I may need a lawyer

I hope not, but...

I've been trying to find a way to make some Time's Up items. I wish I could get some flags made but that always goes nowhere due to the expense of a run big enough to bring down the price of individual flags so that they would be affordable.

Anyway, I was going to make some Time's Up items through TeeSpring. I worked for hours getting products ready. Immediately when I "went live" they disabled my products, saying my design was subject to a copyright claim.

I filed a counterclaim, and never saw a reply (it said it could take 14 days) so I filed another one.

They wrote back that time and said "Time's Up" is trademarked and they will not be reinstating my products.

I've looked through the government's trademark office database and found nothing.

I've asked them who has trademarked it, since it is my original creation. But if they don't respond with a real answer (or not at all) I might have to do something to be able to make products with my own design on them. And this pisses me off greatly.

Does anyone know a lawyer who would do this pro bono? Or they could sue and keep most of the money as long as I can make my stuff.

I've never minded if someone makes a Time's Up product, and have given permission to several people to do so over the years. My problem is if someone has actually trademarked/copyrighted MY design to prevent me from making things. Or if TeeSpring is lying to me.

Also, tonight Patreon gave me a warning about running a raffle. Which I'm not. And never have and don't want to.

UPDATE: I am told these people "own" the words "Time's Up".

UPDATE 2: They have ignored every message I've sent them. So, I guess I'm not going to be able to use TeeSpring to make Time's Up products. I'll try to figure out something else. This is one of the problems with "intellectual property", to pretend someone can own words so that no one else can use them.

-

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

Legislation is never good

All legislation has negative consequences. Even "laws" you might like.

Concealed carry legislation might sound like a good thing-- the more people who carry, the better. But by making it seem as though government gets to decide who is armed, it makes people accept anti-gun legislation more readily.

It works the same way with every other type of legislation. Even if you can't imagine how that could be true.

Legislation is always a bad idea. Don't patch bad "laws" with more "laws"; abolish the bad "laws".

-

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.

Anarchy Day 2020

It's Random Acts of Anarchy Day again.

Do something right. Without "official" permission or a license.

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.

"Classical liberalism"? Yuck!

For years, I've noticed the more refined "libertarian-leaning" elites out there have claimed to be, not libertarians, but "classical liberals". This may be to distinguish themselves from the unwashed masses like me.

Once upon a time, I felt a little guilty that I couldn't be part of that elite. I eventually came to accept that it simply isn't possible. I don't fit.

I can't be a "classical liberal" because I don't accept any justification for political governance. Ever. Politics makes people stupid.

Sure, maybe it's better to be a "classical liberal" than to be fully on board with whatever police state dystopia the pro-government extremists lust for. Still, it's a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. Once you accept just a little political governance, how will you stop it from growing out of your control? History has shown that you can't. Or won't.

How liberal-- in the antique sense of the word-- can you be when you still advocate stealing "just a little" to prop up your "minimal government"? "Just a little slavery" to empower the "night watchman" state? Even if this "minimum state" doesn't immediately do what political governments naturally do and metastasize out of control. Supporting such a state of affairs doesn't seem generous/liberal; it seems greedy and self-centered to me. They want "just a little" government so badly they'll sacrifice your liberty to have it.

No "classical liberalism" for me! It relies too heavily on politics.

-

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 be timid

So many people seem reluctant to dive in. They want to tiptoe around the edges.

If you're going to do something, and you're sure it's the right direction-- or at least not the wrong direction-- go big!

Don't just have shaggy hair, grow it long.

Don't just listen to music, sing karaoke!

Don't be a lukewarm political libertarian, be a real libertarian.

Society has enough wishy-washy people who are afraid to stick their necks out. No one needs any more of them.

If something is worth doing, it's worth going for. Moderation is OK as long as you don't overdo 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.

Time to let people take own risks

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 13, 2020)

I would expect, given the record of failure, this coronavirus experience would cause people to reconsider their belief in the credibility of government. From past experience, I know hope-- or something darker-- springs eternal. Most people are desperate to believe government is capable and credible in spite of 5000-plus years of evidence to the contrary.

As face masks become mandatory in more places, don't forget those same government experts were ridiculing people who were wearing masks early; insisting masks didn't work-- and telling people to stop buying or wearing them-- just weeks ago.

They have also been encouraging businesses to limit their hours of service which forces more people into a business during fewer available hours, and they're closing campgrounds and other places where people could physically distance in the healthy outdoors. Both policies are the opposite of helpful.

People choose to not remember the deadly errors, but view them as government taking decisive action to "flatten the curve".

I understand the call to "flatten the curve"-- especially in the early days of the pandemic when everyone was just guessing what might happen. We now know that's not going to work. It's time to let people make their own choices and take their own risks.

This will solve itself if people let it; faster if government stops dragging it out.

There's not going to be a vaccine-- not a real one, anyway. This virus is going to have to go through its natural cycle. If you're going to catch the virus, it's going to happen sooner or later. Since eighty percent of cases don't cause symptoms, you may never know. You may have already had it.

Let the virus spread and naturally lose strength over time, as these types of viruses always do.

No, that's not "safe". Nothing is. Americans are giving up their liberty for promises of safety. Promises which were lies from the start. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin wrote those timeless words on November 11, 1755.

