Governing right up to the line

All political governments are the ethical equivalent of the 9/11 terrorists. Or, probably, worse.

Since 9/11, airplane passengers-- at least in America-- know they have nothing to lose by fighting back against hijackers as hard as they can. Even if it means they die in the fight. Those hijackers ruined it for all the disgusting hijackers who come after them.

Since the coronapocalypse, some people may be realizing the same thing about political government.

Governments need to be careful to grab as much power as they can get away with, but not so much that the people decide they have nothing to lose by decorating lamp posts and barbed wire fences with the remains of the oppressors.

They have to be very careful to not make governing impossibly dangerous for those who come after them and from now on. I think it's a finer line than they realize.

Truthfully, I kind of hope they fail, even though it would mean some hard choices in the immediate future. I'm tired of tolerating the intolerable and would rather not leave that kind of world for my descendants.

-

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.

Another liberty holiday: 4-20

I have never really celebrated "4/20", not even when I occasionally enjoyed burning the herb. And that was a long time ago. The memory brings a smile to my face and makes me think appreciatively of a long-lost girlfriend.

Where was I...?

Oh, yeah... 4-20. And this is a special 4-20 since it's 4-20-2020. That's a lot of 20!

I'm happy that smoking the stuff is the closest to not being a "crime" that I have ever seen. Although I would still rather it be "illegal" than have all the conditions and exceptions various governments seem driven to attach to its use. I'm not sure the trade-off is worth it.

The arrogance of believing that you are entitled to make a plant-- and using it non-aggressively-- a "crime" bewilders me. What kind of broken soul would follow such a path? No one I need around me, that's for sure.

Anyway, if you smoke (or otherwise consume) it, enjoy the excuse to do so-- as if you need one.

-

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.

Keep healthy habits, help others

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 18, 2020)

How will you spend your time now that civilization has been canceled by executive command? Is it time to brush up on your stone-age skills?

This would be a good time to familiarize yourself with the edible wild plants growing in your yard and to learn the natural substitutes for toilet paper.

Learn to make and use an atlatl and stone-tipped spears in case you need to bring down a mammoth. Pool cues might be a good raw material for this sort of thing. Of course, the recent scarcity of mammoths could put a kink in this plan.

A bonfire in the backyard for roasting your kill would probably attract the wrong kind of attention anyway. This should be a last resort.

Perhaps you could choose to go to the opposite extreme and retreat to a virtual world for a fortnight or two, where your biggest dangers are ransom-ware and scammers promising eternal love in exchange for airfare to America.

Or will you ignore the hoopla?

I'm always in favor of taking precautions against unnecessary risks, but people can go overboard. There are times precaution gets replaced by panic. Politicians love taking advantage of panic since they rarely pay a price for being wrong. They claim the credit if people believe they got it right, but you pay the price every time they are wrong.

I'm going to hope you're a regular reader of this column and as such you've listened to my frequent suggestions to be a "prepper" and stock up on essential supplies in case of unforeseen circumstances. This means you were already prepared and didn't get caught up in the last-minute scramble for essentials... or for the luxuries some people consider essential.

Aren't you glad you listened?

The phrase "May you live in interesting times" is said to be a curse. I'm not certain it is. Would you rather be bored to death? Times can be interesting, but-- when you're ready for whatever life throws at you-- not cursed.

This too will pass. You'll be fine when all is said and done. There are lessons in all this. Smart people will learn and remember these lessons; others will stay clueless.

Don't let the hand-wringers and fear-mongers upset you. Do things you already know will help you stay healthy. Healthy habits haven't suddenly become dangerous. Lend a hand to those who, due to age or health conditions, may be more at risk. Together, but maybe not within coughing distance, we will get through this.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Patriots' Day- 4/19/2020

I've previously mentioned my skepticism about patriotism. Looking into the origins and uses of the word, I'm not the only one who has my doubts about its goodness.

However, there is a generally-ignored holiday called Patriots' Day which I've mentioned in the past, and it happens to be today-- "4-19" every year. As far as semi-political holidays go, it's not so awful.

Ammo.com has a little write-up about it you might enjoy. It's history, so you probably ought to familiarize yourself just a little so you don't accidentally end up celebrating the wholly statist, government-worshiping "Patriots' Day" (Blowback Day/Consequences Day) on September 11th of every year.

-

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.

Viral thuggery

There's a phrase I've seen making the rounds recently: "No one has the right to infect others."

Sounds good on the surface.

But...

What does that even mean?

Beyond justifying coronapocalypse tyranny, that is.

For you to not have the right to do something means you are violating the rights of someone else if you do it. The above assertion doesn't distinguish between knowing you are doing it or not. It leaves no room for biological reality and "stuff happens". Nope. If you transmit a pathogen of any sort you have violated someone's rights. Nonsense.

This is almost like saying you have no right to breathe out carbon dioxide-- like certain segments of the population would claim.

If you KNOW you are contagious, you need to try your best to not infect other people. Don't grab someone by the ears and cough in their face. Don't sneeze on them or throw snotty rags at them. Don't spit in their food. Stay away from others as much as you reasonably can, take precautions, and be mindful of what you're doing at all times (something everyone should be doing regardless). Maybe even warn people to stay back if you believe that will help.

But to claim you are violating someone's rights simply by going about your business in a generally responsible way?

