Friday, March 13, 2020

"My kingdom for a roll!"



Preppers aren't looking quite so crazy right now, are they?

A family member works at PlastiCrap World (this may be a pseudonym) and told me their shelves have been stripped bare of treaty paper ("toilet paper") and the customers are freaking out.

They are getting call after call begging to know when the next truck is coming to restock. They get many trucks each day, and don't know which-- if any-- will have the precious rolls. People are waiting at the doors from the stockroom, hoping to be the first to grab the new shipment as soon as it hits the floor. They are starting to buy paper towels and napkins as an alternative.

Also, a friend told me Amazon was out of all TP except one brand-- one she doesn't like.

How long until violence erupts?

Meanwhile, I'm feeling good (well, other than being sick) with my stash of the stuff.

Bottled water is also sold out, as are Clorox spray and wipes (and I would suppose other disinfectants), and hand sanitizer, but people aren't panicking over that. Yet.

I wonder what other things people are panic-buying.

How is the situation in your area? What is in short supply? And were you ready?

Every time I saw some list of things you should have on hand to ride out the pandemic, I already had it all. I'm sure I don't have everything I could possibly need in every circumstance, but it's amazing how often my SHTF supplies have gotten me through normal situations without needing to stock up on anything at the last minute. That's the plan and so far it has worked great.

Another couple of bits of interesting data: That store usually gets 2000 online orders (to be picked up outside) per day. Yesterday, they had already received 9000 online orders by around 9AM. People were ordering online to avoid coming into the store.

All employees have been given hand sanitizer and gloves to wear.

And this isn't a particularly populous area. I can't even imagine what urban areas are going through-- or will be going through soon. And still, it looks to me as though the panic is a much bigger problem than the virus. Interesting times, indeed. I'll just sit here and stew in my own viral broth and watch the world burn.

I'll also remind you that there are alternatives to "treaty paper" for cleaning your hind side. As long as there's running water, especially. There's really no need to panic.

For a little context, this is the toilet paper aisle at the local branch of PlastiCrap World as of Thursday afternoon, March 12, 2020:

Plus, a bit of an update: link

-

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.
♡2020 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Census ad-- not the effect they intended



I've been sick with a miserable cold (no, I'm not going to get tested) for most of the week. This has resulted in me watching a lot more video fodder than usual. Recently, on some streaming service, I saw an ad for the 2020 census. In telling me why my cooperation is essential to the scheme, it said "[the census] determines where billions in funding will be spent".

As if I needed another reason to ignore them when they show up... like I did last time.

I have no right to spend other people's money, nor to encourage anyone to spend other people's money. Not for my benefit nor for the benefit of anyone else. It's simply none of my business beyond opposing theft under all circumstances.

Don't rob people on my behalf and then say I can help you decide where to spend it. It's not the right angle to use if you want to encourage me to cooperate.

And, as I have pointed out in the past, I understand the Constitution requires them to ask, but I've never seen where it requires me to answer. Move along now.
-

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.
♡2020 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Monday, March 09, 2020

Being different



Different doesn't mean wrong. But different can be wrong.

There are lots of times I discover someone does something-- or thinks-- differently than I do. Sometimes I decide to try their way. Often there's a reason I don't. But just because their way is different doesn't mean I automatically think it's wrong.

I like to consider different ways.

Obviously, if someone has a different way to wire a house for electricity but the lights don't work or it causes that house to burn down, that way was wrong.

Or, if they think differently about taxation-- insisting it's not theft or extortion-- that opinion is objectively wrong.

But often, things aren't that cut-and-dried. People will have a different perspective that doesn't automatically result in disaster or violate anyone's life, liberty, or property. Then it may be different, but not wrong.

As long as it works and doesn't violate anyone, it's a right way. For most things, there are lots of right ways, many of which are yet to be discovered. If you haven't found a right way which works, try something different. Keep trying different things until you find something that works without violating anyone.

If it doesn't work, it's wrong. This is probably the most common condition there is. I would magically make everyone free and rich... but magic doesn't work, so focusing on this wrong way is a waste of time. It's disappointing news, I know.

If it works but violates someone's life, liberty, or property, it's a wrong way. Legislation is always wrong. No matter how essential you believe it is to do something, if your only path is to violate others, it's the wrong way. To invoke legislation means you've failed to do something the right way, even if it would be right to do it. Many are disappointed by this... or they would be if they'd accept its truth. But they won't. They don't want to hear it so they don't listen.

Apparently, it is no longer acceptable to tell people their different way is wrong. Truth is less important than sparing their feelings. Just let them be different and walk right off the cliff so you don't make them feel bad, I guess.

-

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.

Sunday, March 08, 2020

'Red flag' laws violate human rights

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 5, 2020)




New Mexico politicians are hopping on the "red flag law" bandwagon; scheming to commit wrong in the name of imagined "safety".

Red flag legislation is all the rage, politically. I don't call them laws because they aren't laws. Laws can't violate natural human rights; this legislation does. Imposing or enforcing legislation which violates life, liberty, or property in any way makes you the wrongdoer. It doesn't change matters to write words giving yourself permission to violate people. Legislation can't make wrongs right, and it is wrong to punish someone for something you imagine they might do.

It's misguided to violate someone's rights because they've done wrong. To do so before they've done wrong is pure evil.

Yes, unhinged people cause tragedies. The correct approach is an unyielding commitment to human rights. Don't build a legislative maze making it harder for people to possess the proper tools with which to defend themselves. This is what red flag legislation does. It causes tragedies everywhere politically unhinged people impose it.

