during any attack. Shoot one and you might not be punished.
But shoot a Blue Line Gangster in self-defense and the power and violence of the government religion will be brought down on you.

People who support police are supporting crime. Much worse crime than that supported by any other crime supporters. When they claim otherwise they have zero credibility.

Speaking of the religion of government, have you seen this powerful video?

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Water preps pay off

Just a little note to mention something interesting.

A bit over 2 weeks ago was the windstorm that ripped away my shingles and knocked out the power for 15.5 hours. Well, Thursday afternoon the whole town (as far as I know) lost water when a water main burst and flooded part of town.

The water was back on Friday morning, but we are under a 72-hour "boil order" now. As if anyone would need to warn me to boil the water... But, I don't need their water. I'll make it on my stored water until Monday (if that's still when the boil order ends), easily. In fact, I've barely dipped into what I have stored.

I did tape off the faucets (as in the picture above) as a reminder to not use the tap water. Habits are hard to buck!

Twice, in two weeks (plus one day) I've relied on my "preps" to smooth over a situation that would have been worse if I hadn't prepared. Even my parents had stored water due to my advice.

Fun times!

UPDATE:
I should know better than to ever listen to government about anything. The incompetence is a standard feature. And, honestly, I wasn't trusting them much.
Monday the 72-hour boil order came to an end. I checked around and no one had heard any different. Just now (Tuesday, 7:30 pm), almost 2 days later, I find out they had extended it until tomorrow at noon-- unless they decide something different by then. Good job keeping the people informed, morons.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Environmental impacts

Who is the problem: the person who drops an apple core in his yard or the person who keeps a tire fire going behind his house?

Why should the person who drops an apple core be punished while the guy with the tire fire gets a pass? Or, if not a "pass", at least doesn't get held to the same standards as the other guy.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

You don't get to avoid consequences

There are consequences to EVERY choice.

This is something I've said more times than I can count. Even the right choice will have consequences, and they won't all be good ones.

Yet, so many times I see people justifying support for archation by pointing out the consequences of choosing the other path. As if I'm pretending there won't be consequences if only you do the right thing. You don't get to magically avoid consequences just because you do what's right. That would be nice, but it's not reality.

There are consequences to being a libertarian.
There are consequences for being a bank robber.
There are consequences for working for the IRS.

Consequences are utterly inescapable, and you can't know for certain what the consequences will be. You can't make your decision based on concrete knowledge of what consequences will come from your choice, because you can't have concrete knowledge of every consequence you'll face.

If you comply with a counterfeit "law", there will be consequences.
If, instead, you defy the counterfeit "law"... there will be consequences. In the long run, you can't know which consequences will be worse. It's dependent on so many factors-- including luck.

If you take this job, there will be consequences.
If you turn down the job there will be other consequences.

If you v*te, there will be consequences.
If you decline to participate in going through the motions of choosing (or rejecting) a particular master there will be consequences.

The best you can do, in my opinion, is to not do things that make you feel guilty-- which make you feel like you can't live with yourself-- and let the pieces fall where they may.

For me that means I choose to not archate and I don't support those who do. As consistently as possible. And then deal with the consequences as they arise.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

No one owes "reparations"

Because it seems all the Left Statists who are wanting to be the next U.S. godfather of politics are jumping on the "reparations" bandwagon, I thought it might be a good time to repost something from last year.

-

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

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

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

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

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Gear post: Buck 501 and "odds and ends"

Click to enlarge

Finishing off the belt and its accessories.

To begin, there's my Buck 501 lockback knife. This is really the only piece in this post that counts as "gear".

My first wife gave this knife to me for my birthday sometime in the late 1980s. I've carried it pretty much daily since then. Only a year or so after I got it, a cow-orker borrowed it and tried to pry a button off a cash register and snapped off the tip. I forgave him but educated him on things NOT to do with a knife. I reshaped the blade and carried it in its damaged state until a couple of years ago. Then I sent it to Buck and got it repaired. Why didn't I do this sooner?

The knife is small, but I've found it the most useful knife size for most everyday tasks. I love my Buck 110, but it's clumsy for a lot of the things I do, so I always go back to this one.