Soon you may be forced to decide which is more dangerous-- the virus, the government, or economic disaster-- and act accordingly.

Every non-governmental job is essential! It's time to do the adult thing and get back to normal life. Lead the way and force government policy to play catch-up, as it usually does. Recovery is, and has always been, up to you. Let's get to it!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Tearing down statues

I have no personal attachment to monuments to military/political people or events. You could say I even hate most of them. You probably understand why. Every historical figure is almost surely someone's Hitler.

However, art-- even when ugly or offensive-- is art. And older art is historical. Destroying historical art because it has unpleasant connotations is ignorant. The "reasons" are irrelevant. I opposed it being done in Iraq and I oppose it being done in America.

Not only is art being destroyed, but the vandals are also burying history. Hiding something doesn't change what happened, and often helps some people pretend it didn't.

Tearing down monuments is the book-burning of our time. At least until book-burning comes back into fashion.

-

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.

Your autonomous zone

Autonomous zones are suddenly all the rage.

I'm all for setting up autonomous zones, but not if you steal other people's private property to do it. That's what political governments do, and it's wrong. (Government "property" already belongs to you so it can't count.)

Your property is-- or should be-- an autonomous zone, whether it's your house or your business. You rule that zone as supreme dictator (if living with others, as supreme co-dictators)-- at least until you choose to voluntarily open it to others, in which case you can't just violate visitors' rights because you want to. If you do this you're no different than any other political government.

But as long as it's your legitimately-owned private property and you don't open it to visitors, it should be yours to control completely.

No representatives of any other government allowed in unless you explicitly permit it on a case by case basis. No cops. No "tax" collectors. No inspectors. None of them. They have no right to violate your autonomous zone in an "official capacity" for some other organization that has no legitimate claim on your property (like a town, county, state, or country).

A "property tax" is a yearly ransom imposed by these thieves who have no legitimate claim to your property-- but who will steal it and murder you for resisting. Be careful dealing with this kind of robber. Their gang is large, stubborn, and heavily armed.

If you use your property to violate the life, liberty, or property of others, they have the right to defend themselves from you. You can't make a rule to take away their right to do so-- again, this is a tactic political governments try to get away with. So, act wisely and ethically, unlike they do.

You might even join with others to create a larger autonomous zone-- as long as it is by unanimous consent. That's more difficult, and not necessary.

No one has a higher claim on your property than you do-- not even if legislation and policies pretend otherwise.

Your home is your autonomous zone; your castle. Never forget it. How you choose to act on this knowledge is your business.

-

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.

Statist dishonesty

A while back I listened to a Left-Statist preaching against Religious (Christian) Nationalists.

You know I'm not a fan of religion, of nationalism, nor of Right-Statism. But I am a fan of truth, and this podcast had very little truth in it.

I've never heard such a collection of dishonest Straw Men and outright untruths in one place-- by someone who seemed otherwise intelligent and well-meaning-- in my entire life as I heard in one hour of listening to this Left-Statist author and the show's host.

Straw Men, false dichotomies, lies, mischaracterization (about both Right-Statists and Left-Statists). It was hard to listen to. It was full-on fanatical government-supremacism from beginning to end.

She (and the host) pretended that government handouts financed by theft are the same thing as charity. They pretended that democracy is laudable (as long as their side [sic] wins). They focused on how these Right-Statists get out the news of the candidates they like while utterly ignoring how the Left-Statists use the entirety of the national mainstream and alternative media (including social media) to campaign for their candidates. The only reason that's OK is that their side [sic] uses it. They lied about government indoctrination day-prisons to equate them with education.

I can't even list all the dishonesty they packed into that hour. It was vile.

But it's a good way to remind myself how these people think and the superstitions they believe and base their lives on. I couldn't do this very often though. Yet, this is why libertarians are better informed than statists-- we hear and evaluate both sides, honestly and often. They don't even hear the other side.

-

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.

Defense for the incapable

A common tactic from those who want to at least appear to have an argument against abolishing the police is to either claim that they themselves are incapable of protecting their own life, liberty, or property, or to try to scapegoat someone else as being incapable.

Nonsense.

Plus, when you try to blame others for your desire to keep "employing" the gang, it's rude!

I've seen enough examples of kids, small women, the elderly, and the disabled protecting themselves and others from archation (and so have you) that I don't buy that anyone who isn't completely helpless is incapable. It's a coward's lie.

Maybe some don't want to accept the responsibility, but they can.

It's not your job to coddle those who refuse, but you can if you want-- at your own expense. It doesn't give anyone the right to enslave everyone else for their imagined weaknesses.

Yes, there are some who are truly incapable of defending themselves, feeding themselves, or wiping their own butts. Nice people take care of this kind of person, sometimes for money-- but society doesn't revolve around their inability. That would be like living in a prison established to make certain that no one could be any more capable than the least capable among us. I'm not going to live that way.

Refusing to consider abolishing the police based on the lie that people who are otherwise capable can't protect themselves is antisocial, unethical, and statist (but I repeat myself).

-

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.

Candace Owens, I thought you were better than that

Candace--

To observe that a murder happened and to point out that it was a bad thing doesn't mean someone imagines the victim was a hero. I never thought that.

