Statist priorities

I've pointed out that when the religion of Statism conflicts with other religions, people generally defer to Statism, allowing other religious beliefs to be given the scraps; to be pushed down the stack of priorities.

This photo, which I took at a nearby church, illustrates this perfectly. Oddly, for this area, the wind was calm so the flags aren't as visible as I wish. But that's a US federal flag-- Holy Pole Quilt-- placed on a pole above the Christian flag.

That's right, they give Holy Pole Quilt a position of superiority over their other beliefs. They are honoring Statism over Christianity.

Yes, I realize the old (and retired) "US flag codes" require this placement. So?

Why are they even flying Holy Pole Quilt at a church at all? What does that have to do with their primary mission?

When I was a kid I heard people talk about the brave Christians in the USSR and China who risked death by putting Christianity above the wishes and opinions ("laws") of the State. Yet Americans can't bother to do the same in a minor way when the US feral government is highly unlikely to murder them for doing so? If you won't stand up when it's easy, how can you believe you will when the stakes are high?

They need to get their priorities straight and choose who or what they are going to worship. Or, just give up.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Fake credentials

You might have a medical degree and be a doctor. You might be an expert in your field. People might come to you for medical advice and help. Some patients might even get better while you are "caring" for them.

But if you were trained to believe in (and treat) the four humors or that evil spirits cause disease, you aren't credible as a doctor. Your degree is worthless in the real world of medicine. You're a fake doctor.

You might have a degree in economics and call yourself an economist. You might be an expert in your field. People might seek your advice on economic matters, and you might have a newspaper column or write scholarly books on the topic. You might even sometimes get an economic prediction right, and you might be rich.

But if you operate on the flawed foundation of Keynesian economics you are basically an expert in humors and evil spirits, not on real-world economics. Your degree or expertise is worthless as a way to understand real-world economics. You're a fake economist-- just like John Maynard Keynes was.

ADDED: Education and "political science" [sic] are other opportunities to get fake credentials.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Banish politics for the holidays

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 18, 2019)

The Holiday Season is the main time of year when traditions come alive. Everywhere you look, someone's tradition will be on display; from house decorations, to clothing, to food and music. These are the ones visible to the world-- many more traditions are practiced at home among family and friends. Almost everyone has some sort of holiday tradition they've passed down through the generations.

Holiday traditions can be a lot of fun. They provide a common thread running from the past to the present and into the future and they give people something familiar to anticipate. Even kids who complain that a tradition is silly might be secretly disappointed if it were skipped.

My family looks forward to our old traditions, and we've gained a few new ones over the years, too. I miss the traditions which have died out during my lifetime, but some were so tied to family members who are no longer with us that there's no way to revive them.

Traditions don't have to be the same for everyone. If you enjoy it, keep it up.

Holiday traditions remain a positive experience because they are voluntary. Even if you don't particularly enjoy one or two specific practices, no one in your family is likely to hold you at gunpoint to make you participate. They may use guilt, but you can always opt out and deal with any fallout later. It's still your choice.

And if it isn't your choice, maybe you need less controlling family members.

One thing I find sad is when people mistake stagnation for tradition. "This is how it has always been done", so there's no reason to look for a different or better way.

Political traditions are of this sort. Not only are they stagnant, but those who follow them want to use force to make everyone else follow them, too. Sometimes this force is in the form of legislation; other times it skips that step and goes straight to physical force to encourage compliance. Imagine a tradition so weak it can't survive without being forced on people. I have no use for this kind of thing.

If you want to follow coercive political traditions, at least go into them with your eyes open. And respect those who don't wish to participate.

I hope you are able to banish politics from your holiday season... and from the rest of your life. It could be the start of a worthwhile tradition.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Hey, Northam: Sic semper tyrannis!

Have you been paying any attention to the gun-owner revolt in Virginia? They are calling it a "Lobby Day". I mostly avoid political news, but this has been forcing its way into my consciousness, partly because I worry about some of those who are affected.

Governizer Northam-- the little Hitler in the Virginia governor's mansion-- along with his co-conspirators in the state legislature, has imposed a bunch of anti-gun legislation on the people of "his" tax farm. The people aren't happy about this slap in the face and insult to natural human rights. They plan to complain to the political parasites Monday, as they have every right to do.

So, the political parasites decided to declare a "state of emergency" and "ban" guns from the capitol grounds during the protest (or lobbying?) triggered by his archation. He's going to try to protect his worthless skin with metal detectors and searches.

I would like to see the people of Virginia ignore this little Hitler's proclamations and use their "banned" weapons to remove him from the governor's office and to prevent someone else from filling that office once he's gone.

That's the whole reason the right to own and carry weapons matters-- for situations (and tyrants) just like this: threats to life, liberty, and property. The Virginia government is posing a credible threat to all three. There need to be consequences for tyranny-- it needs to be too dangerous to be a tyrant.

If Holy Documents matter to you, it's obvious he's violating both the US Constitution and the Virginia constitution... and just being a run-of-the-mill dictator... with the collusion of the legislature. If the people of Virginia want to show the world they won't tolerate a Hitler-lite, this is their time to act. Otherwise, it's just empty complaints (for those who are politically active, I mean) and they might as well roll over and comply with whatever he demands from now on.