This knife rides on my right side; the front-most belt accessory.

Of course, every good knife needs a good sheath. Unfortunately, all it gets is this sheath I made for it when it was new. I have re-stitched it a few times over the decades, but it is still holding up.

Then we have my belt buckle. It's hand-forged from iron in the mountainman style.

It's slightly over 2.5" in diameter. I either got it in the late 1980s or the early 1990s (the more I think about it, the less sure I am). It's not one of those things I think about much, it's just there and dependable.

I don't even remember where I got this buckle. Either at a mountainman rendezvous or through a buckskinner's catalog. It has outlasted at least 2 belts, and will probably outlast me.

Last, there's the belt keeper to control the end of the belt. I made it from the extra of the previous belt, back when I first got that one from Tandy Leather. It was still good so it got moved to this new belt a couple of years ago when the previous belt just got too stretched to keep wearing. (That belt is now a shoulder strap on a canvas bag I have.)

I suppose the belt should get an honorable mention, too. It's just a regular strap of unfinished vegetable tanned leather, 1.5" wide. Oiled occasionally (as are all the leather belt accessories).

And that finishes up what's around my hips. Next? Maybe what's in my vest.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The root of the problems

When I have problems with my fellow humans it's invariably when I stray from libertarian principles.

This was true even before I knew anything of libertarian principles. Back before I first heard of "libertarians" (from a statist) as people who "liked drugs and hated taxes". And yes, that was the first thing I remember hearing someone say about these people called "libertarians.

When I did first hear of them I thought they sounded like crazy people. Not anyone I could ever relate to. Of course, I was probably around 15 or 16 years old, with a poorly functioning prefrontal cortex in my immature brain.

I had the same reaction 10 or so years later when I first became aware of modern mountainmen or "buckskinners".

Yet, I can still see how my problems with other humans back then were caused by me not respecting their rights and their self-ownership.

I've never been the most social person. But dealing with others has gotten a lot easier since then, even as I've become more aware of the violations committed by others. And when something does go awry it's usually easy to see where I failed myself by stepping outside what I have a right to do. I hate when that happens, but it's educational and I hope I learn from it.

Has your experience been similar?

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Courts have institutionalized revenge

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 20, 2019)

I'll never understand how the output of the government's court system passes for "justice". If you ever find justice in a courtroom it will be a fluke; an accident.

Justice doesn't require government, or even laws. Those only obstruct justice.

Justice is the attempt to return a victim to their pre-violation condition. Justice is made unnecessary by self-defense, which nips crime in the bud. Justice is mainly restitution, if self-defense fails.

The state is never the victim, and is never owed compensation from a wrongdoer; only the individual human victim or their survivors are owed.

The right to defend yourself against bad guys does not come from laws. Laws are not what creates a debt from an act of aggression or properly violation, and they don't create your right to restitution. You have those rights whether or not laws agree.

Punishment isn't justice. I understand the desire to see a person suffer when their actions have hurt you. I've been there. But that's not justice, it's revenge; justice's polar opposite. Government courts-- the misnamed "justice system"-- are founded on ritualized revenge.

Maybe you believe revenge is justified, and if so, remember this if you're ever on the other side. I don't believe revenge is justifiable, even though I have personally wanted revenge a few times in my life. I was wrong. If you embrace revenge through government courts, you are also wrong.

This doesn't mean people "just get away with it". Could you continue to treat someone like a good person, knowing they did wrong and never tried to make it right? Justice is your job. You can't pawn it off on anyone else.

You have the right to shun unrepentant violators. If not for government's laws you would be free to shun them to death-- to refuse to sell them food, housing, energy, clothing, or any other necessity-- and to convince others to join you. Those who intentionally harm people but won't take full responsibility aren't worthy of your consideration or help. Leave them to the wolves. You would be well within your rights, and their cold, lonely death would be an acceptable substitute for justice.