It just means that at that moment he was doing nothing which required killing him to defend life, liberty, or property.

Why would a murder victim need to be a hero before I oppose the murder? It would be a strange thing to need to check to make sure every murder victim is a hero before objecting to his or her murder.

That he had "drugs" in his system is irrelevant unless you believe it's OK to murder a woman who's had some wine and then fights back against a kidnapper. I take that back-- it's irrelevant and wrong even if that's what you believe. The stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is prohibition propped up by counterfeit "laws". To excuse murder based on that Big Government program is wrong.

Yes, it is known that Floyd did some actual crime, too. Real archation. His victim would have been right to have killed him in that encounter. I would have cheered his death in that case-- it would have been self-defense and not murder. But not in this case, and not over what he was murdered for doing.

Your fawning support of government-supremacism and its jackboots seems like it would embarrass you. It would certainly embarrass me.

I really imagined you were better than that and I'm disappointed to discover I was wrong.

-

OK, I admit I've never followed her or even read anything but selected quotes of hers, but most of those seemed a little smarter than what I saw when she tried to make sure to tell people who protest the murder that Floyd had a criminal past. So does the murderous cop-- why not go into detail about that? Why not recognize that policing attracts thugs and turns otherwise decent people into thugs or at least into people who will stand by and allow thugs to violate life, liberty, and property-- all in exchange for a paycheck financed by theft. Government-supremacism makes people stupid... or hypocritical or both.

-

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

People like this are why we can't have nice things

This was in response to a comment in which I posted a link to my suggestions for ethical alternatives to theft-funded Blue Line Gangs.

See if you can find the flaws in her complaint compared to what I actually suggested in that post. And, this time I'm not going to protect the identity of a dishonest statist.

I would have shrugged it off if she had addressed what I really said, and not only responded to the hallucinations in her head, instead. If you have a problem with my suggestions, address them honestly. Don't strawman it like she did-- my response, if you do, depends on how sorry I feel for you in the moment.

Is she only dishonest, or also pathetic, or just a copsucker? You decide. People like her try hard to ruin everything for the rest of us who aren't so pathetic.

I can't wrap my head around how emotionally attached most people seem to be to the occupying military force that infests America. Even people who (it seems) would know better. They are not essential to society-- they are society's enemy. They are the enemy of individual rights and liberty.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Found: Those "good cops"

I'm always being scolded for insisting there are no good cops. "Of course there are good cops!" they'll say.

They'll even point to examples they believe prove their point. I look at each one carefully.

I've seen nice cops and even helpful cops. But no good cops. Not one. Not ever.

Yet the protests continue.

But I finally figured out where all those good cops are hiding.

They've been in Wishful-Thinking-Land all along, hanging out with the good rapists, the good IRS employees, and the good looters.

It's always the last place you look!

-

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.

Abolish the police (and then what?)

The completely rational idea of abolishing the police scares some people.

They think "But who would I call if someone is breaking into my house in the middle of the night?"
Chances are, if that's happening, it's a wrong-address police raid and you're about to be killed, and calling more police to the scene isn't going to help you. I'm sorry if this news upsets you, but you need to face reality eventually.

On the off-chance it's a freelance thug breaking in, you have better options than calling the police even now.

Take responsibility for your own defense-- you ought to be doing this first anyway. Calling someone else should always be a last-ditch response. You are there now; they aren't. What could happen before someone arrives to save you? Almost anything. You are the first responder, and you always have been. Act like it.

If you still feel the need to call back-up: Call your neighbors. If any of my neighbors called in the middle of the night, I'd respond.

If that doesn't work for you, there are still options better than inviting the Blue Line Gang to your house and facing the very real possibility they'll shoot you by "mistake".

Use Cell411.

Or call a crackhead.

Or, use the money you should be saving by not being "taxed" to fund those badged tax junkies to hire private security-- ones who will actually be contractually obligated to protect you, individually ... unlike police.

Or think of another option that suits you better.

The thing is, to imagine that abolishing the police would leave you helpless is what the police would like you to believe, but it's not even close to reality. The "reasons" to not abolish the police are as flimsy as the "reasons" people once used to say it wasn't possible to abolish chattel slavery. In hindsight, those "reasons" look stupid, dishonest, or evil.

You have options; better options. You can create new options. Police must be off the table to free you to find better solutions.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Defund, dismantle, and disavow-- Abolish the police

Minneapolis is "threatening" to defund its police department? It's a good first step... if they are serious. I have my doubts.

Abolish the police!

Isn't it odd how an idea which has been around less than 200 years is now imagined by so many people to be essential for civilization. Especially when that institution is utterly antithetical to civilization and society. This societal cancer (or is it a virus?) is said to have begun in London, England in 1829 and spread from there. It should have been smothered in its crib.

Abolish the police!

But, yes, defund the police. Not only in Minneapolis but everywhere. And then refund the money to the victims of theft ("taxation") so they can provide for their own security if they so choose.

Abolishing the police would get rid of the police union, too. A valuable bonus. Government employee unions are a lie anyway.

Dismantle the whole institution until not one stone remains stacked on another. And don't replace it with anything. You have to disavow the whole concept of government police. Otherwise, someone might try to establish a new legislation enforcement gang later.

Abolish the police!