Now it appears the US feral government is taking sides against the people of Virginia by having the FAA declare a "national defense zone" over Richmond, Virginia. during Lobby Day. I'm not going to research exactly what that means, but I don't need to. You and I both know it means more power to government and less to the people. Every time.

I worry for the people of Virginia. I don't know what I'd do in their situation. I wouldn't comply with the edicts, but I probably wouldn't bother to go to Mordor, Virginia to protest, either. My rights don't depend on government's opinions or its threats of violence.

When I lived in Colorado, no one I knew cared about or obeyed the legislation coming out of Denver concerning weapons. We did what we wanted. I realize that's probably a different situation-- a much bigger state with a much lower population density. It was safer for us to ignore Denver, which was 200 miles or so away, across the Continental Divide. Denver was pretty irrelevant to life.

That's sort of the situation in this part of Texas, too. Austin is so far away, it's not even the same world, really. What New Mexico does affects my life more, but Santa Fe isn't close, either. We do, however, have anti-liberty legislation enforcement goons hereabouts, so they are probably happy to violently inflict Austin's (and Santa Fe's) opinions on us.

But eastern states are different-- generally worse in that department. I get that. I don't know what the solution might be, but it won't be pretty for someone. I know which side I want to see score a decisive win.

If you go to Richmond, Virginia for Lobby Day, I wish you success. Take care and get it done. Sic semper tyrannis!

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Don't contaminate yourself

A good person, immersed in a bad institution or system, can't remain undamaged.

It doesn't matter if that situation-- that institution or system-- is a "public" school, a gang, congress, or whatever. A good person will be harmed by being in a bad situation. Especially one they chose to be in.

I don't want to see good people harmed, so I never encourage a good person to become involved in such things.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Democracy: Holy Mob Rule

Holy Pole Quilt isn't the only vulgar thing considered holy by "American" government supremacists.

Many have joined the international cult of democracy worshippers.

They worship Holy Mob Aggression.
The Holy Hive Mind or the Holy Mindless Mob. However you want to describe it.

Some try to hide this uncomfortable truth by claiming America is a "constitutional representative republic", not a democracy. This is evidence that many worship the Holy Slave Documents as well.

It's also a denial of the fact that all republics will devolve into democracies-- given time and politics.

But in practice-- Right boot, left boot, crushing the throat... what difference is there?

I don't need to be ruled, nor do I need you to be ruled on "my behalf". Not by a dictator nor by a dictating mob.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Grow up and out of it

Photo by Omar Flores on Unsplash

If you aren't at least a little bit Statist when you're very young, you may have no tribal instincts.
If you're still a Statist when you're mature, you either have no functioning mind or you have no ethical foundation.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

"Listen to my voice-- you are getting sleepy..."

While most hallucinations are additive-- the hallucinating person sees something which isn't there-- I wonder whether hypnosis can do the opposite: cause people to not see what's right in front of them. To make something invisible to the subject.

I couldn't find the answer online, so I've asked Quora. So far, every hypnotist who has answered has said yes, you can be hypnotized into not seeing what is there.

That doesn't make it true, but it does make it more plausible. If it doesn't/can't work that way, oh well. It was a thought. But if it can have that effect, as hypnotists on Quora say it can, it would explain some things.

If indoctrination into the religion of Statism is a form of hypnosis, which it seems reasonable to think it probably is, it would explain why those who have been hypnotized by this government indoctrination (largely through "public schools") can't see the police state happening right under their noses. Why they can't see what's clearly there, right in front of them.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Offering you the gift of liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 11, 2019)

There's one Christmas gift I'd love to give you: the gift of liberty. The freedom to do everything you have a right to do. It's a gift bigger than you can imagine.

Alas, it's not possible to give anyone liberty. In order for you to have liberty, you've got to make it for yourself, with your own hands, and put it to daily use.

Plus, even if I could give you liberty, it would most likely be illegal.

The best I can do under the limitations of reality is get you to recognize your own liberty and encourage you to use it every day, everywhere you go, regardless of who tries to scare you out of it.

I will also refuse to violate your liberty in any way; including not seeking legislation to fence you in nor to take your property for my pet projects.

What would you like your box of liberty to contain? As long as it doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights, it's in there. It has to be in there-- you made it yourself and placed what you wanted inside. It's waiting for you to take it out of the box and use it. How great is that?

Recently an online commenter, who was trying to sell me on the wonders of socialism, was saying I'm a crook for having a house while there are homeless people in the world. She scolded me, saying I only care about myself, no matter how many people I hurt. She couldn't admit that in her ideal world there would be no reason for anyone to build houses. Why struggle and sweat if someone is forced to hand you everything you need?

The gift she was offering had shiny wrapping paper and a sparkly bow, but inside was the stench of harsh reality. A reality she refused to smell as she heaped on the personal insults because I couldn't tell her who, specifically, had been robbed of the property my house sits on over the past 13,000 years since "Clovis Man" dropped a few stone tools in Blackwater Draw. Actually, she only cared about the last few centuries for some arbitrary reason. I guess those who came before that don't matter to her.

You are free to take the gift she and her political comrades are offering, or you can take my suggestion and give yourself the gift of liberty. Which one do you think you deserve? I believe you deserve the very best.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Mind-reading? No, Behavior-reading

You and I may not be able to read minds, but it doesn't matter. You can usually tell what someone is thinking by what they are doing-- their inner thoughts and beliefs become outward acts.