If, however, you choose to shun someone who made a tragic mistake, admitted it and tried to make things right, I would probably not join you. Mistakes are human. Without the intent to cause harm they can't be crimes and shouldn't be treated as crimes, even though they can hurt just as much.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Pigeons do one thing right

A few days ago I saw a small flock of pigeons flying beside the road. All the pigeons were the same standard pigeon color, except for one. He was light brown with white wings-- beautiful, for a pigeon.

The different pigeon was still part of the flock. He wanted to belong. The others were fine with him belonging. Because he wanted to belong to the flock he didn't make an issue of his difference. He didn't demand special treatment. He didn't demand his own "space" because he was different. He didn't segregate himself.

The others didn't make an issue, either. They weren't trying to drive him away or leave him behind. It didn't seem as if any pigeon noticed any difference.

They were all just pigeons going about their pigeony business.

Pigeons have an advantage over humans in at least one area. They don't have religion (including of the political kind) to artificially divide them. Because of this advantage, they don't come to believe that any pigeon which is capable of pigeoning is somehow a lesser pigeon. They don't believe any other pigeon owes them anything or should be responsible for them. They all find their own food. No pigeon feels guilt because of it's color or pattern.

Yes, a different pigeon may attract predators. That's just nature. If it happens, it sucks for that pigeon, but it's not the other pigeons' fault.

There is still some safety in numbers, even if you're different, as long as you don't single yourself out and turn the flock against you.

I'll fly beside you as your equal, as long as you don't turn into something else and try to become predatory.

_______________

Reminder: I need roof help!

-

Writing is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Pinned-- (Fund)raise the roof (Update #3, more pics)

(Updates at the bottom)
Yesterday's wind storm did me some damage. Not as bad as the local building pictured above, but my shingles are done. On the house, where I've never had roof problems.

I'm going to have to come up with the deductible* to get that fixed. If I'm not mistaken, that's $1500, and I'm not sure if I then have to pay a percentage of the repairs or not. I'll be talking to the insurance people soon, although I expect they'll be very busy for a while. It was quite a day.

Use the PayPal link PayPal.me/dullhawk

Please share this anywhere you believe would help.

I'm posting this from my phone because the power hasn't been restored yet, so it may take a while to hear from me. I'm ok because I'm a prepper.

I'll update this post and answer questions once I have power and internet again. Until then, thanks.

UPDATE: Just got power back. It was off 15.5 hours, which is probably a record for me. I actually enjoy power outages, though.

Yesterday was the shingle-apocalypse, and not just for me. I saw shingles flying past most of the day. I once looked outside just as a house a block or so over had 6 or so shingles take flight. It looked like those videos of a tornado hitting a house, but without a tornado, and with only shingles. My yard is covered in shingles, but most are probably not mine. I'm assuming mine are somewhere east of here. Oklahoma, perhaps.

I drove around the area yesterday evening and there is a lot of shingle damage, and quite a few broken trees. And, the wall on that one old building collapsed as you can see in the picture above. I even saw some metal roofing peeled back on some old agricultural buildings.

Oh, and the "arms" of the railroad crossing blew off, too.

There was no "storm". No clouds or rain or anything like that; just wind. Lots and lots of wind. With some dirt.

In the early afternoon I walked the 7 blocks to my parents' house-- straight into the wind. That was probably the hardest time I've ever had walking. I was stumbling and taking the occasional step backwards to keep from falling. I'm sure I looked drunk. I couldn't keep my duster snapped. The wind kept pulling it open. I had a hand on my hat and was mostly staring straight down. I would glance ahead frequently, but my face would be pelted with gravel and other debris. I needed to see ahead to dodge shingles and other projectiles. It was interesting. My mouth was gritty for a while after I got home.

I'll be out doing some cleanup as soon as it's a little warmer. At least there's not supposed to be any serious wind today.

*Update #2-- I spoke to the insurance agent today. She said the deductible just gets subtracted from any payout, so there's no out of pocket there... however... with depreciation and such she thinks it could still be very expensive for me to get the repairs needed. How expensive? I'll see once the adjuster makes it to the house for a look and does his thing.

Update #3, pictures--

Here's what most of the yard looked like:

Notice the shingles scattered about. They probably weren't all mine. As I've said, lots of houses in town lost shingles and I saw many of them flying past my house all day.