If people want to hire security-- and pay for it without the ability to force those who don't want to chip in to pay anyway-- that's their right. They don't have the right to hire enforcers and force everyone to pay for them-- they never did.

Government-supremacists are terrified of abolishing the police. They are afraid of what would happen next. Sure, some are probably afraid of rampant crime, but I'll bet more of them are even more afraid of people finding out they never really needed the Blue Line Gang in the first place. Once you figure this out it's not that far to realize you don't need politicians, either.

Abolish the police! It will be OK. I promise.

(Abolish the police, and then what?)

-

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 murder of George Floyd

George Floyd may have had some drugs in his system at the time he was attacked by the Blue Line Gang.
He may have resisted arrest.

So?

To those who think this matters, how do they feel if a woman who had a glass of wine is killed while fighting off a kidnapper? It's the same thing.

Once I discovered Floyd was originally molested by legislation enforcement thugs because he may have spent a counterfeit Federal Reserve Note (FRN) I was even angrier over his murder.

I have no idea how many counterfeit FRNs I may have spent over the course of my life. Every few months some of them turn up in this area. I know cashiers who have been fooled before the counterfeits were discovered by management. If they were good enough to not be noticed before the cashier got them, should the cashier be kidnapped or murdered over this mistake?

Is a phony piece of phony money-- a counterfeit of a counterfeit-- worth killing over?

The Federal Reserve [sic] makes trillions of counterfeit dollars. That's what a Federal Reserve Note is. And that's the real crime.

Those cops should never have approached George Floyd.
They should not have escalated the situation to a kidnapping.
They should not have murdered him.

Police are where the knee of tyranny meets the neck of humanity.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Legislation and the responsibility gap

When someone looks at-- or imagines-- evil behavior and says "This is why we have to have laws" they are usually admitting they are not responsible enough to avoid doing the wrong thing. It's an admission of their own ethical weakness.

I don't believe you suffer from that particular weakness-- you don't "need" legislation to keep you from raping, murdering, looting, etc. I feel bad for those who imagine they do, and you probably do, too.

Or alternatively, if they lack the inclination to archate, the claim that "we need laws" is an admission that they don't feel they can be responsible enough to defend themselves (and others) from bad guys. They fantasize that legislation can bridge their responsibility gap.

Either way, it's a failure of personal responsibility and as such is kind of pathetic. Don't be like 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.

Reopening isn't politicians' call

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 6, 2020)

To open or not to open; that is the question. But it's the wrong question. While there's plenty of debate and disagreement over allowing businesses to re-open; when and how it should be done, the discussion misses the point completely.

No one had the right to shut down businesses they didn't own. You don't have the right to tell someone they must shut their business and you can't delegate a right you don't have. Not to a governor or anyone else. This means the authority to tell businesses to close shop, even temporarily due to an emergency, doesn't exist.

The same applies to telling people they aren't allowed to leave their house or to gather with groups of friends. To forbid people to gather is a clear violation of the First Amendment even if you agree and even if government employees are allowed to get away with it.

Nowhere does the Constitution say "unless there is an emergency and people are scared". I know because I've checked.

Government employees can get away with making these rules because the people of America have been infected with a superstitious belief in political authority.

I understand the fears which lead people to accept such orders, even though I don't share them.

I still believe you should be careful and shouldn't do things which put others at too much risk.

Respecting liberty is always the right choice, but there are risks either way.

There is no policy which won't cost lives. That option doesn't exist, even in normal times. The best you can do with any policy is trade lives. Ignoring the virus would have cost lives; shutting the economy is costing lives; seeking some sort of middle ground costs lives too. It's time to stop this silliness.

The ethical thing to do is to remove government from the equation, let business owners decide when and how to re-open, and let individuals decide for themselves the amount of risk they are willing to accept.

If someone is not willing to accept risk to save America, they are perfectly free to self-quarantine inside their homes as I would assume they have already been doing.

This virus-- or any other-- is going to have to run its course, whether it happens in a month or in a year. It's time to accept this and let it. I think you'll discover the fear-mongering was overblown.

So, open or stay shut, but it was never the politicians' decision to make.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Libertarian tyrants?

If your argument is that "libertarians will never get into power because..." then you have shown you don't understand libertarianism. It's not about gaining power; it's about recognizing that no one has the right to archate.

It's the same sort of thing that happens when someone makes the statement that "if libertarians would use government power to force someone to carry a baby to full term, don't they have the obligation to have government support them afterward?" I actually heard someone make that case-- again, displaying an incredible lack of awareness of what libertarianism is.

Libertarians can disagree over abortion; they can't really disagree over the use of government/initiated force and still qualify as libertarians.

Objecting to this stuff isn't "No true Scotsman"; it's pointing out the nature of things.

-

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

Censorship is a loser move

Censorship is running rampant, but I've seen people argue that it's not censorship unless government is doing it. That's not correct. Censorship doesn't only refer to government action.

While the First Amendment prohibition of censorship only applies to government organs, because those are the only ones who can use legislation to prevent someone from expressing an opinion (or telling an inconvenient fact) or hearing the same, it is still censorship if I prevent you from speaking or being heard. I'm not individually obligated to promote or "host" your message, but if I take action to prevent it from getting to those who want to hear it, I'm censoring just the same as if I banned you from expressing it.