No one has a right to use force against you if they are just worried you might be infectious. Or, just because you aren't obeying the ignorant orders of known liars and power-hungry monsters.

And it seems that's what most of those who say you have no right to infect others are actually advocating. Not responsibility from you, but irresponsibility from others.

In making this claim they are supporting mandatory lock-downs, mandatory vaccinations, business closures, and antisocial nannying. They would use the force of the State against those who aren't following the edicts of the State, regardless of whether they are obviously sick or not, for a disease which seems to be much less deadly than government would like us to fear.

Plus, if someone doesn't want to get infected, they are free to sequester themselves in isolation from all humans. That's how to avoid being infected without violating the rights of anyone else. I'll even do what I can to help deliver supplies to anyone in my sphere who takes this approach (as I'm already doing) if they want. How they deal with what I deliver, such as disinfecting what I bring, is up to them at that point.

Please, don't act like the statists by cowering in fear that someone, somewhere, might have a virus you don't want, and that they are violating you by not pre-emptively dying in a deep hole for your convenience and safetyness.

-

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.

"Good" intentions propped up with archation

If your "good intentions" involve violating the life, liberty, or property of other people-- either through your own actions or by using or supporting political government-- you're not the good guy.

Not even a little.

If you imagine you can beat a pandemic by forcibly vaccinating people, by forcing their businesses to close, by forcing them to stay in their own homes (and sending members of the Blue Line Gang after those who refuse), or by promoting and supporting anyone who tries to do these things, you are part of the problem. I don't care who you are or how many people you've fooled.

-

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.

The $1200 "stimulus"

Don't assume everyone you know suddenly has an extra $1200. Some don't.

Receiving that money from Uncle Scam is contingent upon meeting certain conditions which many people, for one reason or another, do not meet.

I'm noticing an economic fact I hadn't considered before. If the "supply" of fiat money instantly goes up, but a few people are left out, it's like those people suddenly lost ground. Yes, I expect everyone else to catch up (catch down?) eventually when the piper must be paid, so the situation will be temporary.

That is, the pain won't always be limited to those who didn't get the money-- I expect the economic pain to hit everyone before this is all over. Those who didn't get the payoff will just be hit twice because they will still have to suffer the effects of the payoff without getting the payoff. Does that seem right to you?

I don't want that to happen-- I'd much rather the painful effects be limited to as few as possible since the payoffs are already a done deal. But you and I, not being fake economists, know that's not going to be the way this goes.

If you are one of those who received "stimulus money", I recommend spending it all on guns, ammo, and survival foods if you don't need it for more immediate necessities. It would be a good way to make that money last a bit longer and benefit you in the long run. Guns and ammo, in particular, are always a good digitus impudicus aimed at the State. Use it well.

-

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.

Government-supremacist

A government-supremacist is an extreme statist. Not just someone who acts as though they believe governing others to be a legitimate human endeavor but someone whose behavior demonstrates the assumption that political government is superior to and naturally above society and the individuals in a society.

In fact, by their words, they apparently almost always conflate the State and society, even though those are opposites.

The government-supremacist uses phrases like "our/my president", "our government", "our military", and advocates that everything should be decided and controlled in some way by the State. They seem to believe government should always have a say and a plan. There is probably no aspect of life a government-supremacist would believe is always off-limits to government intervention or oversight.

A government-supremacist never expresses real doubt as to the legitimacy of the State even if questioning whether it sometimes goes too far in specific instances.

In any discussion of politics, government, legislation, or society, government-supremacists have the lowest possible amount of credibility. Their opinions can be dismissed-- other than taking note of them as a warning of what they'd allow government to do to society... and to 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.

Politicians are NOT leaders

Hearing someone refer to politicians as "leaders" is like fingernails clawing at a chalkboard. It grates on my nerves.

I have written about why this description is wrong in the past. Some people who agree they are not leaders still balk at calling them what they actually are: rulers. I've never seen a reasonable objection to this characterization, but perhaps there is one out there somewhere.

Still, they are not, and never have been, leaders. Unless you follow them.

If you are dumb enough to allow yourself to be led by a politician you shouldn't complain about where it leads 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.

Don't need rescue from everything

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 11, 2020)

I'm surprised at how seriously people are taking the coronavirus. I'm even more surprised at how many believe government can save them from it, or that it's even government's job to do so.

This is the same sort of thinking which has led to the recent plague of "red flag" legislation.

If you believe you need politicians to save you from a virus or from someone's gun, then you'll keep handing control of your life over to anyone who promises to rescue you. Whether they actually can or not.

It's not only diseases and guns. It seems almost everyone wants to be saved from something. Maybe they fear immigrants who don't comply with unconstitutional anti-immigration legislation. Or maybe they want to be rescued from "inequality", whatever they imagine it to be.

Others may want to be saved from weather, poverty, different political ideologies or other religions they don't follow, or from rich people. Some beg to be rescued from their student loan debt or their own bad choices.

Drugs, other drivers, people who might appear to be smoking but aren't, messy yards, backyard chickens, loud parties, tall grass, and more are all things someone out there wants government to save them from.

If this seems like a long list, you are right. Yet it barely scratches the surface. There appears to be no end to the number of things you could list which some people, somewhere at some time, have begged government to save them from.

Government encourages this pandemic of cowardice.