I got up on the roof and made pictures of the damage.

My neighbor says the "official" wind speeds were in the 70 MPH range, with gusts around 100. I don't know, because I don't listen to the "news", but it was impressive. It was like a dry hurricane.

I got a call from the company who assigns the adjusters, with his contact information and an assurance he'll call within 48 hours. I'm now waiting for him to call and make an appointment. I assume they are very busy.



.

"Tax debt"

There's no more ridiculous a phrase than "tax debt".

You can no more have a "tax debt" than you can be in debt to a mugger who didn't get all the money he wanted from you during the mugging.

Or in debt to a rapist who didn't get to violently dominate you exactly as he wished.

Or in debt to a disappointed would-be murderer because you didn't die after he stabbed you 37 times. You don't owe him your life.

You are not in debt to any archator who didn't get all he wanted from you. To claim otherwise is insane.

"Taxation" IS theft! Even if you don't like hearing it and don't want to admit it. The only debt involved in "taxation" is owed by those who "tax", not by their victims.

_______________

Reminder: I need roof help!

-

Writing is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Statist misrepresents Laissez-faire

Here's another statist lie, paraphrased for brevity:

"Sorry, libertarians. You are wrong. We know laissez-faire doesn't work, because it means there are no rules. You have to have some government, just not centralized control, because that doesn't work, either."

Yes, I heard one make that argument recently. He's wrong.

All government is centralized control. Yes, there are differing amounts. But if there is no centralized control it's not government as people understand government. It would be something else. Centralized control-- any and all centralized control-- is cancer. There's no way to keep it from metastisizing.

Laissez-faire doesn't mean there are no rules. The rules are just not imposed by a coercive, thieving gang of molesters. Control, in this case, is provided by social interactions. By the market. By self-interest. "Bottom-up" (which works) rather than "top-down" (which doesn't).

To make the claim the statist made is terribly ignorant. He probably believes himself to be very enlightened.

_______________

Reminder: I need roof help!

-

Writing is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Political predators

I think there may have been a little confusion about what a political predator is.

To be clear, anyone who uses the political means instead of the economic means is a political predator.

Cops are merely a subset of political predator. As are child molesters, congressvermin, muggers, rapists, presidents, kidnappers, Supreme Courtjesters, burglars, bureaucrats, and murderers.

To distinguish between the various subsets of political predator gives some of them too much credit. They are all bad guys to some degree.

_______________

Reminder: I need roof help!

-

Writing is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Gear post: Phone holster

Click to embiggen

My phone holster is actually my oldest piece of gear, although it didn't start out as a phone holster.

It is made of leather (duh!) and measures 6.5" tall, 4" wide, and 2.25" thick.
It sits on my right side between the double pouch (behind it) and the sheath for my Buck 501.

It shows its age.

I made this pouch in the mid-1980s as a way to carry necessary items while working at a pet store. I carried a calculator, scissors, a pen, razor blades, and half a hacksaw blade, plus maybe a few other odds and ends that I'm forgetting. I used this pouch for years, and when I no longer worked at a pet store, the pouch ended up tossed in a box with other leather items and scraps.

When I got a new phone a couple of years ago it needed a holster because it was bigger than the previous phone (I'm not one to leave my phone lying around, or to try to keep it in a pocket). I went digging in the leather scrap box to come up with leather to make a new pouch and ran across this one. It fit perfectly!

I did add belt loops; originally I just tied it to the belt with leather thongs because I was constantly taking it off when I wasn't at work. That was no longer necessary, so loops were a better idea. As you can see, it is also tied in place.

I put a leather divider inside it, for keeping the back-up battery (seen above with the "Time's Up" sticker on it) separate from the phone. That was the only internal change.

The internal side pocket where I used to keep the short hacksaw blade is where I now keep a USB cord, and I have adapters (in the little ziplock bag-- for sharing a charge with other people) under the back-up battery. The little pocket where I used to keep razor blades is a good spot to store yet another P-38 can opener.

It has a Browncoats "Independents" patch on the flap. Frivolity!

The button is a cross-section of deer antler. I replaced the button loop about a week ago when the original one finally broke. The new loop is made from boot-top leather.