Even in those cases where their behavior conflicts with what they think, you're better off responding to how they act rather than wondering what they might be thinking. How someone acts is more important than what's in their mind.

It comes down to this simple truth:
I don't care what someone believes as long as they act like an anarchist.
Which most people do, most of the time. As long as they don't try to control, rule, rob, attack, etc. others-- including me-- that's what really matters.

And really, isn't that what everyone-- even every statist-- wants from others?

I don't see people behaving as though they like being bullied and robbed, even when that's what they advocate, politically. That's because politics is self-contradictory and internally inconsistent. It fails everywhere it is tried, and always has.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Defending the castle

My first house was eight-hundred and twenty square feet, in a "working class" neighborhood beyond the city limits at the edge of hundreds of acres of woods.

I was home alone one day. My days off were Thursday and Sunday, so this would have been a Thursday afternoon.

My (at-the-time) wife had the car with her (the other one must have been in the shop) so it looked like no one was home.

I was back in the bedroom and heard the front door open and someone come in. I glanced out the window but the car wasn’t there so it wasn’t my wife getting home early.

I grabbed the .22 rifle sitting in the corner and walked to the living room and the front door.

There, in the middle of the room looking a bit shocked, was a boy of around 10 years old. I wasn’t pointing the rifle at him, but I had it ready and asked what he was doing in my house. He stammered that he was looking for me. I said “Well, here I am. What do you want?”

He couldn’t come up with a plausible story and I told him to get out and to never set foot on my property again. As far as I know, he didn’t.

 A couple of weeks later I heard that several houses in the neighborhood had been burgled— with TVs being the most commonly stolen object. This kid wasn’t big enough to carry most TVs of the era (mid to late 1980s), but he was big enough to scope out houses for an older sibling or a parent. I was glad I was paying attention and glad I looked scary enough that I didn’t seem worth the risk.

But I did start locking the door when I was home alone.

My yard eventually became scary enough that no one wanted to come near my house, anyway. Not even the meter readers for the electric utility, who told my dad-- their boss-- that a Satan worshiper lived in that house. They came to this conclusion because there were skulls and strange "ritual objects" in the yard.  It turns out they were scared of my tomahawk block and my sling target (which was a cow skull on a crude tripod). Plus, I didn't mow except for a narrow strip right around the house (I've never believed in mowing or lawns). Whatever works, right?

Some defense is active and some is passive. I support the use of both.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

"Human-made weapons"

I recently saw an anti-gun bigot on Quora make the desperate claim that there can be no right to human-made weapons because those weapons didn't even exist until a few hundred years ago. He doesn't believe anyone has the right to own and to carry a gun, and is apparently ignorant of human prehistory, as well.

What is so different about a human-made weapon or any other human-made artifact? How does its history bear on this issue?

And does he mean all human-made weapons, or only guns? Does the fact that it is carried instead of being a physical part of the body make the difference?

Does a rock count since it can be used as a weapon without being altered? What of pointy sticks? Or fire? What if I carry an antler with me all the time?-- it's a deer's weapon.

Humans don't (generally) grow horns, antlers, claws, hooves, or fangs. People of his sort believe we should be punished for "only" having a brain, instead. A brain that allows us to design, make, and use weapons which don't grow on our bodies. He's insane.

Want to bet he still believes there's a right to health care or justice? Both of those only exist because humans created them-- just like guns.

Does he believe you have the right to not be a slave? The recognition of the right to not be enslaved is a relatively recent discovery. Would he toss that one, too, because it's not "old enough"?

You know he'd whine it's not the same thing.

And, the fact remains, the real issue is that there is no right to forbid weapons to anyone under any pretext. That "right" doesn't exist and can't be created. Not by legislation or majority opinion.

You just can't reason with bigots. They hate what they hate because they hate it. Politics makes people stupid.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

I can't care when politicians kill politicians

photo by- hosein charbaghi 

Maybe I should be ashamed, but I just can't get worked up over politicians killing other politicians.

The only bad thing is that other people get caught up in the pre-teen drama that is politics. If politicians can get you to behave like a fool in reaction to the things they do to each other, that's on you.

Yes, I realize this sort of thing could cause an overreaction that would harm innocent people, but politicians aren't ever innocent. They asked for whatever they get. They are reaping the fruits of their labors. Their chickens have come home to roost.

Make no mistake, generals (and other military officers) are politicians just like presidents, muggers, rapists, police, congressvermin, or anyone else who uses the political means. Scum of the Earth.

If they all killed each other until none were left, but left the rest of us out of it, I wouldn't shed a tear. It's just too bad they are able to affect the rest of us out here in the real world.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Was a crime committed?

Click to embiggenize

Someone I know was told to show up for grand jury service this morning (Edit: She didn't make the cut). So this seems like a good time for a link-heavy refresher on what is and isn't a crime.

No victim; no crime.
Unless there is a "somebody" who can be pointed to (or specifically named) who had their life, liberty, or property harmed, there is no crime. There is nothing to take to court regardless of the legislation alleged to have been violated, and no matter how much evidence there may be that the legislation was violated, or how "serious" the employees of the state seem to think the violation to be. Somebody was murdered, somebody was raped, somebody was robbed, somebody was intentionally hurt, somebody was kidnapped, somebody was archated against-- crime. Otherwise, no crime.

With a bit of a qualifier I'll get to momentarily, accidents can't be crimes even if somebody was harmed. There has to be intent for it to be a crime. The courtroom is not the place to decide on restitution for accidental harm done.