H. L. Mencken, a favorite writer of mine from early in the 20th Century, noticed this and called it out. He wrote: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

He's right, and it's working.

Were your hobgoblins listed above or are yours something else entirely?

It's not that these things don't exist, but making them into hobgoblins you fear irrationally is a path to slavery. You become so desperate to be saved you'll accept those fanning the flames of fear as your self-proclaimed saviors.

Fear is the reaction to feeling you won't be able to cope; of suspecting you aren't enough. It's a lie. You are enough. You don't need to be rescued from every little thing. I know you can do it without depending on government or its legislation. To conquer fear, get busy doing what needs to be done.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Essential people and their essential jobs

You are essential.

Your job or career is essential. (As long as you aren't a politician or a politician's hired thug, anyway.) If it weren't, you couldn't afford to do it because no one would pay you to. Every job in the market is essential to someone.

Never let useless government tools tell you you aren't essential. They are lying-- it's what government does best. (Even better than murdering, stealing, kidnapping, etc.)

-

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.

Padding the pandemic statistics

-

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.

To block is to admit the facts don't support you

Have you ever noticed how fast statists are to block anyone who questions their toxic, childish world-view?

I have and I find it amusing. They have no real arguments to support their beliefs, so they block. If they can block all other voices, they can feel safe (and confident) in their delusion for another day.

My first experience of this was some guy-- who portrayed himself as quite the "progressive" journalist-- who wrote a post calling libertarians racists and "white separatists". I politely pointed out how that wasn't accurate, giving examples and showing how racism, as he described it, would violate libertarian principles. He reacted by throwing a fit in comment form and then blocking me. Not long after this, his entire blog vanished entirely. So much for his journalistic career (I've searched for him over the years and never found a trace online).

I've had disagreements with lots of people (shocking, I know!) but only those disagreements which were due to me pointing out the error of statism to a statist resulted in me being blocked. To me, it shows their weakness and exposes that they know their position is weak.

I have never blocked anyone on my blog. No matter what they said about me, or how nasty they were toward me. And certainly never due to them having a difference of opinion or saying I'm wrong.

Statists are too insecure to do the same. This indicates they know they are wrong-- perhaps only subconsciously. Statism is a weak position, even if it's popular.

(I have deleted 2 non-spam comments over the years-- once when the commenter demanded I delete his comment after he posted it and once by accident while trying to read the comments from my phone.)

-

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.

Government-supremacist assumptions

You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes with a magnifying glass. Government-supremacists are easy to spot by the bad assumptions they naturally make and wave around in public.

They've always argued over how to spend "tax" money; they won't consider the fact that "taxation" is theft.

They've argued over what should be taught in government schools, but never questioned government control over (and destruction of) education.

And now they argue over whether it was the right move to issue stay-at-home orders and cripple the economy, but they never consider that no one has the right to do so.

It's not government's place to decide to shutter the economy to "save" lives from coronavirus or anything else. They don't have that right and they shouldn't be allowed to have the power.

It's never an "adult decision" to govern other people (the political means) rather than letting them work it out for themselves (the economic means/the market). It's the most childish thing anyone can do. No one should be allowed to make those decisions and decide for you what you will be permitted to do with your own life.

They also substitute government-supremacism for thinking in other ways.

If you are making the dishonest argument that to fail to sufficiently cripple the economy on account of the coronapocalypse is going to kill 50,000 additional people (or whatever your number might be), without taking into account those who will die because the economy is being destroyed, you aren't contributing anything useful.

You can't know how many the virus will kill, nor do you know how many will die from the effects of a shut-down. The number of dead from the shut-down could well vastly outnumber those who die from the virus, making the "net deaths from coronavirus" being tossed around a completely fake number. Any discussion of "net deaths from coronavirus" without taking those a shut-down will kill into account is-- as of now-- a lie calculated to limit the discussion to government-supremacist answers.

To pretend that someone has sufficient information to make such a decision, or the right to impose it, is to be dishonest. It's what makes one a government-supremacist.

Government edicts and orders are the opposite of responsibility. You have the responsibility to not violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else. Government-supremacy is explicit irresponsibility and is shameful. No matter who exhibits it or what excuse they grasp at to justify their violations. I have no respect for government-supremacists; they deserve none. They've worked hard to prove that.

-

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.

Reject Hate

Government is a hate group.

If there's any such thing as a "hate crime", supporting government-- in any way, shape, or form, at any level-- has to be the main one. Anything else pales by comparison.

Reject hate. Reject political government.

-

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.

You'll have to stop them

At some point, it always comes down to people having to use violence in self-defense against those seeking to violate their life, liberty, and property.

This is a reality that can not be changed. I wish it could. But if you intend to keep your life, liberty, and property-- and if you live long enough-- you will eventually be forced to fight those who want to violate you. Most of those will probably have badges and/or government titles.

It seems that government-supremacists are trying to rush that day. They imagine they'll be on the winning side. I suspect no one will really win. I just hope the oppressors lose harder.

-

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.

Hysterics are usually wrong

Image credit

When one side of an issue is hysterical or panicked and the other side isn't too upset, the side that's not hysterical is almost always correct.

This is true even if I'm the hysterical one.

There will be rare times which are the exception. You won't know ahead of time-- or even during the event-- whether this time is the exception or not. How's that for a nice bit of news?

-

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.