This is probably my most complex pouch. I know this isn't exactly primitive stuff here. I adjust and adapt to changing technology when it suits me. Before cell phones, people would joke with me about being the MountainMan with the cordless phone hooked on his belt at work. It's a concession to the modern world; one that doesn't really bother me because I know I can do without. Like lighters and toilet paper.

Part of my philosophy of life is to help other people. I have given other people a charge in an emergency, using the USB adapters. I once gave a P-38 to a guy who needed one. I carry extra stuff just for this reason. All because I'm one of those selfish, independent, individualistic libertarians you hear about.

_______________

Reminder: I need roof help!

-

Writing is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Worse than sexual predators

It seems that every day there's yet another sexual predator exposed. Good. They need to be exposed and stopped.

The problem is, there's an even worse kind of predator; a type which doesn't have to be exposed because so few people recognize what they do as predation that it isn't hidden. It is carried out in the open, and many people even admire them for it.

Few see it as wrong. But that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Once upon a time, few people saw slavery as wrong. But it was.

These predators of whom I speak are those who use politics "legally". All of them. They are political predators and they are molesting you and your loved ones right this minute.

Political predators are bad guys who need to be exposed-- by having the veil of legitimacy stripped from them-- and they need to be stopped.

The thing with sexual predators is that sex itself isn't inherently wrong. It can be consensual and mutually voluntary. Sexual predators are bad because they skip the consent and use the political means against their victims. Just like other political predators do.

Politics can never be truly consensual and mutually voluntary. Otherwise, politics wouldn't be necessary. You could simply agree to a relationship. Politics is never like this. Politics is non-sexual (usually) rape. Politics is slavery. Politics is theft. Politics is the realm of the predator, exclusively. Good people use the economic means when dealing with others; bad people use the political means. Anyone who uses the political means is a political predator.

Yes, this means muggers, thieves, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, and all those people are, at the foundation, political predators. But so are people who aren't considered necessarily bad guys by the public at large. They are the "legal" political predators.

Police are political predators.
Politicians are political predators.
Bureaucrats who work in government are political predators.

Do you want these people around your kids? Or yourself? I sure don't.

Stop giving political predators a pass they don't deserve.

_______________

Reminder: I need roof help!

-

Writing is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

There's no 'one-size-fits-all' for living

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 13, 2019)

How much of what you want government to do is based on your emotions? On your feelings about what you wish other people would do or believe they should do, and your willingness to use government violence to make it happen?

If it's more than "none" it's too much.

I recently ran across a quote by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt in which he said, "Some people are less emotional, more reasoned. We call these people 'libertarians'. There's actually data on this-- that libertarians are lower on emotion, higher on reasoning ability. They have worse relationships; they care about people less, but they are better able to just reason through a lot of data."

Fortunately, he's not quite right.

Libertarians are not less emotional, but-- at our best-- we are less controlled by our emotions. I can hate drug abuse and still understand I have no right to use government violence to impose drug prohibition. As long as I don't let emotion overpower reason I won't advocate harming someone who isn't violating anyone's life, liberty, or property.

Libertarians know a crime requires the intent to harm. An accident might result in the same harm as a crime would, but without an intention to violate someone there is no crime. Emotions triggered by the event might try to steer us along a different path, but it would be a wrong path. A debt is often created by an accident, but again, a debt isn't a crime. To confuse these things creates tragedy for individuals and sickness in society.

He's also wrong about libertarians caring less about people.  I care about people very much. This is why I don't accept any justification for violating them. How can staunchly respecting people's natural human rights be mistaken for not caring?

It's not "caring" to use taxation to steal from some in order to fund government programs which keep people impoverished. It's not caring to force people to live as you believe they should,

So would I support government if only libertarians, with their superior ability to reason, were in charge? Not at all. Even those who are better able to reason have no right to govern anyone but themselves.

No matter how well a person can reason through data, they can never know all the circumstances of everyone else's life as thoroughly as each individual can know their own life. There is no "one-size-fits-all" way to feed a family, dress, or live... or to govern. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Mistakes and wrongs

I've made so many mistakes over the course of my life. And I've committed so many wrongs.