If I deleted comments from my blog which expressed an opinion I didn't like, it would be within my rights... and it would still be censorship. I wouldn't feel right about doing it because, to me, censorship is never ethical, even when you have the right to do it.

The first definition of "censor" is "an official" who suppresses [things] deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. But the second expands that to be anyone who does something similar. That encompasses employees of Twitter, Google, Facebook, and all other quasi-governmental, pseudo-private, institutions.

As I have pointed out on the topic of "private prisons", if it's wrong to do something, it doesn't magically become right just because it's not being done by a direct government employee. It's wrong if done by a corporation or by a private company or by an individual. Murder isn't wrong only when committed by a cop, and censorship isn't wrong only when committed by a government censor. Even though the First Amendment only applies to the direct government employee.

Interestingly, just after I wrote this I ran into something very similar linked over at Claire's blog. I suggest you read that one, too.

-

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.

Why reform, and preserve, evil?

Should chattel slavery have been reformed instead of abolished?

So it is with the police-- legislation enforcement gangs. There is no acceptable way to reform that gang, they must be abolished, Totally. The institution is an abomination and can't be made otherwise.

Yes, the legislative fiction of "qualified immunity" needs to be scrapped. It's the Nuremberg "defense" as policy. I bet the Nuremberg defendants would have given anything to have been protected by that corrupt "legal" concept! And it's just as unethical-- as evil-- no matter who it protects. But it's still not the core problem. The existence of the "job" of police is that core, and it needs to be dug out and burned as a biohazard.

I don't need or want police. If you use them against me you are my enemy and a bad guy (since I will not have archated against you) and I don't want to have them used against you "on my behalf" [sic]. I'm not that much of a loser.

Abolish the police.

-

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.

This anarchist condemns rioting and looting

I am an anarchist.

I do not believe in the legitimacy of any rulers, politicians, political governments, or other non-consensual institutions. No exceptions. That's what "anarchist" means.

I condemn archation (the initiation of force and property violations) no matter who commits it.

Cops are the bad guys.
Antifa are the bad guys.
Looters, arsonists, vandals, attackers of any sort are the bad guys.
As are all who use the political means.

Defenders are on the correct side, but not everything claimed to be defense is. It's not "defense" if you use force (or politics) against someone who isn't currently violating your life, liberty, or property, nor credibly threatening to do so.

Those who protect the innocent and private property are doing the right thing, whether their actions are "legal" or not. Yes, that means it is right to shoot looters and vandals or anyone who is violating others.

Doing the right thing, without violating anyone, with or without "official permission", regardless of what legislation permits, is anarchy. Do anarchy right.

Don't claim to be an anarchist if you don't want to be burdened with the responsibility inherent in the philosophy, and especially not if you're a socialistic thug (or thug of any other variety) who violates the inflexible principles for sport. Or for your twisted notions of "justice". You can't get justice by being a non-anarchist.

-

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.

It's not about race, it's about police

A cop casually murdered a guy while his associates looked on and enabled the murder. Protests erupted, then turned into riots and looting, losing any moral high ground they may have started with.

And people are claiming this is about "racial injustice". As if cops of all "races" don't murder people of all "races". It's about cops, not "race".

Yet almost no one is pointing this out.

I guess it's safer to lie and say it's about "racial injustice" than it is to tell the truth and say it's about cops.

The "job" of policing both attracts thugs who enjoy bullying and hurting people, and it turns formerly decent people into monsters who live on stolen money, keep their "job" only by robbing, molesting, and killing people, and routinely look the other way while fellow gang members commit evil as part of "doing their job".

Get-away drivers are charged in the bank robbery committed by their associates. Robbers who didn't pull the trigger are charged with murder just because they were present as associates of the fellow thug who did. But cops who stand around while a fellow gang member murders a guy can't be charged with murder because... "reasons"? BS!

If you support the police in any way, you support tyranny. You support infinitely big government. Cops are where the boot heel-- or the knee-- of tyranny meets the neck of humanity.

There's no legitimate excuse. It's past time.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Trusting... what?

The blurb claimed: "A new study finds that trust in science predicts compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines"

False.

I trust science completely. However, science isn't what most people seem to believe it is. Science is the best method for figuring out reality and making it work for you, consistently.

Science mixed with politics isn't science any more than food mixed with poison is still food. 

-

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.

They don't care who's watching

Some government-supremacists who aren't terribly situationally aware argue that a cop wouldn't intentionally commit murder in front of witnesses and cameras.

How does this belief measure up?

Would cops murder someone while they know they are being watched and recorded?

Well, sure, if they believe they are immune from real consequences. In other words, if it's an average legislation enforcement officer who is aware of how this usually plays out for murderous cops committing the murder.

Cops aren't afraid to murder because they usually get away with it, no matter how blatant it is. Even if "charged" with a crime. Juries are stacked with copsuckers. Prosecutors belong to the same gang as the cops. As do judges. A murderous cop has to be really careless to suffer real consequences.

There are many dumb, pointless ways to "reform" the police. There's also one good way to solve the problem.

Abolish the police.

-

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.

Looters, cops, and other scum

The urban riots over a nasty legislation enforcement goon's act of murder are turning into bad guy vs. bad guy. As it stands, I can't support either side nor can I care what happens to the thugs on either side.