Glad someone finally said 'enough'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 4, 2020)

As much as I appreciate sheriffs who refuse to enforce the latest blatant violation of the Constitution-- so-called "red flag" legislation-- I wonder where their courage to not do the wrong thing has been hiding until now.

Unconstitutional gun legislation-- which includes every "law" concerning guns-- has been enforced by those in these same offices since 1934. This newest violation isn't worse than the others. This is an arbitrary, theatrical line-in-the-sand.

If they have ever arrested someone for carrying a concealed firearm without a license, or insisted a gun shop needs permission from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives before selling guns, then they've broken the law which applies to their job by enforcing legislation which was illegal to impose or enforce.

If they would help arrest someone for mailing a gun, after selling it through an advertisement on the internet, to someone in another state who lacks the "proper license", they have violated the Constitution in the exact same way they now say they won't do.

If they would arrest someone for possessing or selling a fully automatic firearm without the government paperwork, they're willing to violate the Constitution. As they are if they'd enforce the rules against shotguns with barrels declared "too short" or against safety equipment like suppressors (incorrectly called "silencers").

How can anyone take these scofflaws at their word?

Even the Supreme Court ironically recognized the right to ignore unconstitutional "laws"-- which they declared to not be laws at all-- in the same ruling in which they unconstitutionally decided they have the final say on what the Constitution means: the Marbury v. Madison ruling in 1803.

Neither the Supreme Court nor anyone else associated with the Federal government has the right to decide what the Constitution means. The same is true of state officials deciding what the state constitution allows them to do to the people. This would make no sense. You can't let someone decide how the rules which limit their job's power will be applied or what they mean. It's like letting the accused murderer dictate how his trial will be carried out and what evidence to allow.

Speaking of trials, the federal government won't allow the Second Amendment to be used as an argument in favor of the accused when there is a "gun offense" in question-- yet it is the only relevant factor.

I'm glad someone stood up and said "Enough!" I'd be more impressed if they'd be consistent and stop breaking the law entirely.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Don't be controlled by government

I drink water. I've done so all my life. If government passed legislation today ordering me to continue to drink water, would I stop drinking water just because they ordered me to drink it? No.

Would it be hypocritical of me to continue to drink water while pointing out that the new legislation was evil? No.

I would be smart to be suspicious of the reasons behind any legislation ordering me to drink water, and perhaps I would seek out my own sources. I'd wonder what they had put in it if they were ordering me to drink it (I know some people already do).

But water, and drinking it, doesn't suddenly change into the wrong thing to do just because government orders it.

Well, trying to avoid exposing yourself or vulnerable people to a potentially harmful disease-- even when you don't know the true risks-- is the same thing. It's strange that I feel the need to point that out, but some people actually don't understand that reality.

If you stop doing something you've been doing just because government tells you to do it, you are letting government control you every bit as much as if you stop doing something you know is right just because government makes it "illegal". Don't do that.

-

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.

The cowardocracy

More and more I'm seeing all statists-- those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human endeavor-- as cowards.

This coronapanic has exposed them better than anything in recent memory. Probably better than anything since the Blowback Attacks of 2001-- which, I admit, almost drew me in.

Cowards always want someone to save them from dangers they exaggerate.

It's not about your risk of getting coronavirus-- you'll probably get sick with something in the next few months regardless-- it's about your chances; your risk of dying from the illness. No one is being honest about that risk, because they don't know what it is and won't admit they don't know.

But cowards don't care, they want reassurance and they want someone else to take care of them. Even if what is being done is the wrong thing-- possibly making things worse. Even if they are being lied to. As long as someone else seems like they are taking charge.

And you and I are paying for their cowardice.

Depending on someone else to hold your hand through the pandemic is probably not the healthiest way to respond. Allowing someone else to herd you like cattle is the worst way to respond. Life shouldn't stop just because you don't know what's happening or what will happen next. If you think you know what the future holds, at any time, you're fooling yourself anyway.

A police state is a symptom of widespread cowardice.

But I know you aren't the one who's the problem. The problem is those people who only watch MSNBC, CNN, or FOX news. They are being misinformed and it is making them cowards (if they weren't before). It's absurd. But they v*te. And they "support" the Blue Line Gang's villainy. And they bleat and plead for government to "do something".

Why should cowards control society? Why should they have power over your life just because of their superior numbers? You know the answer: they shouldn't.

-

Another voice of calm in the midst of this panicdemic is that of Jim Davies over at "the anarchist alternative", with his Wuhan Bug Blog. Check it out.

-

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.

Superstition + Pathogen = Disaster

Political "authority" is the Most Dangerous Superstition, and the State is the Most Deadly Pathogen (and this pandemic began 5000+ years ago).

When the two combine the result is something indescribably destructive. When this resulting force of evil possesses a human mind, it turns its victim into a monster.

But there is a cure. And all it takes is seeing the truth. It happens, even though it is rare.

-

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.

"In-group morality" is the opposite of libertarianism

Do you get tired of people lying about libertarians? I know I do.

I was watching a video the other day where this guy was talking about "in-group morality" which he described as "... a system which constrains any and all ethical obligations solely to the members of the group to which one belongs."

As he said this, an on-screen note conflated conservatism and libertarianism, suggesting both as groups who exhibit this trait.

Does that sound like libertarians to you? Does that sound like me?

I've never advocated anything close to that, nor do I know any libertarians who do. That assertion is just not true of libertarians.