Many of my mistakes haunt me when I think of them. Each one undoubtedly set my life on a different course. When I think of them I sometimes want to punch myself in the face and mutter "Stupid, stupid, stupid!"

If the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum physics is correct, there are countless versions of me out there who didn't make the same mistakes I've made (they made other mistakes). I wonder what those versions are experiencing as a result. What mistakes did I avoid making?

And when I think of the wrongs I've committed... if I believed in punishment rather than justice, as so many do, I would probably kill myself.

I never did anything like robbery, rape, kidnapping, or murder, but wrong enough that I wish I hadn't done them.

One good thing is that I haven't committed as many wrongs since my early 20s or so. I'm sure I've committed smaller wrongs, but nothing I dwell on. I've focused more on making mistakes since then.

No matter what anyone else thinks of me, I'm my own worst critic. But the cats love me.

I do think I'm getting better with the passing years. Coming to understand rights and responsibilities was a big part of that improvement. The best anyone can do is to be a better person than year-ago you was.

I also have to remember that in very real ways, I am not that same person I was. Not only have all my cells been replaced since then, but my mind has other contents. I'm a different person than I was when I was 20 or 30, and certainly different than when I was a teen. At some point you've got to let the past be the past and move forward. Remember and enjoy the good parts of the past; let go of and forgive yourself for the bad parts. That will help make you a better person, too.

Now, if I could really convince myself of this and put it into action. It's a process.

_______________

Reminder: I need roof help!

-

Writing is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Disavow and flee while you can!

I'm no fan of president Trump. It's sad that I have to say this first for fear of being misunderstood. To be clear: I need no president nor representative of any kind. I don't need your government or your "laws" or your enforcers. Keep them to yourself if you insist on having them. They are worth less than worthless.

But, back to the point... I just roll my eyes at how it seems to be dangerous to have worked with Trump, for him, or to know him. The Left Statists in government seem determined to punish (and cage) anyone who has been associated with him. They can't seem to get him, so they'll go after anyone who has ever been around him for more than 10 minutes.

I can't take any of it seriously. It's just a broken-down circus, without anything even marginally entertaining, at this point.

But it makes me glad I didn't ever meet Trump-- I don't want to have a target on my back.

I wonder if those going after Trump's associates realize they just look like witch hunters of "Olden Tymes". I'm tired of them and their clowning and I wouldn't pay any attention to them, but "news" keeps leaking in.

I wonder how they would have liked it if the "other side" [sic] had gone after everyone who was ever associated with Obama in the same way. (I would bring up Hillary's-- and Bill's-- associates, but they seem to have their own form of "bad luck" that has nothing to do with her opponents.) I guess this means it's open season on any future president's acquaintances. From now on. If you know someone with political aspirations, get away from them now!

The Left Statists need to stop acting like sore losers. But that's kind of the Statist Way, so I don't see it happening.

_______________

Reminder: I need roof help, badly! and fast!

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Cops are always DWI

There is no such thing as a police officer driving without being impaired. Not ever.

They are always under the influence of their imagined "authority". It's a powerful drug and it causes them to drive erratically. Their permanent condition of intoxication kills innocent people-- and some of the guilty cops, too.

It causes them to engage in high-speed chases. But when the cop kills innocent people he and his gang-- The Blue Line Gang-- will blame the person they were chasing. This is a filthy lie.

It causes them to make U-turns in unsafe conditions-- one of the local cops wrecked the cop car he drives (pictured above before the wreck) and seriously injured a random motorist a year or so back by doing just this in order to catch someone "speeding" a little-- something much less dangerous than what the cop did.

It causes them to believe they can text, make phone calls, and use their onboard computer terminals (to try to find reasons to stop and molest other motorists) more safely than lesser people like us. They can't. Their "training" doesn't make them superhuman.

