Who are your representatives?

Political representation is a myth.

Believing in political representation is a superstitious belief. Such a belief is as delusional as believing in astrology.

No one can really represent anyone but himself. However, if you have a one-on-one agreement with someone to represent you in a meeting you can't attend, it can sort of work a lot of the time.

But for one person to claim to represent hundreds, thousands, or even millions of other people with conflicting opinions?

That's utter balderdash (to put it gently)!

It's also useful balderdash for those who want you to comply-- against your own interests-- with their system of "representative government". It's useful because it seems to make most people complacent. To the point they'll defend it even when the superstitious nature of the belief is clearly demonstrated to them.

No one can represent me without my explicit consent, contingent upon them accurately representing me in every detail, without fail. No one has this consent and I doubt anyone ever could. Is your consent not worth just as much?

-

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.

Holster-Quest 2020

After my holster melt-down and my test and review of the Urban Carry G3, I was approached by a holster company that wanted to send me a holster to test and review.

I know I'm a difficult case. I'm not optimistic about success. But I'll never know until I try.

I don't know how long until it gets here, nor how long after that I will post the review. But I just thought I'd let you know there will be at least one more post about Holster-Quest 2020.

-

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 only political if you make it political

To those who claim that "everything is political", I would say they are partly right. Everything can be political but only if you make it political. You can make anything political by getting government involved. But that's an awful thing to do to your fellow humans. Politicizing anything is also one of the fastest ways to lose credibility.

Pick anything you can think of. Then think of ways the government-supremacists have politicized it. I'll bet there's almost nothing you can think of that either hasn't been politicized or that someone hasn't attempted to politicize-- and attempting to politicize something could be argued to have politicized it even if the attempt didn't do what they hoped.

The only political problems are problems you create when you make something political.

Even water has been politicized in many places. When you can be molested by The State for catching rainwater as it runs off your roof, you are the victim of water being politicized. There are better ways to deal with water shortages-- even if you have to work to find them.

In the same way, "race" and sex have been politicized.
Science-- including medicine-- is ruined when politicized.
Education has been politicized so badly that most people can't understand the difference between education and schooling anymore.

When you politicize anything you pollute it-- you foul it up.

It doesn't need to be that way because nothing needs to be politicized. It's a nasty shame that this has been allowed to happen.

-

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 makes crisis worse

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

America is in crisis. Nearly everyone agrees on this point; they only disagree over what the crisis is.

Fewer still agree over what caused the crisis they can't agree on, so they can't agree on how to solve it.

Whatever the crisis is, and whether it was caused by a virus, police callousness, racism, inequality, or something else, governments love the excuse to crack down on liberty. This is often among their first responses-- regardless of what the crisis is, what caused the crisis, or how it might be solved. It's as though they don't even care about those trivial details.

A crisis is when your right to life, liberty, and property is most important. When things are going well, are more robust and stable, a small disruption probably won't cause ruin. When things are already on the edge, one little push in the wrong place, at the wrong time, can spell disaster. Deciding to treat liberty as if it's negotiable is a big jackbooted shove to civil society.

To respect the liberty of every human being is the civilized thing to do, even if some people aren't respecting the liberty of others. This is why self-defense remains an important human right.

No crisis justifies additional government power; instead, it's a time for less government meddling. Especially when the path forward is unclear.

The result of restricting liberty is to limit the number of individual solutions which can be tried. When there's disagreement, it's important to let people take different paths. If enough things are tried, someone will get it right. If you force everyone to follow the same path, the chances are nearly one hundred percent that the wrong path will be imposed.

This is why the Constitution doesn't allow itself, or human rights, to be suspended during any emergency and thus doesn't permit martial law. To pretend martial law is constitutional the Supreme Court was forced to concoct political "theories" to justify it. They made up, out of thin air, things the Constitution didn't say and which it was explicitly designed to prevent. It seems the Constitution has never stopped government from committing any action it really wanted to commit. Someone, somewhere, will rubber-stamp almost anything.