However, negligence which accidentally results in harm to somebody might be a crime in some cases, depending on how likely the act was to cause harm and how easily that harm could be foreseen by rational people. Hypothetical example: If I'm shooting at a paper target on the other side of a crowded room at my house and just as I squeeze the trigger someone steps into the bullet's path, I was criminally negligent. Shooting the person might have been an accident, but any reasonable person could have foreseen the result of my action. It would be different if I were shooting at a target outdoors, having made sure of my target and the surroundings, and a time traveler suddenly materialized in my bullet's path. In most cases, it's not that obvious, though. Since this is subjective, tread carefully in this area. It's always more ethical to let the guilty "get away with it" than to punish even one innocent person. And restitution instead of punishment is always the ethical choice, especially in the case of accidents or negligence.

Being offended doesn't qualify as being harmed.

The State isn't a "somebody" and neither is society.

Possession of anything, absent someone besides the someone doing the possessing being specifically harmed by that thing, can never be a crime.

The State's courtrooms are probably not the proper place to seek justice even in cases of actual crimes.

To be better informed, learn from the Fully Informed Jury Association.
And this is why they'll never let me on a jury.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Obey! Comply! Or else...

"Do what I say and you won't get hurt."

In rare cases, this is what an armed good guy says to a villain who has been caught in the act.

However, it's more often the threat a person engaged in evil makes to get you to comply long enough that he can hurt you without risk to himself. That's why members of the Blue Line Gang say this in the furtherance of "officer safety".

If you have done nothing wrong, to be threatened in this way is a mortal threat and deserves immediate, decisive self-defensive action (when possible)-- no matter who is making the threat.
If you have done something wrong... well, you shouldn't have.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Still a sentimental fan of holidays

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 4, 2019)

It's the holiday season! This is the time of year when people can celebrate-- or not-- however they like. It's also when those who feel they are better than you and assume the moral authority to dictate how you should be allowed to live decry what they see as the rampant consumerism.

I'm glad I live in a time and place where "consumerism" is possible, whether I participate or not. Most of human history has been a struggle to barely survive, with a low chance of surviving long enough to die of old age. The choices and options we have today are beyond anything even royalty could imagine just a lifetime ago.

Besides, other people's consumerism doesn't hurt me at all. Buy what you want and can afford.

The reality is: no one is forcing you to buy anything-- unlike those who use politics and will force you to "buy" what they are "selling"... or else. You may feel obligated to buy gifts, and I understand wanting to give gifts and make people happy, but it's still your decision.

Of course, the height of the scorned consumerism-- "Black Friday"-- is already past. I hate the name "Black Friday" and wasn't surprised to find out the name originated with armed government employees in Philadelphia who were contemptuous of the shoppers heading to the sales on the day after Thanksgiving. Those shoppers were apparently an inconvenience to their self-styled overlords.

Businesses tried to redeem the negative connotation by saying "black" referred to the fact they could get their finances "in the black" if they sold enough that day. This was better, but I still won't use the dark term in conversation.

I want businesses to thrive but I have no desire to fight the crowds or participate in a shopping frenzy. Even though it's not for me, I can see how some people might find it exciting. Different strokes for different folks.

I like giving gifts. It's fun to find the perfect thing for someone. Especially when it's something they don't know exists or would never buy for themselves. It's a wonderful feeling.

I also enjoy seeing how people decorate their homes and businesses, and I like the Christmas music which seems to be playing everywhere during this season. Yes, I'm a sentimentalist. It can be a fun time of the year if you let it. You can even enjoy the opportunity to "Bah, humbug!" the whole thing if that's what makes you happy.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Superior numbers, but still wrong

The number of people who agree with you has no bearing on whether you are right or wrong. It might be correlated in some cases, but probably not very often. You've got to go deeper than numbers. This is also a HUGE flaw with democracy.

Look how often in the past "everyone" believed such-and-such and it turned out to be completely wrong. This is still the case.

Of course, that the majority disagrees with you doesn't make you right, either. Some people fall into the trap of believing it does.

Statists have superior numbers. They also have a set of beliefs which are demonstrably wrong. They won't listen to the reasons those beliefs are wrong, except in very rare cases. When they are exposed to the reasons, I notice they can't really refute them, but they can refuse to accept them. They'll generally fall back on the excuses that it doesn't feel right to them, they can't imagine any other way, or they don't like it.

Sure, everyone does this to some extent (even those who believe they never do) but this is a universal trait of statists. Almost a defining characteristic of statism. Statism can't exist without this trait being in full-force all the time. And they still mistake their belief that "everyone" agrees with them for evidence that they are correct.

They aren't. I'm almost embarrassed for them.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The Modifier

If there's one trait which characterizes me, it's that I modify things. I can't help it. If I see something that I believe could be better, and modifying it to make it better seems to be within my abilities, I try.

When I was a kid this often meant I broke things and then felt ashamed.

Now I'm more likely to recognize when something is beyond my abilities-- but not always. I still break things.

This trait is why my flashlights all have LED bulbs in them now. It's why my vehicle has Fischer cup holders (not an affiliate link), why I made litter boxes for the cats, why I made myself a standing desk years ago, and why I can never seem to leave "well enough" alone.

Most of my former bosses seemed to appreciate this quality as I was good at solving problems with what I could scrounge up and modify.