Every cop is a junkie. No cop should be behind the wheel of a car under any circumstances. Never. But most certainly never under the excuse of "policing traffic". They are worse than any problem they pretend to fight. They are dangerous hypocrites. Get them off the roads, and keep them off the roads.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help, including help to cover the $1500 deductible on my roof after the wind yesterday removed many shingles. As I write this the wind is trying to remove my roof, too. I'm hoping it fails to do so.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Gear post: Double pouch

Click to enlarge

This pouch was almost completely remade recently. It was originally made of leather from an old boot top (you can see the old version in this pic from an old post). It was too thin and wore out after only 6 or so years. So late last year I made it again with thicker leather, reusing only the old back piece with the belt loop.

It sits on my right side, usually snugged right behind my phone holster-- it's separated a bit in the pictures so you can see it better.

This pouch was first made as a way to get some extra bulk out of my vest pockets. I no longer carry the whetstone which was in the original version. I have plenty of sharpening tools without it.

When I remade the pouch I was pleased with myself for figuring out how to make the body out of one piece of leather: with the two pouches, and that little space between where a pill case can sit. I usually use newspaper to make a pattern and then tweak it a little as I cut and sew the leather. It worked well this time.

I access this pouch the least frequently of all my pouches. You can probably see why, by the contents. But I'd rather have something and not need it than need it and not have it.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The annual mass delusion involving clocks

Did you remember to mis-set your clocks as mandated?

I did.

As someone who is not a morning person, and has no interest in being one, it aggravates me greatly. If you want to get up an hour earlier, open your business an hour earlier and close it an hour earlier, go ahead. No one is stopping you. Just leave me out of your fantasy. Why demand everyone else do it, too?

In the past I have refused to go along with the silliness. It didn't work well. But I still hate the delusion that you can "save" daylight by mis-setting your clocks. It's a lie. Does it prime people to accept other lies?

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some "saving" help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Market always superior to government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 6, 2019)

Last week a local business delivered to my home-- even though I didn't ask and it wasn't expected. Just to be nice and to make a good impression. And it worked!

This reminded me of the difference between market services and government "services" and why I always prefer the market.

With a market business, if I don't like their service I can choose to not use them. I can use a competitor or do without. They know you have a choice, so If they want to stay in business they can't poison their customers.

If I don't shop at a particular store, they won't send armed employees to my door to force themselves on me. I'm not forced to send them money regularly whether or not I shop with them. I can even go into competition with them. They can't do anything about it unless-- through cronyism-- they use the violence of government against me. If they take that path, they are no longer part of the market, but have joined forces with the coercive sector: the State.

With government "services" there is no real choice. No matter how bad they are, I am forced to pay-- even if I never use them. When you end up facing a surly, incompetent, entitled bureaucrat you're forced to pay this employee regardless. Often I am compelled to use a "service" I don't want. If I try to opt out I will be attacked by armed government employees-- maybe not right away, but if I fail to comply with their escalating threats it will happen. Their employees know this and it shows.

Sometimes you'll get a caring government employee-- more common in the less coercive branches-- but niceness can't make up for the lack of choice.

Occasionally you'll be allowed to choose a non-government alternative, but you are still forced to pay for the unwanted government option. You can use a private school, but the government will claim this doesn't mean you can stop funding the "public" school you neither need nor want. You will pay twice.

A business in the voluntary market can't treat customers the way government services can. Not if it wants to survive.

The market will always be superior. The only reason people believe they need government police but not government grocery stores is that-- so far-- groceries aren't distributed by government. If something as critical as food can be handled by the market, lesser jobs like policing would be a snap.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

When I don't take my own advice

Less than 24 hours after saying how I try to be considerate, I did something inconsiderate. And I don't even really feel bad about it.

Yes, I have room for improvement.

In the middle of listening to someone complaining to a captive audience about "Mexicans" (and the unwillingness of the local mayor to kick them out of a house in the neighborhood), I piped up and explained to his audience "He hates Mexicans".

He said "No I don't, I just..." and went on explaining how he only doesn't like them when they live in a house near him, and there are "too many" of them in that house. So I said "Oh, he only hates them when they leave Mexico and come here". This was met with another denial and more justification.

I pointed out that the people he was complaining about have never done anything to harm him in any way. They are polite, don't cause trouble, and are hard workers. He countered that their being there a few months out of the year hurts his property value-- all the property values in the area, for that matter. I asked if he was planning to try to sell his house. "No."