If the Constitution did permit the suspension of rights for the duration of an emergency, this would invalidate the document. That it doesn't, yet government goes ahead and does it anyway, invalidates government. Government "help" makes any crisis worse.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Individual lives matter

Individual lives matter. All individual lives. (I'm not convinced collective "lives" have any reality.)

But some people choose to throw their life away by making self-defense against them necessary-- resulting in the loss of their life. If you force someone to kill you in defense you seem to be saying your life doesn't matter to you.

How can you force someone to defend themselves from you? By archating.

Violating life, liberty, or property is how you demonstrate that your life doesn't really matter to you.

In that case, even though your life might matter to your victim, you have forced them to choose between your life and theirs, and I hope they choose their own life every time in that case. After all, you've already told them what your life is worth to you.

It doesn't matter if you are a rapist committing a sexual attack, a mugger stealing a wallet at gunpoint, or a cop committing an act of legislation enforcement. Archating is as good as admitting your life doesn't matter to you. If it doesn't matter to you, why should it matter to your victim? And even if it does matter to your victim, why should they sacrifice the life they value for the one you apparently don't? I don't think they should.

Individual lives matter. Act like you believe 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.

"Prussian" indoctrination- the other side

In doing a little searching for "The Prussian model" of schooling for yesterday's post, I ran across an essay that claims to expose "The Invented History of 'The Factory Model of Education'"

It's important to get the other side, so I read it and I'll give you my thoughts here.

"There were laws on the books in Colonial America, for example, demanding children be educated"

Those "laws" were counterfeit. That they existed so long ago no more justifies similar counterfeit "laws" today than old slave "laws" could justify slavery today.

"There was free public education in the US too prior to Horace Mann’s introduction of the 'Prussian model' – the so-called 'charity schools.'"

As long as it is funded voluntarily (charity) and attendance isn't compulsory, it's not a problem. Charity is great. Theft-funding anything is evil. Compulsory attendance is slavery.

"There were other, competing models for arranging classrooms and instruction as well..."

OK. Your point is...?

"Textbook companies were already thriving before Horace Mann or the Committee of Ten came along to decide what should be part of the curriculum."

That's to be expected, and it's not a problem. Let parents choose the textbooks they want to buy if they want them. The problem arises in "one-size-fits-all" school "systems" where a local monopoly is created by government. Where children are taught from books they can't opt out of or choose an alternative to, and their parents (and the community) are robbed to buy the books whether or not they want them.

"One of the side-effects of the efforts of Mann and others to create a public education system, unmentioned by Khan, was the establishment of 'normal schools' where teachers were trained."

Was there no better way to train people to teach? And why is it assumed there need to be specialized teachers? If people are too stupid to teach their own kids-- to show them how to learn-- it means the school did a horrible job teaching the previous generation. You're not going to solve such a problem by imposing it on generation after generation.

"Another was the requirement that, in order to demonstrate accountability, schools maintain records on attendance, salaries, and other expenditures"

That's just standard practice for any business. I would expect any voluntarily funded school to do the same. Except that the records for attendance should be limited to the employees, not the customers.

"...control of public schools in the US have, unlike in Prussia, remained largely decentralized – in the hands of states and local districts rather than the federal government."

If it's under the control of any government, it's not decentralized. Yes, it could always be worse, but it can be better and less centralized, too.

"The standardization of public education into a 'factory model' ... was nowhere as smooth or coherent as Khan’s simple timeline would suggest."

The smoothness or lack thereof is a distraction, not a counterargument.

"Arguments over what public education should look like and what purpose public education should serve ... are not new."

"Public" education shouldn't exist, not in the way statists define "public". That gets rid of the argument and replaces it with choice-- with a market in education.

"For what it’s worth, Prussia was not highly industrialized when Frederick the Great formalized its education system in the late 1700s."

Which was probably the point. Maybe it's harder to become industrialized without a population of obedient drones.