But I don't stop at physical things.

When the English language seems inadequate to a task, I coin a new word. "Archate" is not the first by any means, nor was it the last, but it is the one I most hope will eventually catch on.

The reason I coined "archate" is that I really like the Zero Aggression Principle as worded by L. Neil Smith, but I knew it could be better. It was essential, but not sufficient because it didn't cover everything humans have no right to do-- everything which violates the equal and identical rights of their fellow humans. Yes, some people try to define theft, fraud, etc. as "aggression", but it's a stretch.

The ZAP, in my opinion, needed modification so I searched dictionaries for a word which suited it better than "aggression" and found none.

So I coined a word and modified the ZAP to become the Zero Archation Principle. Did I break it or make it better? I can't know the answer to that, but I can say with complete confidence that I don't feel any shame over my modification this time.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Impizzament

If I decide to order a pizza, choose the toppings and crust style I want, and go through all the motions of ordering it and paying for it-- but for some reason, the pizza place never gets my order, did I order a pizza?

Even if I can explain all the evidence and technicalities that show I did order this pizza, will I get the pizza I ordered? Will I be eating pizza soon or will I just be arguing with people that I really did order it?

Is there any point in arguing over whether I really ordered a pizza, or should I come off my high horse and place the order again, making sure it gets to the right person-- the person who can actually fill my order-- this time?

Do I want the pizza or do I want to debate who's right?

Politics makes people stupid.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Unshakable faith in The State

A couple of nights ago, an odd confluence of things made me consider my statist family members.

I'm currently watching The Man in the High Castle after I accidentally subscribed to Amazon Prime for a month, and then I ran across this piece of fiction in The Voluntaryist, and that combination started some wheels a-turning.

Had Germany won WWII, would my parents have grown up to be loyal Nazis? Believing the Bible told them that God had put that government over them and it was their duty to obey and be good citizens?

It really seems as though nothing can shake their faith in the U.S. feral government and its escalating police state. They may oppose certain policies or even most politicians, but they never question the institution of political government itself. They refuse to consider that the U.S. government might not be ethically superior to all others or that perhaps political government isn't necessary at all. And, of course, they are enthusiastic supporters of the State's reproductive organs. They are good Americans in all the ways the U.S. government wants.

So, had they grown up immersed in a slightly different political environment, would they manage to question its legitimacy when they can't seem to do that with this one now? Would any "patriotic American" be able to do that?

I wonder...

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Happy 2020!

One last post for the year 2019...

Happy New Year!

And, for everyone who isn't hung up on the fact that there wasn't a Year 0, Happy New Decade!

Yeah, I realize that since there wasn't a Year 0, technically the '20s don't start until next year. But the only reason there wasn't a Year Zero is that they didn't think of putting it in there when they numbered the years. (Besides, other people use a different numbering system altogether, making this one even more arbitrary.)

I tried to press the issue back around the years 1999 and 2000, but it was a losing battle. And it really didn't matter.

Since the years were numbered retroactively, 525 years (or even 800 for the numbering system to be widely adopted) after the date they chose as the beginning, it's completely arbitrary anyway. Insisting that the new decade, century, or millennium doesn't start until the year ending in a 1 feels like insisting that January doesn't start until January 2.

Enough of that.

Being the year 2020, maybe it would be a good year to focus on having 20/20 vision. Maybe not physically, with our eyes (mine are crap anyway) but with our mind's eye. A good time to focus on seeing things as they really are.

Cops are a nasty gang of criminals.
Political government is a crime syndicate.
Elections are an advance auction on stolen goods and an attempt to beg for a slightly less harmful ruler-- which never works out that way.
Anti-gun legislation is a bad-guy protection racket.
Prisons are Criminal University and only benefit the State.
Socialism is already the American "system", and it is as unethical as you can get.
The State is the enemy of civilization, the enemy of society, and the enemy of the individual. It is my enemy and it is your enemy. Even if you don't like to face this fact.

See it clearly in 2020.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Statism is depraved

Right-Statists are big on condemning "depravity", which they see all around them... but never in the mirror. Strange...

What is depraved? Really, only archation is truly depraved.
If you imagine anything else is depraved, you are probably trying to justify archation, and you are thus acting depraved,

If you are proposing legislation to fight depravity, you are promoting depravity.
If you support the State, you are supporting depravity.
If you are minding other people's business, when they aren't violating anyone else's life, liberty, or property, you are being depraved.

Right-Statists prefer to call behaviors they don't like "depraved" regardless of who is harmed. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it's depraved-- it has to violate bystanders (their life, liberty, or property) to really qualify as depraved.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Plenty to be grateful for every year

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

How can Thanksgiving Day be here again? Has it really been a year?

Yes, it has, and this means it's time again to remind myself of the things I'm grateful for on this Gratitude Day.

You'd probably expect me to say I'm grateful for the scattered bits and pieces of liberty left in America; those fragments which haven't yet been regulated out of existence, and I am.

I'm also grateful for my family, especially because in the past year my son has moved within visiting distance.

I'm grateful to have the chance to share my thoughts here, and this means I'm grateful for The Eastern New Mexico News and also for the subscribers and advertisers who keep this newspaper going, and I'm grateful for all my readers.

I'm grateful for the smiles and hellos from strangers I pass. It's nice that strangers can be potential friends instead of seeming like automatic dangers.