It's like claiming "Vegetarians eat only meat". It's either a flat out lie or is so ignorant of the facts that the person making this claim ought to be embarrassed for not knowing what he's talking about.

I can't speak for conservatives because I am not one. They'll have to take it up with him on their own.

I think ethics is the same no matter your morality. Wrong is wrong. It is not right for me to steal, trespass, enslave, govern, kidnap, murder, rape, punch, or otherwise archate against any other person, no matter who they are, what group they belong to, or what they believe. It is also right for me to defend myself and others (of any group) against such acts, also no matter what the one committing those acts may believe. It's universal, not applicable to only "my" in-group.

Libertarianism is the opposite of an "in-group morality".

I'm also tired of Left-Statists trying to say libertarians and conservatives are the same-- just like I'm tired of Right-Statists who say libertarians and "liberals/progressives" are the same. They. Are. Not.

I get tired of people lying about things like this and getting no push-back. So, I push back, for all the good it does-- which is close to none, as far as I can tell.

-

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.

How can I trust reports of a virus pandemic?

We are all acting on an assumption, no matter how we are responding to the reports of a pandemic.

Is there really a coronavirus pandemic? How can I know? I can't trust the governmedia. I don't personally know anyone who is sick-- and even if I did, I have no way to independently confirm what they are sick with-- I don't have a lab or the proper training to uncover their pathogens.

All I have are reports and stories from other people-- and most of those other people work for government and are in a position to personally benefit from a panic, or they work for mass media and are also in a position to personally benefit from a panic.

To believe there's a pandemic going on I have to trust someone else to tell the truth, and not just "the truth as they see it", but to accurately report reality.

So, while I suspect there is probably a pandemic caused by coronavirus, it's only because I generally believe that the reports are directionally accurate. Even though I also believe the virus itself is less dangerous/deadly than we are being led to believe.

The panic, though, is dangerous. It's the panicdemic. Like an old, sweaty stick of dynamite; ready to explode if bumped the wrong way. Maybe it will and maybe it won't. But you never know which little bump will set it off, and it's getting bumped a lot. Every new tyrannical order is another bump. Tick tock, tick tock...

But I'm already seeing signs that people are getting tired of the high anxiety panic drama. It's hard to stay panicked for a long time. It gets old and tiresome. They start to ignore the calls to continue to panic. They get used to the situation. Will people tire of the panic and return to "normal" activities before the panic explodes into something worse? How will government respond if no one is still paying attention to their proclamations? Stay tuned...

-

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.

Different kinds of problems

Do you know what's crazy?

I am not even annoyed by the pandemic*, but I am at my wit's end over a dead refrigerator. One situation I can handle and even enjoy, the other has turned my house into a wreck and made me miserable.

Does that seem right?

It doesn't to me, either.

But, for me, it's easier to prepare for TSHTF than to prepare for an extra expense.

-

*I'm highly annoyed-- angry, even-- over the panic and the tyrannical "response" to the virus by government parasites. But I wouldn't even notice the pandemic if not for governmedia "informing" me about it. I'll have more to say about that soon.

-

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.

Panic not a good survival strategy

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 26, 2020)

Here comes Coronavirus; the threat of the month. How scared are you? How scared should I be? I'm not scared or even worried.

When Coronavirus hit the news I did some research on it at some reputable, non-sensationalist medical websites and decided it wasn't anything to hyperventilate over. In fact, they classified it not as influenza, but as a cold virus. A virus everyone will come down with at some point during our lives. This variety may be worse than the usual strains, but I'm not going to freak out.

I've been around long enough to see scare after scare come to nothing.

The Y2K thing fizzled, Ebola dropped from the news, and Hillary wasn't elected president. Life on planet Earth goes on pretty much the way it has-- but with more robots, rockets, and batteries.

There are still looming shadows on the horizon: human-caused climate disaster, failure of the power grid, a robot apocalypse, and more. These are all things people can panic over. Then they can make foolish decisions because of the panic. Foolish decisions such as saying "There ought to be a law". Decisions which will have worse consequences for more people than the original threat-- a threat which may be real or may be a figment of the imagination.

Someday a real pandemic or widespread disaster will happen... and be worse than we were warned it would be. Won't I look silly, then? But so far, not allowing myself to be panicked has worked out really well.

Do you really want to spend your life bouncing from one threat of disaster to the next, or are you willing to learn from the past?

Sure, there are occasional school shootings, impaired drivers, disease, and other human tragedies. That's life. But the track record of global doom and gloom scenarios should inspire optimism if you're paying attention.

It can be fun and exciting to prepare for the worst-case scenario. I do it, too-- in ways more fun than frightening. Panic is not a good survival strategy, even if something bad is going to happen. A panicked person doesn't think straight or behave rationally. They are more likely to make fatal mistakes. Don't let anyone cause you to panic... unless panicking is what you want to do.

In that case, I won't try to stop you, but please don't allow your panic to affect my life, liberty, or property, or that of my friends and family.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

My plea

I'm just going to lay this out there: I need more monthly subscribers.

I also need some donations. Very much!

I think I provide a perspective you can't get anywhere else. I know this is a rough time for everyone's finances, but I hope I provide insight and opinions you consider worth supporting, even if you don't always agree with me. If so, would you be willing to help?