I would never rat on or condemn anyone for shooting a looter or a cop.

Both are examples of people engaging in acts of archation. Play evil games, win painful prizes.

No, you can't be an innocent cop. Putting on the gang colors is a declaration that you intend to archate. I understand that some people have an irrational need to pretend cops are something other than what they are and that they do something other than what they do. But, that's just what it is: irrational.

At this point, I don't care if both sides wipe each other off the face of the Earth.

-

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.

Smallest actions can have big effects

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

It's a quirk of human nature that a crisis can bring people together, bring out our best, and give our lives meaning. Sure, it can also bring out the worst in some damaged people, but we can acknowledge their existence then continue to ignore them as insignificant.

A threat to life, liberty, and property is terrible, but you can find some good in it if you look. People love to unite against a common enemy, whether it's a virus or grotesque alien overlords from a galaxy far, far away, Washington DC, or Santa Fe.

Like them or not, the protests against the shut-downs are a show of unity between people who might otherwise have little in common. As are the hordes of people joining together online to complain about the protests.

There are others who ignore the political bickering; staying busy doing what they can to help. Legions of people are currently hunched over their sewing machines at home, whipping up face masks and gowns for those who want them. There are business owners all over the country exploring new ways to serve their customers, keep their businesses running and their employees employed.

What can you do?

Even if you don't quite know what to do, the smallest things can have big effects in your own life.

A walk in the sunshine and fresh air can make you feel like you're actively fighting the coronavirus. At least you're getting a little exercise, which is known to be one of the best ways to boost your immune system. Plus, letting others see you out doing something rather than cowering at home can encourage them that this is not the end.

Lending a hand when you find the opportunity has also been shown to help you while you help others.

I've been writing almost every day since 2006 to promote liberty and to encourage people to accept their responsibility to not violate others. Giving hope to those who value liberty, and trying to help people keep their heads together during these strange times, while others apparently want to stampede them, is something small I can do.

Do you feel as though your contributions to society are now more meaningful? If not, you may be missing out on something special. Something which will make you feel better while doing the same for those around you. It doesn't need to be something big. It's probably something you already know how to do.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Pointers for rioters

The biggest problem with riots is that the participants don't seem to have a clear focus. They just rage against everyone, no matter whose side they may be on. In order to help them express themselves in a coherent manner, I offer these pointers.

Not everyone is your enemy. Not every person of a different "race". Not everyone who has more money than you. Not every business owner. Some people who would be on your side will be alienated if you violate their life, liberty, and property, just as you were alienated by someone violating the life, liberty, or property of the person who inspired your riot.

So, let me help you with that problem by laying out the legitimate targets of your rage, as opposed to the illegitimate targets which will only hurt your cause.

If you want to burn, destroy, and loot, stick to the legitimate targets and avoid the illegitimate ones.

Legitimate targets:

• Police stations
• Police cars
• Police officers
• Police officers' private property (purchased with YOUR money)
• Courthouses
• City hall
• Federal buildings
• Anyone who expresses support for police, including their family members who are members of that gang

Illegitimate targets:

• Private businesses*
• Private property
• Individuals who are not copsuckers
• Anything not associated with government

There are also some targets that I feel should be avoided for various reasons which may or may not make sense. I'm not even sure it makes sense to me, but here they are:

• Libraries
• Parks
• Postal workers and post offices

*There's an asterisk beside "Private businesses" for a reason. A "private business" which goes out of its way to express support for the Blue Line Gang, perhaps by showing gang colors by flying one of those Blue Line Gang flags, or by posting signs which say "We support law enforcement"... those businesses have chosen to side against you and me.

Keep it on track and I'm on your side against legislation enforcers. And, I want to be on your side, so don't screw this up.

-

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

Another pantry

Since the beginning of the coronapocalypse, the other members of the household have become more cooperative with my prepper ways. That has made it easier to acquire the preps I believe are a good idea, but are a little inconvenient in some way.

To this end, today I picked up an old (actual wood) entertainment center to serve as a secondary pantry-- or, actually, I guess it's the tertiary pantry. 

I think it's going to work great. The 3 drawers in the bottom can hold a lot of lighter things, while the upper part with doors, which was made for the TV, and which had one adjustable shelf but will soon have 2, can hold a lot of other stuff.

I love prepping. 

-

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.

Yet another murderous cop

For those who haven't got a clue, and question whether the victim "resisted arrest" and thus "deserved what he got"...

It's no more wrong to "resist arrest"-- with whatever level of violence is necessary-- than it is to fight back against any other kidnapper, robber, or rapist. Yes, I realize it probably means the badgescum or his gang will murder you for doing so.

Badges don't create "special rights"-- but they do create monsters out of weak-minded, unethical people (the only kind of people who become cops). Monsters who benefit by membership in the Blue Line Gang.

When someone dies for "resisting arrest", the cop who murdered them should be treated like a rapist who murdered his struggling victim, or like a mugger or kidnapper who murdered his victim for not cooperating. 

Because, at best it is the exact same thing, ethically. At worst, it is even more evil because so many people have been brainwashed to believe the Blue Line Gang scum are the "good guys" and believe they should be allowed to murder those who resist their molestation

-

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.