I'm grateful for the local businesses who are happy for my trade, however little I might spend. I appreciate those who make it their mission to meet needs and serve their customers. They are true heroes.

I'm grateful for modern conveniences. As much as I enjoy practicing primitive wilderness survival skills, I am grateful to have a solid house to shelter me. I may feel guilty when I use a butane lighter rather than a more primitive method to start the fire in my fireplace, but I'm grateful to have the option. I'm also grateful I can have heat without lighting a fire, and that I can have air conditioning in hot weather. You don't realize how nice those things are unless you've done without.

I know how good I have it compared to most humans throughout history and over most of the world. Medicine, sanitation, clean water, civility, and many other things society has provided, in spite of the parasitism of the political element all around us. I'll even ignore that this political element wants me to confuse it with the society which provides the good stuff. Let it have its delusions. I'm grateful I don't fall for the trick.

There are things I'm grateful for which can't be put into words; things I feel but can't properly describe.

Last but not least, I am also grateful to know things can always be even better. None of us has arrived. Each individual can be better, and one person at a time, society gets better. Happy Thanksgiving!

-

-- Private to my blog readers: This is the fourth Thanksgiving since my daughter Cheyenne was killed. I have a really hard time not hating Thanksgiving now. But I give it my best shot. Fake it 'til you make it, they say. I'm sincerely trying.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Your lonely intersection

Collective condemnation based on trivial things which weren't chosen and can't make a difference to whether you violate others-- "race", sex, age, IQ, etc.-- is dumb. As is collective coddling based on those same sorts of things.
Collective condemnation based on things voluntarily chosen-- beliefs and behaviors-- can be legitimate.

That's why Statism is a legitimate thing to condemn, collectively. If someone has chosen to believe that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor, and they act on that belief, that's on them. That matters.

It's like any other religion. If you follow it, you chose it-- even if you originally just followed your family's or culture's beliefs without thinking-- and you bear the responsibility. For good or bad.

Many people try to find victims and villains. They use nonsense notions like "intersectionality" to make sure certain people are considered to be as thoroughly victimized as possible. At some point, add enough "intersections" (and they add more every day) and you would single out each person as an individual. Which is what Left-Statists seem to hate the most. Strange how their perverted strategy would lead back to that, but it does.

For example: I am a heterosexual Caucasian male of a specific age, born and living in Occupied America, who is taller than average, not attractive, with a big nose, bad eyesight, and long hair (my choice). All those things have an "individually specific" value and no one has my exact combination.

There's more.
I have an aversion to clothing styles that most people require to be adopted for acceptance into their clique (my choice, again). I have no knack for making money and feel strongly that I am out of place and stuck in the wrong time period (which is ridiculous, I know. It couldn't be other than it is.) There are many other similar "roads" coming together at this particular intersection which defines me that I can't even think of at this moment, but which affect me just as much or more.

That's a lot of roads which intersect right at me. Some "privileged"; some not so much. Some are choices and some are quirks of fate. There is no other human being at the exact same intersection I find myself occupying... which is the same situation every other human on the planet is in. Each intersection only fits one individual. That's just how it goes. It doesn't make you a victim.

You are not a victim except when someone is currently archating against you. And in that case, you have the right to fight back, and no one has the right to forbid your self-defensive acts.

Using the State is never legitimate defense, just because there's no way to aim it precisely enough to avoid harming the innocent. To choose to use the State and its legislation against others, just because you imagine they got a better deal than you, puts you into the category of people who are choosing to join a collective which is-- by definition-- made of the worst people out there. But then I guess you can whine when you reap the consequences of your choices and can feel like a victim all over again.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Higher" indoc... um... "education"

Photo by Ryan Jacobson on Unsplash

I am a big fan of education. Maybe that's why I am not very optimistic.

First, you've got kinderprisons doing all they can to indoctrinate children into the statist religion and wipe out any sense of curiosity or natural intelligence. Slam those pegs of every shape and size into a uniform round hole of antieducation and conformity. And bullying from all sides.

Then, if they survive that, the option they are popularly encouraged to pursue is to subject themselves to more brainwashing through theft-funded universities run by Left-Statists.

Over the holidays I was around one such victim. She's smart, but suddenly, after a few years of college courses, she's saying things like "intersectionality" and "privilege" and ... well, you don't want to hear what all. In the interest of peace, I stayed out of it and kept my mouth shut, even as responses ran through my head like visions of sugarplums... or something.

If that's what passes for a "higher education" these days, society is better off without it. I couldn't, in good conscience, encourage anyone to follow that path anymore. I find that completely tragic because of how much I love and value ACTUAL education.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Pointless rankings

I like bad colds more than I like nausea.

I like Boba Fett more than I like the Emperor.

I like bone-chilling cold more than I like humid heat.

I like the broken rib I have now more than I liked the kidney stone I had a few years ago.

I like doing laundry more than I like dusting.

And I still like Trump more than I like Hillary or Pelosi-- and I don't like Trump at all.

Ranking bad things like those is rather pointless and is completely subjective.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Scott's strawman burns to ashes

Ewww! What's that smell? Ah. I see now... Scott Adams has stepped in it again and is tracking it all over the place unaware. It would only be polite to let him know. Right?

Years ago I pointed out that his claim to be "libertarian, without the crazy stuff" simply meant he was inconsistent.