OK. I'm tired of analyzing the nonsense and dishonesty in that essay. It proves nothing except that the writer is biased for government indoctrination. You know my bias since I've never tried to hide it. Decide for yourself which of us is more credible.

If you want to, you can read it all for yourself. That whole essay is just statist justification of government indoctrination day-prisons for children and youth. Death to kinderprison!

-

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.

Libertarians for theft and Big Government?

How can libertarians be seriously discussing how "best" to use "tax" money to fund government schooling or even any schooling? I don't think they can.

"Taxation" is theft.
Government schooling is not education. Even if it were education, government has no business getting involved in education and stolen money shouldn't be funding it.

Yet, over and over I see "serious", "credible", "libertarians" discussing how to direct government to spend that stolen money to fund schooling.

Recently some have been advocating tying the funds to individual "students" rather than to the schools.  I can see, in a world of false dichotomies, why that seems better. Yet we don't live in that world. Thieves do have the choice to stop stealing. Thugs do have the choice to stop advocating compulsory school and the "Prussian" indoctrination model.

Why does anyone who claims to value liberty gloss over those facts as if they aren't there? My suspicion is that they see this as necessary to try to be politically relevant-- I suspect this is the reason for a lot of inconsistency.

I can't take them seriously at that point. At least, not as libertarians, but only as threats to liberty.

-

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.

Hope and despair in nearly equal parts

I've been observing and listening to what people around me are saying concerning recent events. It's been interesting.

I've heard people say that they never thought tyranny in America was a possibility... until the pandemic. Now they see how easily it could happen.

Since the beginning of the pandemic I've heard the laughter at preppers be replaced by "show me how" and "I wish I had listened".

I've seen people who never cared about liberty suddenly start to pay attention.

I've seen more and more people getting their kids out of kinderprison.

This all gives me some hope.

On the other side of the coin, I've also seen people watching and waiting, anxiously, for that next "stimulus check" from Uncle Scam.

I've seen people calling the socialistic nihilists in big cities "anarchists" as if that's what they were.

I've seen people looking at events and stupidly saying "this is why we need police" and emphasizing how helpless and useless they are to take care of their own lives without a master to do it for them.

I've seen "libertarians" arguing for re-opening the government schools on schedule and/or using the stolen money to fund other forms of schooling.

My latest newspaper column offended another sort of person. The sort of person who doesn't want to see anything which might disturb his dreams.

He began his one-run-on sentence email by saying this is his home town (OK... I was born here too, but how is that relevant?) and he hasn't seen any higher prices (I have and so has the person I mentioned in the column and if you check gold, silver, and Bitcoin prices you can see them right now with your own eyes) and that to him, the dollar "hasn't lost anything".

I could show him charts, but the trick he plays is in the "to him". The dollar is still worth what it was-- to him-- because he believes it is. No evidence will convince him otherwise because he believes what he believes. I wonder if he has ever once in his whole life complained about a higher price for anything. Because that would falsify his claim.

He ended by saying "God is in control" and knows what's going on.

I probably shouldn't have replied, but I did.

I'm glad for you.
I'll tell the person who had started noticing higher prices in Clovis stores that you say she must be imagining it.
I'll also tell the gold and silver sellers that they have to sell their products to me at last month's prices because you say prices aren't going up. I wonder what they'll say.
God knowing what's going on doesn't mean God wouldn't let humans suffer for doing foolish things. Actions have consequences.

Am I wrong?

As always, there are reasons for both hope and despair. The shining examples, the mistakes in human skin, and the self-deluding.

On the economic side of things, my income keeps declining due to the effects of the government-caused Coronapanic, so if you'd care to sign up for a monthly subscription on any of the platforms I use I'd appreciate it. See below for your chance to chip in or email me for more options.

-

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.

Cultural exchange and clashes

Even minor cultural differences can cause clashes. I think it's worth it to try to work through them. I can't dictate what others choose to do.

My daughter lost a friend a while back over personal differences, at least some of which were cultural. I did my part to try to help them get past it, but you can't force people to get along.