Opening the churches

A church my grandfather built

In all the debate over whether the churches should be allowed to open during the coronapocalypse, the thing that keeps being ignored is that government has no right or "authority" to force them to close nor to demand they stay closed. Nor even to dictate how they are allowed to conduct their services.

Even if you irrationally believe the U.S. feral government is legitimate, the First Amendment doesn't allow it to have that power. In fact, it forbids it from more than one direction: freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, and probably freedom of speech. 

That it is mostly state governors giving the orders changes nothing. The 14th Amendment binds the state governments to obey the Bill of Rights.

I've heard some government-supremacists argue that no one is violating anyone's freedom of religion since they can still believe what they believe, they just can't gather in a church building.

That would be wrong.

Many people believe they are directed to gather, in person, with other believers. To forbid this is to violate their freedom of religion. It violates their freedom to assemble.

Statism is a religion. Government is its god. Government is a jealous god and doesn't like competition.

-

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.

Being neighborly

I don't meddle, but I do observe and get concerned. There's a line somewhere between not being nosey and not defending the innocent. I don't want to get it wrong.

A neighbor of mine has attracted my attention.

She hasn't been emotionally well for a long time. Her daughter was killed in a car wreck a few years before my daughter was killed in a car wreck-- both at about the same age. She hasn't done as well as I have in the years since. I get it, but I care.

She's about my age and her elderly mother lives with her. She has aged enough that I sometimes have trouble telling whether it's her or her mother I see. She goes through phases where she doesn't bother getting dressed but just wears a robe when out in her yard.

I've tried to reach out to her a few times, but she's not very receptive-- and it may just be that she doesn't like me. The dumpster we share is right behind her house. I speak to her when I see her. Sometimes she responds and sometimes she doesn't; she seems to be pretending she doesn't see or hear me.

What has me concerned is that a young couple moved in with her a few months ago. I've heard that this is another daughter or step-daughter and her husband. They brought small dogs-- which then had puppies-- and all the dogs run amok when they get out of the fence.

The young couple seems to be running the house and destroying the yard. I would be afraid to see inside the house.

In the past, this woman's yard would sometimes get a few bags of trash piled right beside the back porch. I guess she just didn't want to walk it to the dumpster. If it had gotten too bad I would have asked if she needed help, but it never did.

Now her yard looks like a landfill, with shredded trash and polyester cushion filling everywhere. I wouldn't care-- her property, not mine-- but I suspect she's being taken advantage of by the new residents. She never let things get anywhere near this bad before they came along. Plus, when I do see her she seems even less friendly than before. And I see her less often, too.

I'm just taking note for now. If I get a chance to speak to her I'll ask how she's doing and if everything's alright. I don't want to meddle, but I also don't want to stand aside while someone is used and abused.

And, no, I'm not calling "the authorities" because there's no situation so bad it can't be made worse by adding a cop to the mix.

-

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.

Be like Sherlock Holmes-- in the good ways

Those who know me know I really like the fictional character, Sherlock Holmes. The A. Conan Doyle original, specifically. The degree to which I like other versions depends on how faithful they are to the original. The original Sherlock Holmes was surprisingly libertarian for the time and place where he was created.

Of the most recent versions, I like the Benedryl Cabbagepatch Sherlock adaptation (ignoring the 4th season shark-jump) from England a lot more than I like the "woke" Left-Statist version from America called Elementary.

I've been watching Elementary on a streaming service for a couple of months now. But there are times its deficiencies are painful to me-- to the point that I sometimes realize I haven't been paying attention for several minutes. That version of Holmes just doesn't measure up very well. He is not abnormally intelligent or good at deduction/induction/abduction, and he is irrationally anti-gun and pro-police (as is the mood of the whole show). He's just not that impressive or exceptionally gifted. That's anti-Holmesian.

I'm not at all a fan of the movies starring Robert Downey Jr. and I couldn't even bring myself to watch the Will Ferrell version after seeing the previews.

Some of the old TV versions of decades past are pretty good.

I also notice whether the various versions actually use Holmes' methods, or if they are written by someone who doesn't understand what makes Sherlock Holmes what he is and flounders in vain trying to write something they don't understand. Or worse, if they don't like what Sherlock Holmes is so they try to make him something they like better (which feels like Elementary's problem).

I'm not generally a fan of "re-imagining" stuff that works, anyway, unless it is done carefully.

This is a roundabout way to get to a point.

In my most delusional moments of imagined grandeur I like to imagine myself as the Sherlock Holmes of liberty. I want to be able to think dispassionately about liberty and just go where the data leads me regardless of my feelings. I want to emulate the good characteristics of Holmes as they might apply to my own interests. I accept that I have flaws, as does the character-- although Holmes' addiction* to substances isn't one of my flaws.

To the extent this delusion helps make me a better person, it's useful. If it knocks me off-course, then it isn't.

-

*As pointed out in the comment by R R Schoettke below, Doyle's Holmes was an occasional drug user, but not an addict. A critically important distinction.

-

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 likely to make itself hero

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

What have you learned from the coronapocalypse so far? Has it changed you?

The experience has shown me where my preparedness was good and where I could make improvements. I discovered the need for some supplies I hadn't considered before. I'll work to fix those areas, but it's hard to prepare for everything when you can't know what "everything" might include. Next time could be completely different.