I've mentioned that the household income has dropped recently. And, yesterday the refrigerator died.

I did everything I could to get it running again-- watching lots of YouTube videos and reading lots of appliance repair sites, and nothing I was able to do worked. I either need to get it professionally repaired or buy a replacement. And the appliance repair folks are shockingly unwilling to come work on anything at this time. Which meant they were more willing than usual to give advice and suggestions.

Usually, I would see if my parents could squeeze my refrigerated (and frozen) items into their refrigerators, but with the current pandemic, and with them trying to self-quarantine due to their ages, I am not comfortable asking them for space. So, in a matter of hours, even with coolers and ice, I'm going to lose a refrigerator/freezer full of food.

I know everyone has their own problems and that times are hard right now. I don't want the "regulars" to chip in-- you've already done enough; more than I have any right to expect. But if you're a reader and have thought about subscribing or donating and just haven't gotten around to it, please take this opportunity to get around to it. And, share this with anyone you think might be willing and able to help. Please!

And, thank 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.

Coronapanic and hospital capacity

Supposedly, hospital capacity is being strained by the coronavirus... in a way yearly flus don't do. I suspect if it is happening, it's due more to the coronapanic than to the virus itself.

I'll repeat that:
If hospital capacity is really being stained by coronavirus patients, it's not necessarily due to the virus. It may be mainly due to the panic caused by the media and government ("governmedia"?). The reason-- if it's true-- that this virus is putting more people in the hospital than the regular annual viruses may be largely due to its publicity and the panic this creates.

If you make people afraid of a cough or a sniffle, you're going to have more of them get tested. The more tests that are done, the more cases will be found. Then, some number of those people will end up in a hospital rather than riding it out at home like they would have done under normal circumstances. Plus, making them scared isn't going to help their health even a little.

I'm still seeing "smart people" confusing numbers of deaths with the mortality rate. It's an important distinction, but one which gets glossed over and ignored. And, unless you can find out the total number of people who contracted the virus you can NEVER know the mortality rate. Never. And you'll never know how many people caught this virus because many of them (most of them?) never went to a doctor for it.

-

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.

"Papers, please" is now reality

Even more than it has been, I mean.

And how much do you want to bet the "please" is a lie?

Local employers are now giving employees "travel papers" so they can prove to cops who might stop them for being out on the road that they are traveling "legitimately". I personally know that Walmart, Family Dollar, a cattle feed producer, and other businesses have issued such papers. Probably everyone whose business is deemed "essential" enough to be allowed to stay in business is doing the same.

So far, only the New Mexico parasites have clamped down on the right to travel, but the Texas employers around here are also issuing the papers because many people cross the state line, in both directions, for work.

How long until some Blue Line Gang scum murders someone for being on the road without permission?

Some statists seem shocked by this Nazi-ish turn of events. Yet it's their fault! Totally! Their ongoing support of the state, for their whole lives in most cases, has led directly and inevitably to this.

Who are these political thugs to decide which jobs are essential? They wouldn't recognize something essential if they stepped in it.

Every job is essential to those who perform it, and to those who rely on it.

The ONLY "jobs" which are non-essential are government "jobs"-- because they aren't actual jobs. Some of those "jobs" are even worse than non-essential; they are actively harmful. Keep these people off the roads if you have to keep anyone off.

Police officers, specifically-- your "job" is not essential by any stretch of the imagination. It is harmful and parasitical. You are a drain on society. The same goes for every bureaucrat, politician, and whatnot. YOU are the vermin who need to be out of a "job", now and forever. Let the productive people work while you rot in a hole in the ground.

-

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.

As government becomes more and more evil...

All political government is unethical. All of it, without a single exception. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Democracy is particularly disgusting because it fools otherwise sensible, ethical people into believing government can be good and that there's a "right way" to govern other people. It fools them into believing the lie "the government is the people".

Representative [sic] republicanism is no better, since it always goes through a stage of democracy as it rots from the inside out.

Once you accept the lies that government can be good or can be done right or that "the government is you and me", you've crossed the line to statism. Welcome to government-supremacism.

If you've been supporting government in the decades leading up to the current situation, the evil now being committed by government is partly your fault. If this has snapped you out of it, then that's wonderful! Welcome to the good side. Now be ready to fight for your liberty, since it looks as though the fight may be forced on us. Soon.

-

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'm a horrible person

I hate to admit it-- it probably means I'm a horrible person-- but I'm having fun. I'm enjoying the coronapocalypse. Just a little.

Yes, I feel a bit guilty for enjoying this as much as I am. I also know the enjoyment will fade the longer this goes on.

I feel bad for people who are really hurting and suffering. I feel awful for those who have lost loved ones. I have empathy for those who are scared. But this is the sort of thing I thrive on-- at least for a while. It's what I've prepared for... for decades.

Plus, I've been doing all I can for many years to tell people to prepare for this sort of thing. If they refused to listen...

I consider this a practice run for a real breakdown. I'm taking notes so I'll be even more prepared next time. Yeah, I know every event will be different, but I still plan on learning from this one.

I'm doing what I can to keep my family members safe and healthy. Nothing is guaranteed, obviously. But that's the case every day. I've had the rug pulled out from under me before.