Many people see an attempt by badged government employees to steal their property-- to seize their guns-- as a line in the sand which can not be tolerated. It has already played out with tragic results in the states where such policies have been implemented.

It's never about "public safety", but about asserting government supremacy. However, both sides need to remember: the people always remain supreme over government.

While it's claimed this legislation only targets those making violent threats, it will be abused.

The easiest way to make sure your intended victim can't fight back is to report them as a risk and let legislation enforcement officers disarm-- or kill-- them for your convenience.

This legislation will also become "The Bitter Ex-Wife Revenge and Empowerment Act".

The hijacked firearms are supposed to be returned to the rightful owner once the threat is over, but it doesn't always happen. A friend of mine was acquitted after defending himself, without firing a shot, from an attacker. The attacker filed a false report after the incident. Upon acquittal, my friend was told he had to jump through months of bureaucratic hoops to get his property back. He did everything demanded of him, but by then his gun was mysteriously missing. The state's response was "Tough luck".

Enemies of liberty often embrace communistic red flags. This time it's the same story. Respect liberty-- reject the red flag. There's no legitimate reason to support this kind of legislation.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Early-Worm appeasement time



Don't forget, children, to mis-set your clocks because Big Daddy Government tells you to.

As if pretending one day per year is only 23 hours long so that time "changes" thereafter is anything but delusional.

Why can't the Early-Worms who want to go to work an hour earlier and get home an hour earlier just, you know, GO TO WORK AN HOUR EARLIER AND COME HOME AN HOUR EARLIER without coercing everyone else to mis-set their clocks so they can pretend this isn't what they are doing?

I resent having to mis-set my clocks to appease those who aren't responsible enough to just change their business hours if they want to open earlier during Spring, Summer, and Autumn.

In the past I have tried not mis-setting my clocks, but it doesn't work well because almost everyone else mis-sets theirs when told to do so. And it's already confusing enough here, straddling the time zone line like I do.

No, picking Daylight "Saving" [sic] Time to stay on year-round isn't just as good as getting rid of it entirely. It just goes back around to that same point-- if you want to get up an hour earlier and get home an hour earlier so there's more daylight left after work, just do it. Don't expect the whole planet to accommodate your desire to set your clocks wrong.

Maybe morning people aren't affected this badly, but I am. Even when I manage to go to sleep an hour earlier, I still need to sleep until my body knows it's really time to wake up, regardless of what the lying clock says. That doesn't change just because I went to bed earlier and slept the regular number of hours. That never worked for me. I'm going to be grouchy and feel bad for a couple of weeks (at least) over this silly, outdated authoritarian ritual. It's long past time for it to die.

-

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.
♡2020 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Saturday, March 07, 2020

Ruffling feathers



I'm back to posting on Twitter. I'm sharing my blogs and columns there, but mostly I'm sharing my Quora answers-- many of them per day-- just to poke government-supremacists for my amusement.

Follow me there to join in the fun-- and re-tweet whatever you think would get under a statist's skin the most.
-

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.
♡2020 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Cops: just plain old sh-... poop

Coprolite- photo credit

A coprolite is fossilized poop. It's poop that's worth something only because it's a fossil.

Copro- is short for coproach-- the proper term for a cop-- and -lite means it's a rock.

A cop, minus the -lite, is therefore poop that's still worthless because it isn't fossilized.

You don't want plain old poop messing up your world. I mean, it's OK to bury poop in your garden to fertilize your plants, but you wouldn't want to track it in your house or car.

Keep cops where they belong.

-

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.
♡2020 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Friday, March 06, 2020

Statism-- Irrational excess and threats



I ran across a statist who assumed he was being reasonable about governing "better". He admitted that change is probably necessary but he advocated "rational reform based on moderation and compromise".

There's no such thing.

If you advocate political government you are advocating neither moderation nor compromise. You are advocating excess and making threats. You are demanding a one-size-fits-all approach, and the minority is just out of luck. That's not rational.

Those who would call for "rational reform based on moderation and compromise" are always government supremacists who would be upset that anyone would resist their enlightened benevolent governing. After all, "government is necessary". Statists are both irrational and superstitious. They are also elitists.

What they seek to rationally reform is those loopholes of liberty they don't like... by closing them. They propose to compromise them away because they are uncomfortable allowing them to exist.

-

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.
♡2020 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Thursday, March 05, 2020

Thoughts on current politics



See, this is what happens when politics intrudes on my thoughts. This is why it's best if it doesn't.

To the extent I think about politics and elections, which isn't a lot, I would always prefer that the most amusing candidate "win".

That-- besides my decades of despising Hillary RODHAM* (*Clinton) in a Very Special Way-- is why I hoped Trump would be the nominee and beat her last time around, even though I no longer v*te (not since Michael Badnarik) and don't support Trump or any other president. I don't need a president, nor do I need to be governed, nor do I want you governed on my behalf. Because I'm not a psychopath.

I've been thinking Bernie Sanders would be the most entertaining candidate to have running against Trump now. Too bad the game is rigged against him.

The others bore me so much-- other than the festering boil that just dropped out: old Mikey Bloomiepants, whom I've had decades of experience despising for his haughty anti-liberty bigotry. He might be a mini-hooman, but he's a giant oozing boil on humanity's tailbone.

Sure, all of the candidates are anti-liberty bigots. All the DemoCRAPublicans-- including Trump-- are. But this time around all my Very Special Feelings were reserved for Bloomberg-- I'm glad he's out. I'll refrain from unwisely saying in public what I want his near future to look like.