I have become more appreciative of the freedom to simply be around other people. I'm not excessively sociable, but I like being able to choose to socialize when I'm in the mood. It will be nice to go to a fast food place and sit inside and eat among other people again, even if they are loud.

I'm not afraid of the virus, but out of consideration for those who are-- and those who have more risk if they do catch it-- I've changed my behavior during this pandemic.

If I had any trust or faith in government, this experience would have destroyed it for good. Of course, that ship sailed decades ago, so watching the incompetence and tyranny from those who imagine they know best how to run your life hasn't affected me much.

I'm suspecting the differences in how people view government's response will further divide America between those who imagine government saved the country from certain disaster and those who realize everything government did in response to the pandemic harmed the country worse than the virus. Those in the first group will want government to have even more power over our lives from now on, and those in the second group will want to take back our rightful liberty which was stolen over the last couple of centuries.

This isn't a huge change, but the disagreements may get more heated unless one side backs down. I don't see that happening.

I've become more skeptical of the sanity of those cheering the police state tactics justified by the virus, the intelligence of those begging government to do more, and of the morals of those who became snitches, reporting anyone they suspected of not complying with unconstitutional orders.

Speaking of learning-- I'm curious how this time will look when it's history. Unfortunately, government gets to decide what the history textbooks will say about this event, so its version will be taught to generations of children in its schools. Expect government to make itself out to be the hero of this story, regardless of the truth.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Liberty is the best path

I try hard to find cases where respecting liberty is NOT the best thing for society (by being best for individuals). And I never have. Not once.

I've found lots of cases where someone is confused over what liberty is, or is in denial because they want to pretend their imaginary exceptions are somehow legitimate. But not one of those has ever held up to scrutiny... and I give my best shot at seeing if it can.

I've been in long debates with those who are pushing their own favorite exception, and I can usually see where their feelings are coming from and where these feelings tripped them up. I've been subjected to some pretty harsh insults as a result of these debates when "my best shot" doesn't result in me adopting the other position.

Insults don't change reality, though. That doesn't matter to those who don't want to fully respect liberty. They are going to make the exceptions they want to make, regardless of anything else. It's just good to weigh and measure all their arguments for your own sake.

Who knows, I could be wrong. I'm surely wrong about a lot of things. I'd rather find out I'm wrong and work to fix it than to be stubborn. But it will take a lot to convince me that slavery is ever, in any circumstance, better than liberty. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

-

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.

Nice "but"

I notice people's buts. Not their butts (well, in some cases...); their "buts".

They advocate liberty, but... and I notice.

"Liberty is good, but..."

...they believe government schooling (including vouchers, etc.) is necessary for education, and will discuss twiddling the dials, but never abolishing it.

...they still think the cops or military are somehow "good guys".

...they imagine it's OK to have government control who comes or goes, what you do with your property or body, etc. "For your own good."

...they believe "taxation" is necessary for some things that no one wants bad enough to pay for voluntarily.

...they want to be protected from all the things they're scared of.

...they insist you obey legislation, even if it's unethical, until someone changes the "law".

...they can't imagine living without government telling them how they should live.

...and on and on and on.

It's as though they are desperate to be taken seriously by government-supremacists for some reason. Maybe to be allowed a place at the table.
Or for a patronizing pat on the head.

Liberty doesn't come with any buts. It just is. You either accept it as it is or you reject 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.

Freedom plus responsibility

Liberty is freedom tempered with responsibility.

Remind anyone who whines about freedom being dangerous because it doesn't mention responsibility-- it was never intended to.

They're just focusing on one facet of liberty and pretending that because it isn't what they want means this invalidates the whole thing. Any isolated part is going to be flawed and missing something essential.

Responsibility without freedom is meaningless and is just as flawed as freedom without responsibility. Liberty is the solution.

-

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.

Act stupid; embrace politics

If you want to act stupid, embrace politics.

Politics makes people stupid. This is the one thing I know for certain about politics.

By "politics" I mean choosing sides-- Right-Statism vs. Left-Statism.
I mean believing government is a credible source; believing government is the proper venue for anything.
Believing government should make "policy".
Believing that a v*te concerning anyone else's rights or liberty is legitimate.
Arguing that "taxation" isn't theft... in some magical way that is never adequately explained.
Supporting-- or even nearly worshiping-- armed government employees of any sort, no matter what they do, pretending it's only some "bad apples" who are the problem.
Making the argument that since people aren't perfect angels, we must allow those people who seek to hold power over others to have that power which they seek... and that this is somehow going to work out better for almost everyone than the alternative of allowing people to run their own lives.

Politics makes people reject reason, ethics, science, compassion, and anything else which might get in the way. It perverts religions and morality.

It makes some people imagine that if you don't suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome you must be a crazed Trump fan. There can't be any other options in their naked, shivering minds.

It causes people to reject non-political approaches to problems. Everyone admits government schools are a disaster (although some will use less honest terminology), but to suggest abolishing the institution is unthinkable. Even when the only argument they can come up with is that they believe it's good or necessary to allow people to rob their neighbors-- through government force-- to help pay for their kids' daycare.

Politics results in stupidity. If you want to act stupid, embrace politics.

-

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.