While her friend isn't an "immigrant", her family is a blend of a couple of cultures which are just different enough from my daughter's culture to create a bit of friction here and there. I suppose it was too much friction for a couple of intelligent, but bullheaded, girls to get past. I may have been more upset over the split than they were.

It made me think back to my own younger days. When I was a teen my family befriended a family who had recently moved from Iraq. We hung out a lot and learned quite a bit from each other (I still remember how to count to ten in whatever language they spoke, as well as several other words) and shared recipes and meals. My sisters and I had a great time with them with no problem.

But, there were some incidents between the adults that caused a rift between our families. At the time I wasn't aware of what had happened, I just knew we suddenly stopped hanging out with them. When I got older I found out what had happened. The fact that their parents didn't understand why my parents would be upset over it was what caused the final rift. That seems cultural to me.

I still enjoy being exposed to other cultures. I think all cultures have good points and bad points, plus some things that really aren't good or bad, but that I just don't personally care for. I mean, I despise professional sports and government employee worship, two things that seem rampant in the culture that surrounds me-- so it's not just "alien cultures" that I find fault in.

-

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.

Mask fine theft by government

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

When a politician makes a mistake and makes a problem worse (or creates a problem out of thin air), they rarely change course. Instead, they double down. It's hard for them to admit they did the wrong thing and so easy to claim it was the right thing but didn't go far enough.

Welcome to Political Shut-Down Theater, Part Two.

The first shut-down was a terrible idea. I'd be willing to forgive those responsible since it was done in ignorance. No one knew how dangerous the virus might be, and sketchy reports from other countries scared some people into over-reacting. However, now we know. To shut the economy down again-- to shut down society-- isn't ignorant, it is an intentional act of sabotage. Those responsible should be held accountable. Personally, not by shifting the burdening onto their tax victims.

As one reader pointed out to me, all businesses are essential to their customers. I would add that they are also essential to the owners, their employees, and to the general economic health of society. He correctly pointed out that this is people control, not virus control.

I'm not automatically against shutting some things down. I would favor letting all government agencies and facilities close until all danger, from everything, has passed. This is as far as government authority goes, though. They have no legitimate authority over anything in the private sector-- they only pretend they do.

To allow politicians to make any decision for you-- backed by the violence of government-- is irresponsible. It's foolish to allow politics to infest society.

This foolishness is compounded if politicians are allowed to impose a fine for the non-crime of not wearing a mask.

A fine is simply another way for government to steal money for itself. I'm never in favor of fines. A fine is used to punish people while coercing them into doing what the state wants. Regardless of whether the state is correct.

I'm in favor of choice; letting people make their own decisions (and mistakes) about the things which affect them. If you don't want to take the risk of opening your business or leaving your home, no one should force you to do so.

If you feel safer wearing a mask, I encourage you to wear one. Do whatever you can to make yourself feel better, without forcing your choices on anyone else. No one should dictate your choices to you, nor should your choices be imposed on others.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

"Everything is political"

I mentioned my dislike of non-political sites dragging politics into their content.

When I mentioned this to one of the guilty parties, they said "everything is political". If that were the case, we'd be living in a dystopia.

But this assertion makes me believe some people see politics differently than I do. Shocking, I know.

Maybe they see every human action as politics. This is mistaken and shows they don't understand the difference between persuasion/consent and coercion/aggression. You can interact with other people non-politically; that's the only ethical way to do it. If you only deal with others through politics you're not a good person.

Perhaps the others may imagine politics to be a "necessary evil" [sic].

Some people seem to believe that since everything has been made subject to government and its legislation, this means everything is political. No, it just means government is a bullying trespasser. It steps on lives, liberties, and properties where it has no business treading.

I understand the feeling that since politics is being used against you, you must use politics in retaliation. But that's antisocial. It's more social and civilized to simply shoot the person using politics against you-- there's no "collateral damage" that way. Fewer people die or are otherwise harmed in the long run.

People who imagine that everything is political are living a much smaller and nastier life than they could be living. It's a tragedy. Forcing it on everyone else is a crime.