My only thoughts about the DeepState's Choice, Biden, involve remembering he was caught up in some plagiarism scandal long ago. I doubt he has evolved into a better person since then since he's still seeking political power. And he does like to touch people inappropriately. But who doesn't? Otherwise, he's too boring to bother thinking about. His accelerating mental decline might change that and make him more interesting, though.

Yes, I think Bernie would destroy the economy. But any of them could since economies are not suited for centralized control, and that's all they know how to do since they all rely on politics. Knowing this harsh truth is part of why I "prep". If you try to control something that can't be controlled you're courting disaster-- or if you're Joe Biden, you're just breathing heavily in its hair.

Yeah, I admit to a certain amount of "watch the world burn" motivating my inner thoughts and emotions concerning politics. It's ugly, but it's in there. If the world is going to burn anyway, I might as well enjoy the show.

-

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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Tuesday, March 03, 2020

Cough. Sniffle. PANIC!



These days a guy can't get a sniffle without everyone wondering if you have a corona-cold.

Everyone in the house suddenly came down with mild cold symptoms Monday. Well, mild so far.

My daughter went to the doctor and was given some meds. Of course, now she's sitting around the house happily yapping about having the coronavirus (which means she apparently doesn't feel very bad). No, the doctor didn't even suggest that's what she has, but you know how kids are.

I'm self-medicating with the supplements I normally use at the first sign of a cold (or when I suspect I've been exposed to one). If this works as well as it usually does I'll probably avoid getting very sick and any illness will be abbreviated.

I'm also going to be nice and not go around exposing people to whatever I may have. Although, yes, I know that by the time any symptoms appear you've already been infectious. I can't help that. But I can avoid frightening those already primed to panic at the sight of someone with the sniffles. I don't need to be confronted with torches and pitchforks.

I think limiting the exposure of others is always the responsible thing to do. I'm glad I have that freedom (even though it comes with economic sacrifice).

-

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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Monday, March 02, 2020

Helping the "homeless"

All the cries to "solve the homelessness problem", especially by using political government, fall flat with me. It's not that I'm heartless. I've even been homeless myself, so I should have empathy. But I also have experience with homeless people.

Years ago I met a homeless guy named Paul. He was nice enough, but it was clear he wasn't "all there". He had left his home in Kentucky and traveled in his car (I'm assuming it was his) to western Colorado. There he spent the nights in his car, which he kept parked in the back-country, and walked into town almost every day.

He told me tales of his affair with a ghost back in Kentucky, and told me he left home because his parents wanted to have him committed to a mental hospital. I could see their point.

I did what I could to help him. I taught him some survival skills I thought might help. I gave him a hatchet that had been mine since I was a teen and also gave him some candles and other things I thought he might benefit from. I gave him food a few times.

Paul liked to hang out in my store and visit. I did sometimes get tired of him-- my enthusiasm for socializing can get used up pretty quick in any situation that's not karaoke. He often smelled bad-- but he did bathe at campgrounds from time to time.

The worst thing (for me) he did was hit on women who would come into my store-- right in front of their husbands. I told him he had to stop this or he couldn't come in my store anymore; he was driving away what few customers I had. This made him angry and he said he would come smash my front window that night. I had a few overnight armed vigils in the back of the store but he never acted on this threat. And soon enough, he acted like he forgot this had ever happened.

That summer, the sidewalk in front of the store was being torn out and replaced and I found an old horseshoe in the dirt under the concrete. I put it on display in my store. He became very interested in this horseshoe and wanted to take it to his car and let it "speak" to him overnight. So I let him.

He came back the next day with stories of what the horseshoe had "shown" him. He even wrote an account of some of this-- minus the darkest parts about dismembered bodies in steel barrels-- on a notepad I had given him. (See the scans at the bottom of the page.) He just told me those parts but didn't include them in the written account for some reason.

But he became convinced the horseshoe was cursed and that was the reason my store wasn't flourishing. Its presence was the problem.

He said I had to get rid of the cursed horseshoe before something horrible happened to me. To humor him I tossed it.

Oddly, things didn't improve.

He told me one day that Fall that he was moving to Utah. He packed up his car, I contributed some gas money, and he took off. I thought that was the end of that.

A week or two later I saw a very scruffy-looking guy crossing the street and thought it looked like Paul. It was him and he was soon in my shop again. He was dirtier and smellier than ever before. It turned out he had driven almost to the Utah line, but then turned up the interstate and headed toward Denver, and then his car had stopped running. I don't know if he was out of gas or if it broke down. He didn't stick around to see, but started walking back "home". That was over 130 miles, and maybe a lot more, depending on how far he'd gone on the interstate. He abandoned all his possessions there in his car on the side of the interstate, never to be seen again.

He said he'd gotten one ride-- an insistent cop had picked him up on the west side of one of the very few towns along his route and dropped him off on the east side of town so he could continue his journey. He refused all other rides along the way, and slept in the grass beside the highway every night.

His feet were sore, and now he had no place to sleep at night. A preacher friend of mine happened to come in the store about this time and heard the story. He offered to have the town's ministerial alliance pay for a hotel room. Paul refused, saying he wouldn't accept anything from them because he didn't know them. The preacher said, "but that's what we do-- help people who need help". Paul was having none of it and my preacher friend finally went on his way.

So, instead of a nice hotel room, Paul started spending the nights in a porta-potty at the construction site of the new school. It was now late November, with the temperatures falling well below freezing, and often dipping below zero. I gave him a few candles for warmth.