I said then "lowered property values helps you by lowering the property taxes". He went on and on about how it doesn't, describing how people had paid "too much" for a nearby house several years ago, and thus raised everyone's property values and propped up the "tax" rates. I pointed out that in that case, it obviously hadn't hurt his property value any.

I've mentioned the problems I have with a few specific Hispanics/Mexicans. But only those who are violating my property rights. Others aren't violating me and I have no problem with them-- and the point of them being Hispanic/Mexican is really irrelevant (I just mentioned that because of the fact it makes me feel racist to dislike them and their violations while noticing their cultural roots) because I would dislike anyone doing the same. I know for certain he wouldn't feel the same if the house was occasionally occupied by "whites" rather than "Mexicans".

So, yeah, I was probably a jerk. But I've listened to this too many times, and I'm tired of it. But, I'll try to do better next time.

_______________

Reminder: It's probably inconsiderate of me to mention it, but I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Being considerate

I stopped by a fast food place earlier and witnessed a couple of inconsiderate individuals. I believe it was the manager's son/stepson and a friend. Not doing anything too disruptive, but just a basic lack of consideration for others. They were standing in the outer doorway, holding the door open (and thus letting the dirt-filled wind blow into the place every time the inner door opened) and blocking customers trying to enter and leave. Just so they could stand in that particular spot and talk while looking at their phones. They did this for probably 10 minutes.

They were making the customers uneasy. The manager asked them to get out of the doorway and shut the door a couple of times, only to be completely ignored. He finally put his foot down and insisted they move and didn't let up until they did.

Of course, they acted like it was all a big joke and he was a fool for making an issue. It left me feeling a general dislike for the inconsiderate individuals. If I were to ever recognize them again, I would already have a bad first impression.

This is something I try to ALWAYS keep in mind. I don't want to make a bad impression on "the public" unless it happens to be an important issue where I need to take a stand, whether people like it or not. Those don't really crop up all that often in my day-to-day life.

I try to smile, hold doors open for people, say "hello", say "excuse me", and be understanding with cashiers. Even with law enforcers, I just ignore them without making an issue. It doesn't come naturally to me, because at heart (except for my karaoke days) I am a hermit. A recluse. It's not that I don't like people-- I wouldn't be libertarian if that were the case-- I'm just not naturally sociable. Yet I make an effort to not be a jerk in public.

There's an added risk because I'm recognizable around here. People recognize me from my newspaper columns. If I'm inconsiderate they might assume all libertarians are jerks. It might give them yet another excuse to not consider my points (if they ever read the columns). That wouldn't be beneficial. Being considerate of others is a small price to pay... if it's even a price at all.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some consideration.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Inconsistency is a hallmark of statism

Statism is so internally inconsistent that statists hallucinate inconsistency everywhere else, in everyone else. They can't even imagine anything like consistency.

I've seen statists hallucinate that the right of self-defense somehow justifies their support of an armed gang of badged government employees, funded with stolen money, imposing counterfeit rules at gunpoint, with little or no accountability. They imagine that recognizing this gang for what it is is somehow an endorsement of a free-for-all Mad Max world. They come to believe it's somehow different to shoot a rapist in the act of raping than it is to shoot a law enforcer committing an act of law enforcement.

I've seen statists claim that not supporting a government "border wall", funded with stolen money, built on stolen land, and maintained with stolen money, police state tactics, and coercion, is the same as not respecting private property rights. This is a hallucination caused by statism in the brain.

I could go on, but I'm sure you've seen plenty of examples of your own.

The statism requires this internal inconsistency in order to be maintained. They don't want to admit they have a problem, so they project their traits onto others so they won't feel bad. Being so inconsistent, they see inconsistency where it doesn't exist. They have a psychological need to find inconsistency in others to excuse it in themselves.

If people were internally consistent-- in reason and principles-- they wouldn't be statists.

Consistency doesn't guarantee an individual is right (you can be consistently wrong), but inconsistency guarantees an individual is wrong.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some consistent help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.