He's done it again, while explaining he only said that back then because it was meaningless. He recently said:

"... Libertarian without the crazy parts-- what are the crazy parts? Most of the libertarian belief system is the 'crazy'. Because the libertarians would say 'get rid of government and let everyone do what they want.' ...The libertarian parts are the crazy parts." 

What's wrong with those statements? Plenty. And I'll explain so he can't whine that I said "You're wrong" without giving the reasons. (He still wouldn't like it, though.)

He doesn't know what the "libertarian belief system" is, so he has no clue what it is he seems to imagine he's criticizing. How do I know he doesn't know what the "libertarian belief system" is? It's not "mind-reading", it is taking him at his word, based on what he clearly said above. He shows he doesn't know what he's talking about; there's no guesswork or mind-reading involved.

Without a foundation in something along the lines of the Zero Archation Principle, it's not "libertarian". Distilled down to the essence, the libertarian belief system is: "don't attack others and don't take or damage their stuff". If he believes that's crazy, he's a monster.

Anything else libertarian grows out of that solid foundation.

As I have pointed out, the ZAP is not a "thou shalt not"; it is really just pointing out that you have no right to do those things, not that you have to accept this truth. And it is a promise from me to you. You do what you want, just be aware of how I will see your behavior and how I might respond when you do things you have no right to do.

Maybe his problem is that it doesn't leave room for exceptions for politics and those who practice that dark craft.

Libertarians don't generally say "get rid of government", they would say "get rid of political government/the State". Politics is antisocial and illegitimate. His wishes can't change that fact. If that's what he wants to waste time on, I wouldn't say he can't, but I won't pretend he's the adult in the room while he plays with his toy Rulers and fawns over legislation.

Pointing out the illegitimacy of political government isn't the same as saying "let everyone do what they want". Remember the ZAP mentioned above? Rulers are nonsense, but rules aren't.

Do what you want, as long as you aren't violating someone else's equal and identical liberty; do what you want and have a right to do. That's a very solid wall between "do what you want" and the rest of us.

But it's so much easier to attack the strawman in ignorance than to address the uncomfortable reality. Well, Scott's strawman just burned away. He'll need to build another one to attack next time.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Political animosity will only increase

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

Are you concerned over how divisive politics has become? Do you notice the growing intolerance for opposing opinions? Do you wish everyone could go back to a time when there was civil debate and people could agree to disagree?

Yet, at the same time, do you support using government and its legislation against others in ever-increasing ways?

You can have a civil society or you can have government control; you can't have both. Government has been allowed to get too big, powerful, and noticeable in our daily lives.

The more power you give government to interfere in more facets of life, the more heated the disagreements will be. It will only get worse unless you turn completely around and start taking power away from government.

If you want more "gun control", a border wall, higher taxes, marijuana prohibition, or any other government control, you aren't interested in civil debate. The same goes if you want to ban vaping, plastic grocery bags, carbon dioxide emissions, or pit bulls. You will force others to fight you for the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. And they will fight. They may even turn the tables and use government to stop you from doing things you enjoy.

You can't threaten to use government against other people and then claim the political anger shocks you-- you've caused it.

If people were willing and able to put government back in a tiny box or otherwise rein in its excesses, civil debate could be possible. Until then, political animosity will increase.

A lack of tolerance is self-defense. You shouldn't tolerate those who want to enslave you. Your choices are "fight or flight", and there's nowhere left to flee to anymore. No frontiers remain for those who don't want government regulating every moment of their life and death.

Government should be neither seen nor heard. The more government is noticed, the more people resent those trying to use it against them. It can't be otherwise-- not in the real world.

If you want civil debate, stop looking for things other people do that you want government to regulate. Stop threatening your neighbors with government. It's antisocial.

Politics is based on some people winning at the expense of everyone else. This isn't civil. Political anger will only get worse as long as this trend continues. You can end it by refusing to be part of the problem, or you can keep feeding the political monster like you have been. It's your choice.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Donations for Christmas?

If anyone has any disposable money left after Christmas shopping and wants to dispose of it in an environmentally responsible and very PC way, feel free to make a donation to this blog.

Oh, and if you have a visceral dislike of donating, feel free to buy a handful of Time's Up patches to send to gun owners in the occupied territory of Virginia. Either way.

😇

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Just people"

I was treated to a movie Friday night. We saw "Star Wars-- The Rise of Skywalker".

There's a minor spoiler ahead, so if you don't want to read it, run away now.

The quotes are paraphrased since I wasn't actually taking notes during the movie, but it goes something like this:

During the climactic battle, the Rebels are outnumbered and it's clear they are going to lose. They are losing. Suddenly the sky fills with an uncountable number of ships, with more dropping out of hyperspace every second. Yes, much like the Reavers in that scene in "Serenity".

The commander of the State troops looks a bit panicked and asks whose navy this is, and his underling says it's no navy, it's "just people".

My thought at that moment was that this State was probably regretting "allowing" the people to keep and bear arms.

This is a good fictional illustration of why the natural human (or other sapient being) right to own and to carry weapons is one that must never be trivialized or allowed to atrophy.

Thank you to my sister and her wife for the nice night out.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Making politicians nervous since ... ?

Back in college, I took a required course in "U.S. government". I took a lot of required stuff I didn't want to take and had no interest in.