I began to see less of him, usually only every few days or so.

Around this time there were reports of homes in that area being entered during the night-- their toilets being used and food being eaten. Only one homeowner caught a glimpse of someone fitting Paul's description walking away from their house. It was in the paper and I suspected it was him, but I never found out for sure.

Not long after that, Paul decided to go see if there were more opportunities for "the homeless" in Denver, and he somehow got a bus ticket and left, and I never saw him again.

One result of this experience is that it kind of made me skeptical about the homeless. Yes, he was only one example (although there have been others I've met who were very similar). But homelessness isn't about a lack of homes. Paul had a home and he left. He had opportunities to be housed, he rejected the offers. He was a beggar and didn't want anything to jeopardize his chosen lifestyle.

At least I don't believe he was an addict; his mental issues were burdensome enough.

I know most (or all) of the beggars here locally are the same way. Their signs say they are stranded and need gas money, but they live in houses. Here. And have for years. Stranded? Where do they imagine they are going?

I was homeless for a time several years ago. But I didn't sleep on the streets (I slept in the woods) and I didn't get handouts or steal from anyone. I kept my job and worked to get myself out of that situation. But I also wasn't addicted or mentally ill (some might disagree on that last point, though).

It doesn't bother me if people choose to give to the homeless, but I know it's not going to fix anything. Nor would building houses for them. They generally have issues beyond what those things can solve. Paul was a case in point.

Below, for posterity, are scans of Paul's "horseshoe visions".



-

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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Sunday, March 01, 2020

Being forced to help not helping

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 29, 2020)




I want you to hunger for liberty; to crave the freedom to do everything you have a right to do, even if you choose to not do it all. I want you to want liberty as much as I want it.

I also want you to respect the liberty of others. To govern yourself and no one else-- this is your primary obligation to others.

I realize some people are scared by the thought of liberty or freedom. I've even seen people complain that libertarians want to "force people to be free". This has become something of an in-joke among libertarians; we want to take over and leave you alone.

No one can be forced to be free, and I wouldn't if I could. This would defeat the purpose without accomplishing anything.

If liberty isn't freely chosen, it's worthless. It won't be valued and it would be easy to give it up the first time some creepy politician says you need to give up some liberty so you can be safer. 

You've got to want liberty bad enough to fight for it against those who want to violate it. You've got to want it bad enough to do whatever it takes once you discover that protesting and voting don't work.

If you don't value liberty this much, you won't care enough to make an effort to protect it. You'll never make liberty a priority.

I can't change your priorities.

What I can do is remind you of everything you're cheating yourself out of, hint at all you are missing, and tease you with the possibilities you may not have considered. I can also share with you my confidence that you don't need to be governed or controlled. You can handle life.

To say I'm willing to leave you alone means I wouldn't try to run your life. It doesn't mean to leave you without social support. There's no reason you can't ask for help; nothing to prevent you from reaching out to help others without being forced to "help" them by legislative threat. Being forced to help isn't helping. Complying with a threat doesn't make you a compassionate or moral person. It shows you can be manipulated and easily scared into doing what someone else thinks you should instead of acting on your own values.

I'm not willing to do this to you. I want liberty and I respect you too much to violate your liberty by forcing it on you.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Stalking with intent to steal, or worse



Say you were a UPS or FedEx driver and were being followed by a car. You stop and ask the occupant of the car what he's doing, and he says he's waiting for you to drop a package on a porch so he could take it. Would you have to wait until he took the package to act against this self-proclaimed future thief?

Would it be any different if you see a cop on the road while you are puttering around in your car?

The threat and intention are the same, even if you ignore the fact that the cop wouldn't even exist (as a "job") without theft already having occurred.

Not only that, but to wear the gang colors of the Blue Line Gang is to advertise a willingness to murder during the enforcement of legislation.

To see a police officer of any faction is to see a credible, lethal threat to the life, liberty, and property of everyone in the vicinity. How many are intentionally blind to this threat? How many actively deny there is a threat and support this vile gang?

-

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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Saturday, February 29, 2020

Getting mad at the wrong people



"People who don't pay the taxes they owe are stealing from us all."

Male Bos taurus fecal matter.

Like it or not, "taxation" is theft. You can't define your way out of this one.

You don't "pay" a thief; you submit to the theft if you are forced to by a power imbalance.

No one can "owe" a thief the money he demands.

And keeping your own property away from thieves isn't stealing from those who imagine they might get a cut.

It's not honorable to submit to theft; it's not dishonorable to refuse to comply. It's not dishonorable to hand over the money to prevent being harmed in an even worse way.

It's not reasonable to get angry at those who don't submit. "Taxation" is a lie.

-

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.
♡2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Friday, February 28, 2020

Another Branch Davidian siege anniversary

Today is-- as I was reminded by Ammo.com-- the anniversary of the beginning of the attack (and eventual murder) of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.

Ammo.com published an account of the crime that you might be interested in.

I'm interested because of the odd confluence of events that made it all seem a little more personal than it should have been.

-

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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Your right to not be a slave



You have the right to not be enslaved-- in other words, you have the right to exercise control over your own body and the fruits of your labors.
No one has the right to enslave you.
No one has the right to demand nor to ask you to be enslaved for their benefit or to receive certain privileges.
Any request that you enslave yourself-- for any duration-- is illegitimate.

-

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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Thursday, February 27, 2020

Pragmatism revisited

Screenshot from this Youtube video


Pragmatism is the philosophy which says that it doesn't really matter if something is true, just that it's useful.