My parents, who didn't take the virus at all seriously at first-- have gone into full-blown quarantine lock-down mode. I drop supplies and their mail for them in their garage and they go get it after I've left. I'm wondering if they are decontaminating it. As long as the electricity flows they aren't going to be running out of food for a very long time, having multiple freezers and refrigerators. And quite the pantry, as well. I enjoy doing what I can to help them. My mom is sewing masks for the family and my dad is watching Hallmark Channel Christmas movies that he has recorded, I suspect they are both kind of enjoying this, too.

I'm fine on food and supplies for a long time-- even if I couldn't buy anything new. But I can, even though the food aisles have gone eerily empty. People might not be able to buy what they wanted, but there is something available. My yard-- and every other yard in town-- is chock full of edible "weeds". No one will starve unless they choose to.

I'm taking long daily walks around town (as long a walk as I can take in this town-- I zig-zag a lot) in the sun and fresh air.

Money has gotten tighter-- your donations and subscriptions have become even more important than in the past (I also know some of you are probably losing income, too). I will get through this one way or another. Except in the unlikely event that the virus gets me-- which I highly doubt it can.

I feel as though I am in my element-- which is rare. I might as well have fun while I can.

Are any of you as awful as I am? Feel free to judge 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.

The good kind of "crime"

If you have a meth lab, I offer a suggestion: switch to making hydroxychloroquine. You'll get rich.

Yeah, it's probably just as "illegal", but it's more helpful. If you're going to violate prohibition anyway, why not be an outlaw hero?

(And if you think I'm joking, I'm not.)

-

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.

Costs of government action on coronavirus

Some whiny statists are complaining that not everyone is embracing the measures being imposed by government to "deal with" the coronapocalypse. It is claimed that they are endangering lives by "downplaying" the risk.

No, they are not endangering society, nor will they be the cause of millions (or even dozens) of extra deaths. People who are "downplaying" coronavirus are serving an important purpose. Besides disarming the panic-bomb, I mean.

What they are doing is acting as a drag chute to slow down runaway government overreach.

This is essential.

Those who object to the "downplayers" aren't adequately (or even minimally) considering the costs of government intervention. You've seen this happen in other topics as well, such as with AGCC/"climate change".

Government-supremacists are pushing the narrative that not taking the actions government promotes will cause deaths, but are ignoring the deaths which will result from doing the wrong thing, or even too much of the "right thing". They are not considering the costs and benefits of both courses.

Maybe doing nothing about COVID 19 would kill more people. Of course, you have the option of doing everything you ought to do without government mandating anything. Doing something doesn't require anything being done by government. That is a bad assumption to make. But, I will concede that ignoring the problem would probably result in some unnecessary deaths.

However...

Damaging the economy-- as government is actively doing-- will also kill people. For certain. It may, in the long run, kill more people than the coronavirus would have even if no one had done anything about it-- but we don't know. We won't know. There is no way to know because you can't rewind history and change what was done.

Yes, some people caution against comparing how many deaths are resulting now and comparing that to the total deaths in previous plagues after they were over. That makes sense. However, you can compare death rates in the midst of the event-- which is something government-supremacists don't seem to like for anyone to do. It gets in the way of the narrative they prefer.

This is why we need brakes on the speeding car of statism. Those who "downplay" the danger are those brakes. They complete the costs vs. benefits big picture for the situation. Without them you only get one side, advocating only one path. Objecting to the balance they provide is not productive or smart.

(I added a "coronavirus" tag to the blog so you can follow what I've said about this from the beginning, if you care.)

-

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.

In the interest of clarity

-

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.

Gun rights decent political X-ray

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 19, 2020)

Whether or not you vote or otherwise pay attention to politicians, do you wish you had a way to see inside their minds to know what they think of you?

Libertarian science fiction and nonfiction author L. Neil Smith has pointed out that you can know what a politician thinks of you and your rights by examining his or her opinions on gun rights. Smith says it's as good as an X-ray into politicians' minds.

It works whether the politician is a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, or something else.

Don't make the common mistake and assume the "R" by a politician's name on the ballot means they are a supporter of your rights and liberty-- most aren't.

Smith observes that any politician who is uncomfortable with the idea of you or anyone else walking into a store, plopping down the cash and walking out with any gun you want without showing a scrap of identification or signing even one form, is not pro-gun rights.

If a politician doesn't recognize your right to own and to carry, openly or concealed, any type of firearm you wish-- handgun, rifle, single-shot, "high-capacity", or fully automatic-- everywhere you go without asking permission, this politician is not a supporter of your gun rights and probably isn't a fan of your other rights, either.

Politicians may talk a good game about supporting rights, yet cling to the belief that rights can come with government-approved limits, licenses, and legislation.

They are wrong.

A right doesn't come with any such requirements, and anyone claiming they do is not respecting your rights. They're probably hoping you'll be fooled into confusing rights for privileges as people often do.

Any politician who doesn't fully respect your gun rights is likely to also believe you need permission or a license to marry, to drive a car, to open a business, to travel the world, or to consume certain plants. Such a politician will probably believe you owe a portion of your property to government. They may quibble over how much you owe, but they won't doubt you owe something.

I understand the argument for voting in self-defense. I don't believe it works, and I think there are better ways to defend yourself from politicians and their opinions. It's still good to know which politicians are worse than the others. Using their stance on gun rights is a convenient and accurate shortcut to find your sworn enemies. I suggest you use it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Fake economics in action

What do all those political folk who are promoting the idea to send everyone $1000 (or more) have in common? They are experts in fake economics.