Yes, those who embrace politics have things backward and will insist that their perverted view is the right one. That's because politics makes people stupid.

-

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

Urban Carry G3 Colonel holster review

You might remember my recent frustration over my holster situation. I wanted to try an Urban Carry holster.

Well, I got my chance! Bruce over at "Guns, Fun, Food and More" has my review.

Thanks, Bruce!

-

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.

What does politics do to people?

There are several websites and video channels I've stopped visiting because, although the site or channel isn't political, they've begun regularly injecting politics into their content. Usually to screech "Orange Man Bad!", but sometimes to scold that anyone who isn't a Left-Statist like them is bad or ignorant.

When I want to hear someone's political opinions, I will seek out content focused on politics. If I want to check out other topics-- which is generally what I want-- I go to non-political sites. If those sites start promoting stupid politics I will ditch them like a surprise mummified mouse in my bag of tortilla chips. I can only tolerate a certain amount of stupid in one day and don't want it served to me as a side dish along with my entertainment or information.

Politics makes people stupid. Really stupid people imagine their politics make them look clever or informed.

-

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.

Willful ignorance and statists

Is it just me, or do statists seem willfully ignorant to you, too?

They try too hard to complicate matters and miss the point. I say I'm against political government so they lecture me for rejecting cooperation and on the wisdom of forming a group.

Or, they say if you're an anarchist, you'll soon starve to death if government goes away because without "law and order" there will be no food.

Or, if you talk about abolishing government schools, they'll insist that you want to cause a new Dark Age of ignorant peasants who can't read.

When you say "abolish the police" they imagine you just want to rape and murder without consequences. And that you must hate civilization, women, the handicapped, and old people.

They don't think beyond their rehearsed soundbites. If you try to show them the truth, they shut you down or ignore you.

It's pretty obvious they aren't even trying. I wonder if they ever were.

-

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.

Witch hunts are not for me

You probably won't like what I'm going to say. If I were famous this would likely get me canceled. But I have nothing to lose, so...

I think the whole Epstein thing is just the newest witch hunt. I'm just not interested in it.

I've been around long enough to have seen this bad movie rebooted so many times I've lost count. "Satanic panic", McMartin Preschool, "recovered memories", backward masking... I could go on and on. It seems most people crave a witch hunt and people are always looking for a new one.

Do I think some of the famous people dragged into this are guilty scumbags? Of course-- Bill Clinton is on "the list". Is he a pedophile? Probably not. He seems interested only in females who are sexually developed. But he's a scumbag for sure; he was president! Oh, and there have been credible allegations about his sexual crimes for decades. Probably a lot of them are true-- the people I knew who also knew him personally (back before he was even running for president) told me lots of things about him way back then.

But, there is no way that I believe everyone on "the list" is like Bill Clinton. Some are probably even fairly decent people who just hung out with the wrong person once or twice. How motivated would Epstein have been to have someone be seen (and photographed) "with" him so that he would then have blackmail material on them? You tell me.

I will not celebrate this witch hunt. I will not participate or promote it. I will ignore it as much as possible. I will not be joining in the blood dance. I hate it.

I know this puts me at odds with a lot of libertarians, but I don't care. I'm not a fan of the hatefest and don't intend to act just like the statist punishment-junkies. Leave me out of 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.

Real femininity is not weak

I recently told you what I believe embodies real masculinity. What about femininity?

Just as masculinity isn't aggressive or toxic, femininity isn't weak.

It's not feminine to allow yourself to be victimized and used against your will.
It's not feminine to support archation; to use the violence of government against people who are doing things you don't like or who aren't doing things you believe they should. Being a "karen" isn't womanly, it's being a jerk.
It's not feminine to stay with an abusive partner just because he says he loves you and you have kids together.
It's not feminine to be intentionally unpleasant to prove that you can't be pushed around.

It's feminine to be competent, compassionate, and responsible. You can be feminine by defending yourself and others from aggression. You can even be feminine if you ask for voluntary help from someone who will not archate while helping you if you want to-- but it's not necessary.