Well, I think it's nice if something is useful, but it also needs to be true. Truth which you haven't yet found a use for is still true. It just depends on your priorities, I guess. And it depends if your worldview revolves around a lie, making truth somewhat inconvenient for your side.

But, the bottom line is that which is pragmatic doesn't necessarily have to be a lie, even though being a lie doesn't disqualify it.

As writer Jim Davies pointed out in a recent comment, freedom can be pragmatic. And he once interviewed some fellows who made demonstrating this fact their work. That's the kind of pragmatism I can get behind.

-

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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

In pain? Toss your principles

Credit here

Drew Cary is a celebrity who is often considered a libertarian. Recently his ex-fiancee was murdered by an ex-boyfriend. This is a tragedy and I am sorry for Drew and all those who were hurt by this act of evil.

But, now this celebrity libertarian has tossed his principles out the window and is campaigning for more State by calling for updated domestic violence legislation. Updated legislation always involves more governizing, never less.

I can sympathize with his pain. But emotional pain is no excuse to cause more pain by advocating for more political government. More, or stronger, "laws" are never the solution.

I hope when the pain isn't so fresh he backs away from this embrace of statism.

-

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.
♡ 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Monday, February 24, 2020

Corporation- the definition



Corporations-- a Frankenstein's monster created by stitching together political government and businesses.

Corporations are the key feature of the economic system corporatism; also known as fascism, a "public/private partnership", or "crony capitalism".

Corporatism is not capitalism* and the two systems can't coexist. Where political government exists, capitalism can't.

Corporatism uses government and its legislation to manipulate and destroy the market; to prop up government-sanctioned monopolies (the only kind that can exist for long) and to prevent competition. Government uses corporations to finance rights violations and to manipulate the people, but with plausible deniability. Corporations are government and government is corporations.

Calls to raise "taxes" on corporations are a sign of economic ignorance.
-

*Capitalism is the market-- business regulated by "the invisible hand"; the aggregate actions of every individual choice. It has everything to do with society and nothing to do with the State.

-



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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Good to occasionally consider 'what if'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 22, 2020)




Everyone would be smart to consider "what if?", especially where their beliefs and assumptions are concerned. While it's not healthy to dwell on it until the thought paralyzes you, "what if I'm wrong?" is essential if you like being correct.

What if I'm wrong about everything I believe? There are those who believe I am. Are they right?

What if it really were possible to change an unethical act into an ethical one just by writing some words saying it's now OK? What if you call those words "legislation" or "the law"?

What if a group has the right to gang up and violate the life, liberty, property of others as long as they follow rules they've made up? Can such a right be created with rules? What if they call the act of ganging up "voting" or "governing"?

What if it's actually OK to use violence against people who aren't harming others? What if you call this violence "enforcing the law" and say you don't make the laws, you just enforce them; shifting the blame to others? Is it OK as long as you pretend the people themselves are to blame for the legislation being violently imposed against them?

What if it's OK to take other people's property without their explicit consent? You could call it "taxation", "fines", asset forfeiture, or eminent domain. What if you don't completely steal the property, but only steal its value to the owner through acts you call "code enforcement" or "zoning"?

What if you really do have the right to control what others ingest? What if you call it a war on drugs instead of admitting it's a war on sick people?

What if it's ethical to prohibit or ration self-defense and the tools which are most effective for that purpose? What if you claim it's about safety or crime?

What if working for government does give a person extra rights others can't have? Would it change anything if they call it "authority" instead of a right?

What if it's OK to be dishonest about what you do as long as you mean well? Never mind the real-world consequences, your intentions are what matter. Right?

Would this be a society you'd want to live in? It wouldn't be for me. In fact, I wouldn't call it a society except in the loosest sense.

I might be wrong. Any of us might be. When you're willing to consider the possibility you could be wrong, real thinking begins.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Dumb activist vs the Mountainmen



One year during the mountainman rendezvous I was attending somewhere in the Rockies, a guy wearing cut-offs and mud (the mud was apparently intentional) suddenly rode his dirt bike into camp and into the rather active shooting range, between the shooters and their targets.

Shooting paused. Mountainmen grumbled, laughed, and watched to see what the idiot would do next.

As he rode back and forth he was screaming and yelling that we were killing Mother Earth with our lead and smoke (but somehow she was immune to his dirtbike?).

It was suggested he leave before an unfortunate incident occurred, but he didn't seem to have much of a sense of self-preservation-- which might have had something to do with either some recently partaken mind-altering substances or an unrelated mental condition.

Coincidentally, at the same time in another part of the camp, some forest circus rangers were "visiting" to make sure everyone was all "legal" and whatnot. ("Of course that's a turkey feather. Can't you tell the difference?") They heard the change of commotion and moseyed over to get involved. They grabbed mud man and his bike and as they escorted him from the area, they told him to leave our camp and stay away; that he should be grateful they were rescuing him, and if he was dumb enough to come back they wouldn't rescue him again.

He didn't come back.

That was the only invasion of our camp while I was in attendance, although another year some mountainmen snuck into someone else's camp to give them a lesson in neighborliness. (Which actually worked out well.)

There was always talk of PETA or some similar group planning to raid our camp to complain about our clothing or something, and to try to splash us with red paint. The talk around camp was almost hopeful. You don't raid an armed camp and come out ahead. At best you'll come out even... if you are really lucky. And sometimes there will be no one on hand to rescue you from your poor life-choices.

Good times.
-

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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Leaky excuses for government



There are a couple of standard historical justifications for political government. One is that government is needed to right wrongs. The other is that political government is needed for defense-- either against individual archators or opposition political governments.