Yes, I would love some money, but they can only "give" it to me now by stealing it from future me. And future you.

I don't know what my future financial situation will be like. I might be even worse off when that piper needs to be paid than I am now. I might be even less able to afford it then-- and this coronavirus "stimulus", with its devaluing effect on the currency, might even be the reason.

Fake economists, with their fancy degrees and such, are a stupid lot.

-

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.

Interesting times

From Pinterest

It's been... interesting.

I'm not particularly concerned about the virus, but the way some people are behaving because of the situation worries me a little.

Of course, politicians are always a problem-- and I include freelance thugs and thieves in that category.

I've been doing more than usual to help my parents and make sure they don't have to go to stores. I've been trying to watch to see if anyone else needs anything-- but that's harder because I don't really have a social circle here.

My household income has dropped, as has my parents' income. Fortunately, I really haven't had to spend much, other than on the bills that come every month no matter what I'm doing. I don't really know my parents' financial situation because that's their business, not mine. Other than constantly ransoming their house from the state, I think their expenses aren't too bad. I keep checking with them to see what they need, but I'm trying to avoid going over there unnecessarily. No point in possibly exposing them to anything.

Outside my little sphere, I've seen and heard other interesting things, especially from YouTubers I informally follow. It's a crazy world out there. Makes me glad I have "defensive resources".

I'm probably in the minority since I am glad to see people defying (or ignoring) government orders. A slightly higher risk of more sick people is a small price to pay for pushing aside government's veil of legitimacy even a little. That people are willing to do so warms my heart.

-

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.

Dr. State-nstein wants to experiment on your rights

I'm a fan of experimentation. To a point.

Not all experimentation is ethical-- especially when you're talking about human experimentation. You can't ethically "just try something" to see if it works if it would violate natural human rights. No matter how good an idea you imagine it to be.

Scott Adams is guilty of this form of loserthink whenever he promotes some anti-gun scheme, saying to let states try different types of "gun control" [sic] to see what "works". He says not supporting such an idea means you aren't "part of the conversation". Ha.

Yes, the states were supposed to be something like laboratories of liberty (of LIBERTY, not of tyranny); to see what sort of things might work better than others. But, there was never supposed to be any flirting with tyranny. That means no anti-gun legislation at all, ever. And no government-controlled medicine, prohibitions, curfews, etc.

If your experiment to see what "works" violates the natural rights of anyone you have no right to perform it, and if you do anyway, you are a monster.

-

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.

Public Service Announcement

Government is NEVER a credible source.

-

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.

Take it seriously, but don't panic

I will admit, I was caught off-guard by this coronavirus event. Not by the virus, but by the level of panic that is going along with it. Panic that is unnecessary and counterproductive. Panic which seems to be spread by certain folks in the media and encouraged by certain political folks.

It's not that I don't take this situation seriously. It's possible to take something seriously without panicking over it. Really, it is! Some people seem to forget this.

I'm taking the pan[ic]demic seriously. I've reduced my human interactions-- not that I was a social butterfly before. I am washing my hands more, especially if I go away from home, and I have actually used hand sanitizer some-- that's new.

I'm glad I have been a prepper most of my life-- taking prepping seriously. And I'm glad I'm not prone to panic.

How can you tell panic from "taking it seriously"?

Maybe the person who failed to prepare and is now desperate to buy treaty paper or bottled water isn't panicking but is only taking the situation seriously... however, if this person is getting into a fight over products in the aisle of the store, they are most likely panicking. They are making things worse, not better.

I'm not going to panic about the disease or about the panic, but I do take both seriously. I take the panic more seriously than I take the disease, seeing it as the far bigger danger.

I hope I've contributed to keeping those around me calm; being a voice of reason (as I see it) in a storm of hyperbole. I think my daughter is taking it in stride pretty well. And it seems my son and his girlfriend are being sensible during this situation, and I hope I've been a good influence there, too.

Of course, I also know people who are neither panicking nor taking it seriously. I hope their choice doesn't lead to trouble for them.

All in all, this situation really hasn't changed my life much, other than the financial blow due to the household (and almost every member of my extended family) losing work. Lots of unpaid "vacation" time and extended time off work. Less money, again. I'm kind of used to that by now-- seeing as how this is the direction it keeps going-- but it's not pleasant at any time. Yet I will be OK.  Mostly because I don't panic and I took the risks seriously enough to prepare long before this virus cropped up. I intend to be ready for the Next Big Thing, too, whatever it may be.

I sincerely hope things are going well in your area.

-

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.

"Good" way to do wrong?

There is no "right" or "good" system of political government.

If there were it would mean there is a "right" or "good" way to rob, kidnap, murder, or otherwise molest people... and there's not. It's just not within the range of possibilities.

Trying to govern other people is always wrong. It is exactly as wrong as refusing to govern yourself.

-

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.

Thinking the best of people

I usually think the best of people. As long as I'm able to.

I don't think the best of cops, rapists, thieves, and other politicians. They leave me no choice because of the choices they continue to make; the actions they continue to commit. And sometimes they even demand praise for committing them. That's not what good people do.

I still want to think the best of everyone.

If those who choose to live by archation would change their ways, I'd be able to change my opinion of them. Because, at the root, it's not the people; it's the acts.

-

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.