One day we had a special guest speaker; some minor state-level elected politician. I tried to pay attention and be polite in spite of the subject. I didn't ask any questions-- I don't remember if questions were allowed. I don't remember who he was or what his position was. I don't remember what he talked about, either.

What I do remember was that he couldn't stop staring at me while he spoke-- actually losing his train of thought several times.

I wasn't making a scene or making faces at him, so I guess it must have been my home-made buckskin jacket and coonskin cap. It was winter, and that's what I wore in cold weather. I guess if it bothered him that badly he should have spoken to the class during a warm spell.

Maybe he thought I was going to whip out a tomahawk and hurl it at him. But I wasn't going to. I probably wasn't even carrying a tomahawk.

A few years later I married the sister of a fellow classmate (ex-wife #1) and he told me he remembered that class and me.
I wonder if the minor tyrant remembers. I doubt it. But it still makes me smile to remember.
And, no, I don't think I still make any politicians nervous. That was probably a one-time thing.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Blog issues?

Is anyone having trouble accessing this blog? For the past week or so, about half the time when I try to visit the site I get a "this site can not be reached" page instead.


.

Upsetting the spoiled brats

Wanna hear a really dumb opinion? Sure you do. Maybe that's even why you visit here. But this opinion isn't mine-- I copied it from another blog's comment section. It's as dumb as the opinion that "taxation isn't theft!", which I encountered moments ago somewhere else.

"the Left created libertarians in order to siphon votes away from the Right"

I suppose this guy believes the Right-Statists are entitled to the v*tes of people who don't support them. As if you and I somehow owe them.

The "mainstream" DemoCRAPublicans' support for anti-gun "laws" of various kinds had already-- before I even learned what a libertarian was in 2001-- convinced me to stop v*ting for the anti-liberty clowns of the "Right" or the "Left". Any of them. I don't owe them my support; they worked so hard to earn my contempt.

The broken promises and empty words of the Republicans with regard to gun rights, forgotten as soon as they got political power, had lost them my support, and the Democrats never had it to begin with, even though I was (and am) an environmentalist.

Why would I support someone who would only stab me in the figurative back as soon as they got into office? And they did-- time after time.

The "Left" didn't create libertarians. Neither did the "Right". Humans are born libertarian and it takes brainwashing and lies to turn us into statists-- "Right" or "Left". Those who don't like the consequences of their lies and their villainy might complain that you aren't supporting "their side", but it's a filthy lie that you owe it to them.
You know what they can do with their malignant sense of entitlement.
The spoiled brats.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"By invitation only" vs "Open to the public"

This may (I hope) be the wrap-up to the recent posts on anti-gun bigots, right-of-way, and all that mess.

As I said in a previous post, I see a big distinction between private property which is "by invitation only"-- your house, yard, car, etc.-- as opposed to private property which is "open to the public"-- a business or something like that.

If you invite me to your house, I will assume you aren't going to say "no guns", just as I would never do to you or anyone else. But if you do say that, I will decline the "invitation" (which I won't see as an invitation at all, but as an insult). There was no necessity for me to go to your property, and if you don't trust me armed, you don't trust me at all. And if you insist I show up disarmed I will assume you intend to violate me in other ways, too, and don't want me able to fight back. So, no, I will not go to your place. I doubt I would invite you to my house either after that.

But maybe you have a rational reason-- strong magnetic fields in your house that would turn a gun into a dangerous projectile or something like that. Unless you can give a reasonable explanation of that sort that's not based on mere feelings, I will never again trust you because of this violation of trust.

If you have a business that you claim is "open to the public", then I'm going to assume you mean what you say. I always assume liberty unless shown otherwise. If, however, you were lying and your property is not really "open to the public" but is only "open to disarmed people" I will go elsewhere if I have an alternative. And I hope I have an alternative because I really don't want to support your bigotry with my money.

Is a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign the same thing as a "We don't care if you die" sign? Not even close.

Requiring you to wear clothes might be the same as asking you to carry concealed rather than having an AR15 slung over your shoulder, though. It's about what's in the open, visible, outside your personal space zone. Not wearing a shirt reduces that zone down to the surface of your skin. Requiring shirt and shoes isn't usually the business owner's personal feelings anyway, but is generally mandated by the State. I've seen many businesses turn a blind eye in certain circumstances. Wearing a shirt isn't likely to harm you in any way, and if your shirt suddenly caught fire no business owner would have a hissy fit if you stripped it off to keep from burning to death. It's possible to take off your shirt if an emergency requires it; it's not possible to conjure a gun out of thin air if an emergency requires one.

And, obviously, it's a serious crime for any government facility to pretend they can forbid guns. Yet, they get away with it and will murder you for ignoring their violation. Which just shows what they really are.

I don't trust anyone who tries to deny anyone's right to be responsibly armed. I never have and I never will. I wouldn't do that to anyone and I expect reciprocity.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Wishful thinking

"It's a clear and present danger, I think, to our democracy..." says one political bully about Trump-- another political bully.

Sigh... If only that were true.

And, it's their democracy, not mine or "ours". I take no part in mob rule. Why would I?

-

h/t Rational Review (please help their year-end fundraiser!)

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

What should a State not have?

Well, a state shouldn't have anything, but I had something specific in mind.

One sure sign someone is economically ignorant is when they start talking about "national economic policy" as if it's a legitimate thing for the State to have. It's not.

There needs to be a separation of economy and State, not "policy" which allows the State to manipulate the economy.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.