Sounds reasonable... if you don't look too closely.

Is it even possible to use political government to right a wrong or in defense?

Not really.

Why can't government right wrongs? Distilled down, a wrong is a violation of property ("theft") and/or aggression against a person (violations of life and liberty)-- put together, they are what I refer to as archation. Political government-- or even just politics-- can't exist separate from theft and aggression. Theft and aggression are generally agreed to be wrong. You can't right a wrong by committing wrong.

The same goes for defense. Political government can't exist apart from theft and aggression, and what else is there to be defended from? Even if the one you use government against is guilty of using theft and aggression, your "tool"-- government-- wouldn't exist without theft and aggression committed against innocent others; "collateral damage". By using government you become the aggressor. Just because the one you use government against is also using theft and aggression doesn't make you right. It just makes you a participant in a gang fight; actively harming the life, liberty, and property of bystanders.

Statists who are desperate to justify political government use various excuses. But those excuses don't hold water and you'd have to squint pretty hard to not see the leaks.

-

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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Friday, February 21, 2020

Die, NASA. Die.



Long ago, I was a fan of NASA. Even though it was government. I even told people that I wouldn't mind so much being "taxed" if I could make sure only NASA got all the money I "contributed".

That time is long past.

Now I despise NASA and want to see it die-- not to be replaced with anything.

NASA just serves as the border patrol for the "up" border. Making sure the tax cattle can't escape. It is in the business of preventing human space exploration or even human space travel, except on a very small scale. With the "proper permits".

NASA-- along with the equally evil FAA-- imagines it has the "authority" to allow or deny access to space; to deny people the freedom to leave earth and government behind.

Humans will never leave Earth behind if NASA has any say in the matter.

This alone is enough reason to kill it off permanently.
-

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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Embracing the utility of evil is pragmatic



Last week I listened to an interview. The author being interviewed was a raging pragmatist. Very utilitarian.

I found the interview disgusting for all the same reasons I always find pragmatism and utilitarianism without a foundation in ethical behavior disgusting. And it is rare to find a utilitarian pragmatist who thinks ethics are pragmatic or utilitarian... unless they happen to agree with what he wants to do to you this time.

There's literally nothing that can't be excused or justified that way. It was hard to listen to and made me feel physically sick at several points.

I understand why people preach pragmatism. There's no point in living in a fantasy world of things and ideas that can't work.

I understand utilitarianism, too. You might as well use methods that are useful.

But just because something can work or is useful doesn't mean it's right.

Genocide obviously works in the real world, and it can be perfectly useful, depending on what you want to accomplish-- as long as you don't worry yourself over whether it is wrong.

Legislation can also work in the real world and it can be useful. Never mind that using it is almost always going to be unethical. As long as your goals are more important that who you violate while getting there, you can be very pragmatic and utilitarian.

I don't really hate pragmatism or utility, although it might seem so from what I've been saying. What I hate is the way those are used to advocate and justify committing evil against others.

You don't have to be pragmatic or utilitarian to be an advocate of evil. Bernie Sanders is certainly not pragmatic or utilitarian-- although it could be argued that his theft advocacy could be utilitarian, even though it wouldn't be utilitarian enough to reach his stated goals. However, I have not yet run across a vocal advocate of pragmatism or utilitarianism who isn't also trying to excuse some sort of great evil. It must be a difficult line to walk; too difficult to navigate 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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Don't "tax the rich"



There's an important fact that is missed by the "tax the rich" folk-- besides the fact that "taxation" is theft whether they like to admit it or not. (And they don't; they HATE it. It makes them crazy.)

If you "tax" wealthy people you are stealing from me.
Even if you don't "tax" me, directly.
Even if you give me some "benefits" from it. I don't want a cut of the loot.

You are stealing money he might use to start a business that would benefit me. Or money she might use to buy something from me. Or money he might donate to me because he has so much excess and can't figure out how to use it.
But even if none of that happens, you are funding antisocial political government to my detriment.

It's just as bad as calling for Big Business to "pay more taxes". It's a lie. I can't afford for you to "tax" anyone.

"Taxation" steals from me even if it never touches me otherwise. It steals money, opportunities, and liberty.

I will never support a plan to "tax" anyone, for any reason, ever.

-

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.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Monday, February 17, 2020

"Is X a human right?"



Let’s say X is a human right. What would this mean?

It means no one has the right to prevent you from creating, buying, being given, having, selling, gifting, or using X, as long as you do so without violating the life, liberty, or property of another.

It doesn’t mean you have a right to steal the X someone else creates or owns. It doesn't mean you are allowed to enslave someone so you can have X at their expense.

-

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.

Sunday, February 16, 2020

Don't scare kids with political fears

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 15, 2020)




I remember the panic I felt about tornado warnings as a child. It didn't matter whether my family was in danger; I wasn't informed enough to know whether we were. I didn't understand that worry isn't helpful, and I wasn't able to change things. There was nothing meaningful I could do.

In the past couple of weeks, I've heard of local children scared that World War Three had begun. They've overheard adults talking about it and were worried. I did my best to explain things and calm the fears of one kid; hopeful that she'd calm her friends.

It would be great if adults would stop acting like scared children; overreacting about politics, science, and other things they don't understand as well as they imagine they do.

This pattern repeats both locally and on a global scale.

In recent months an angry Swedish teen gained attention because she believes the planet is being destroyed by carbon dioxide. She's scared... and she blames you.

All because she has been shown one side of a debate by people who don't want dissent. Their political agenda--  their power and position-- depends on the narrative going a particular way. She is being used as their political pawn.

I'm not even claiming she's necessarily wrong. Regardless of what you've been told, no one knows. Climate predictions about the long-term are not much better than a guess. But the way she has been frightened and used is wrong without question. Do you really want to ruin a young person's life based on speculation?

Political events may even be worse. To pretend you know for certain that one politician having another politician killed is going to cause a world war-- and scaring children with this kind of talk-- is irresponsible. Or worse.

If you want to worry, go ahead. But to scare kids with this kind of thing isn't right.

I'm not saying to keep them ignorant. You can discuss the facts without sharing scary doomsday conclusions.

It's different to educate a kid on the dangers of getting into a stranger's car. They have control over this. None of us can save or destroy the planet, and politicians are going to do what politicians do. In fact, you can't be certain which path results in destruction and which one comes out better in the long run. You can guess. You can apply your beliefs. But you can't know.

To scare children over things no one can know for certain is child abuse.


-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Humbling (funny) quotation

I just ran across this quote. It's a lesson in humility for me, personally. But it's funny, too.

No one asked you to write. And no one will care if you stop. If you succeed, no one will notice. It’s a rough, heartless business.” ~ George Higgins


I don't know who George Higgins is/was. I guess I'll look him up... I assume this is him.

The quote's not exactly true on the first point, since I was asked to start writing a blog-- in fact, someone else signed me up and gave me the log-in information so I would. This was to give people the opportunity to pick my mind and ask me probing questions.

No one really asked me to continue to write after the original purpose had passed, though.

So it's still close enough to accurate.

And I'm not sure what success would look like in this context, anyway. Not fame, riches, or groupies, for sure.

I've always said I do this more to help myself think and organize those thoughts than for any other reason. I'm glad there are a few of you out there who follow along. That feels like success to me.

-

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.

Evil's supporters



Helping someone commit evil acts, or supporting them while they commit them, is just as bad as committing the evil acts yourself.

If you "Support the troops" in any way beyond supporting getting them back home where they won't be maimed and killed by those trying to defend their homes from the invaders makes you complicit in their evil acts.

If you "Back the Blue" you're worse than if you "Support the troops", although it's close. There's no way to back the Blue Line Gang without being tainted by what they do, and there is no such critter as a "good cop".

You might as well be out there committing evil in person.

I see a lot of people making excuses for the harm committed by both those who are out there doing evil and those sitting around supporting or fawning over the evildoers. As if circumstances or feelings change reality.

But the news isn't all bad.

I have the greatest respect for those who were in the military and are still able to stand firmly against it, and for those who were once legislation enforcers and now stand against that "profession" without reservation. People can change for the better. They give me hope.

-

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.

Saturday, February 15, 2020

Stats and updates



This is my 5501st blog post. Most of which aren't as pointless as this one.

My first blog post was on September 3, 2006.

I'm in my 14th year of blogging and in my 10th year writing the newspaper column (495 columns so far, as far as I can tell).

My slowest (full) blogging year was 2010 when I only posted 377 times. My bloggiest year was 2014 with 449 posts.

Last year saw 386 posts. I'm up to 51 posts for 2020 so far.

I really hate when I miss a day, or a few, even though it can't be avoided sometimes.

I currently post these blogs on Blogger, WordPress, Patreon, and Steemit, and share them as links on Twitter and Quora.

This blog usually averages around 300 or so views per day according to Blogger, but that's probably not even close to accurate. I don't pay much attention to the numbers anymore, anyway. The numbers go way up when (I suspect) I'm getting fake views from spammers looking for sites to post on. And I've come to accept that I'm just a baby minnow in some tiny backwater of the internet.

My KentForLiberty.com site gets around 350 visitors per week.

I've been posting "outrageous" answers to Quora a lot recently, more for sport than anything. It helps me blow off steam and entertain myself, I've started sharing those answers on Twitter just to see if I can cause a reaction. Mostly, no, I can't.

Who knows if I've made a positive impact on the world. I'll probably never know. But I'll pretend I have. It makes me happy to imagine I have in some way.

Tomorrow I plan to have some actual content.

UPDATE: I just ran across this rather fitting quote--
No one asked you to write. And no one will care if you stop. If you succeed, no one will notice. It’s a rough, heartless business.” ~ George Higgins

-

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.

Friday, February 14, 2020

Statism's Reality Rejection immune response



Statism insulates itself (or pretends to) from reality by automatically disqualifying all opposing views. It's like an immune response.

To say "taxation is theft" means you aren't a "serious part" of "the conversation"; you are automatically ignored because to fund Big Political Government, theft... I mean "taxation"... is necessary. Anyone who doesn't like taxation is automatically disqualified from being taken seriously. According to the view of government supremacists, anyway.

Yet I don't entirely disagree with their entire argument. "Taxation" is necessary to fund political government. No question. That's part of the reason "taxation" is unethical. There's also the whole "theft is unethical" thing, too.

That's not the only subject where they play this trick. It happens all the time. And it's a lie every time they do it.

I understand, when you have no real argument you do every sneaky thing you can to "win". You'll shut out any other voices however you can. You'll reject ethics because it gets in the way of what you want to get away with doing. But that doesn't make it right. It just compounds the wrong you're committing.

-

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.

Thursday, February 13, 2020

To "serve"



The words people use and how those words are used says a lot about how someone thinks. In many cases, it's almost as good as an X-ray into their mind.

Take, for example, the word "serve" and its past tense, "served".

If someone says "I served" where does your mind go? You probably assume they mean they were in the US military, and at this point in history on this spot on this planet your assumption is probably correct.

But why? Common usage.

To "serve" means you have provided a service of some sort to someone.

Everyone serves someone just about all the time.

The corner drug dealer serves. The cashier serves. The prostitute and the waiter and the car wash attendant serve. The writer serves, the scientist serves, and the medical provider serves. They serve by mutual consent and voluntary choice.

There are also those who provide unethical service. The mafia hitman and the legislation enforcement scum, for example. Unethical service means that someone is forced to either tolerate an unwanted "service" or to pay for it whether they want it or not. Unethical service is based in some way on archation.

To basically reserve the word "serve" for those who foolishly joined forces with the military of any government is to perpetuate a lie. Yes, they serve, but they serve anti-society and the anti-individual forces of the State. They serve liberty's enemy. That's not a good thing to do.

How can I pretend they are serving me in any way when I don't want them to do what they are doing and I don't want to pay them to do it? They aren't even on my side.

The same goes for other government employees, who also sometimes try to use the word "service" to refer to their own parasitism.

It's a lie to pretend that being a legislator, or government president, or government judge is a beneficial service. Those are parasitic positions, serving the political government at the expense of society. To be proud of such service, or to call it out for special honor, is to show just how deep the statism virus has infected the mind.

-

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.

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Does it "work"?



Does government "work"? Does this or that policy or legislation "work"?

Yeah, they "work" just like a bomb works to remodel a hospital. They apply physical force-- they "do work".

Do they work as advertised? Almost never. There are always unintended (or at least, unacknowledged) consequences. They make things worse. Under the very best of outcomes, they shift the problem from one place to another.

You can feed this person by making other people hungry.
You can make one person feel safer by making everyone less safe.
You can pay for someone's healthcare by making healthcare harder for everyone else to afford.

That's not the kind of "success" I'm willing to tolerate. How about you?

-

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.

Monday, February 10, 2020

Scaled-up anarchy



"Anarchy doesn't scale"

Whenever I hear that assertion, I notice that they aren't ever discussing anarchy, but something else entirely. Something which doesn't scale. Something like chaos (in the negative sense of the word), where more isn't necessarily better.

Obviously, anarchy scales just fine. It's anarchy's opposite-- the State-- which falls apart as you try to scale it up. The entire known Universe-- except for certain minor "systems" existing in a thin, patchy layer on one planet-- is an illustration of just how well anarchy scales.

Remember that anarchy doesn't mean there are no rules, it's just a recognition that there are no legitimate Rulers.

Anarchy is the perfect balance between the Yin of chaos and the Yang of order-- and too much of either chaos or order can be deadly.

I suspect that what they mean when saying "anarchy doesn't scale" is that scaled-up anarchy doesn't allow them to do the state-like things they want to do. It gets in the way of artificially legitimized archation. That's a feature, not a bug.

-

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.

Sunday, February 09, 2020

Not a fan of artificial divisions

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 8, 2020)




I'm not a fan of the trend on social media to create artificial divisions to pit people against each other. A recent example is the condescending remark "OK, Boomer".

This phrase is commonly used against anyone assumed to be a "baby boomer", or who simply isn't as "progressive" and "enlightened" as those weaned on "social justice" might prefer.

If someone points out problems with socialism, with basing legislation on sexual identity issues, with climate change prescriptions to be imposed on society through the "New Green Deal", or with other topics which have been politicized, they are likely to be dismissed with this comment.

As if they are cute for being too old and backward to be taken seriously.

Why encourage this type of division? There are endless ways to categorize and divide people: generations, races, sexes, Democrat and Republican. Those who crave more control will back whichever side begs for more legislation. They will encourage them to fight and ridicule anyone who opposes handing government more control.

It's why government loved "Baby Boomers" as long as they were useful-- begging for more government programs and spending-- but was happy to throw them under the bus when a new generation began to beg for "social justice" legislation the older generation saw as going too far. "Social justice" was too good an excuse for more government control; it couldn't be ignored.

Climate change seems to be an equally popular excuse.

Government supremacists seek to divide and conquer with whatever divisions can be imagined, created, magnified, or exaggerated.

The truth is, it's not "Republican versus Democrat", Baby Boomer against Generation Z, "Black" against "White", male versus female versus whatever else you imagine exists. It has always come down to those who want people to be herded, numbered, controlled, governed, and enslaved against those who recognize the equal and identical rights of all humanity and the liberty which comes from this truth.

It has always been the rulers against the people.

Increased government power depends on hiding truth from you. It depends on giving you imaginary enemies to keep you too flustered to realize who your real enemy is.

Instead of dividing, I try to support anyone I think is right, even if I am hard on them when they are wrong. I don't fault people for who they are; only for what they do when what they do violates the liberty of others. I'd much rather explain my reasons in either case than to dismiss people with an intentionally condescending catchphrase.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Free to pick and choose



There are good things about the present.
There are some good things about the past.
You can have some of both. You can mix them together in whatever way makes you happy.
I don't understand those who believe it has to be either/or.
That seems so limiting and small.

-

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.

Saturday, February 08, 2020

Give 'em enough rope...



Let statists set their own standards, then use those standards to refute their position. This can work with anyone who's inconsistent, but it works especially well with statists.

It doesn't mean you have to openly refute them to their face. Cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, or something else would kick in anyway to keep them from seeing that they've been refuted. Just use their inconsistency to show yourself that their position can be discounted without much effort or concern.
-

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.