Masculinity and femininity are just aspects of "doing it right". You can also do it right without invoking either masculinity or femininity.

Every human has the same responsibility-- to not archate. How you choose to carry that out might vary from person to person, according to your temperament. You are your best self when you live up to that responsibility-- man, woman, or child.

-

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 responsible for own actions

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 1, 2020)

You bear no guilt for things you had no part in. Don't accept guilt you didn't earn.

I'm not going to blame you for things you have no control over, nor will I accept blame for the same sort of things. We have no control over who our ancestors were, what happened before we were born, the color of our skin, or what other people who have no real connection to us choose to do.

You aren't guilty because people in history did bad things. You aren't guilty when someone who shares your "race" did something bad. You aren't to blame if someone you don't associate with does something wrong. Those are not your fault. Don't accept blame on their behalf. It's not healthy. You are only guilty for any wrong you have personally done.

It's completely different if you choose to join a group known for violating life, liberty, and property. By choosing to join-- and remaining a member-- you are endorsing what they do, and in that case, you have personally committed a wrong.

You won't change the gang from the inside, even if that's your noble plan. You will be changed. From the moment you join you share in the guilt of every act any members commit in the name of the group you choose to be a part of. If you join or passively support those who actively violate the life, liberty, and property of others you share their guilt. Choose wisely.

You can absolve yourself by quitting and denouncing the group and its activities. I suggest doing so immediately.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Your first responsibility is to not violate anyone else. You can't be responsible for what people you don't control and have no real influence over do. Does anyone imagine you control anyone besides yourself?

Unless you openly side with people who are doing bad things I'm going to assume you're not on their team. I'd rather think the best of you. This means I may say something in your presence against the people doing bad stuff. Take this as the compliment it is.

I don't support holding history against people who weren't alive then, or who were too young to change anything. I'm for forgiving past offenses and I am not a fan of punishment. I'd much rather see you doing the right thing than to look for ways to blame and punish you for doing wrong.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Whose shame?

Why is slavery now being called "America's national shame" by some people, as if no other country participated in slavery? As if "America" did it worse?

Can a land feel shame?

I wasn't alive during the slavery they are talking about. I consider slavery an evil thing. Always.

This is why I am an abolitionist who opposes all slavery. I am even fighting against the slavery most of them want more of-- government-supremacism. I have less to feel ashamed of than almost any of those who talk about the shame I "should" feel.

Someday being a government-supremacist or even a "minimal" statist (minarchist) will look as bad in hindsight as being an enthusiastic slaver. I'm glad I'm not on that side! Even if remaining consistent in the face of haters and deniers gets a little uncomfortable sometimes.

-

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.

Who should have political power?

I don't want Muslims to have political power.
I don't want black people to have political power.
I don't want women to have political power.
I don't want young people to have political power.
I don't want LGBTQXYZ3.14159... people to have political power.
I don't want Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, socialists, or Constitutionalists to have political power.
None at all.

That's because I'm being consistent.

I don't want anyone-- no groups or individuals-- to have political power. That includes straight white men of any (or no) religion and of any age.

Political power is an evil thing to hold. Why would I wish that kind of evil on anyone?

You have the responsibility to not archate. That's plenty for anyone to handle.

-

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.

Real masculinity is non-toxic

I notice that many people-- not you, of course-- seem to be really confused about what is "masculine". They complain about something they call "toxic masculinity", but I notice what they describe doesn't seem very masculine to me. Quite the opposite (and the opposite of "masculine" isn't necessarily "feminine"). Often, what they call masculine I call being a jerk.

Somehow they think the guy going around strutting, threatening people, or picking fights is manly. They think being a cop or a "troop" is masculine (unless it's a female doing that "job"). They think impulsivity or loudness or what I've noticed as a habit of spastic movements is what makes someone manly. They even think the jealous guy who puffs up his chest because he thinks "his" woman looked at another guy is exhibiting masculinity. They seem to see aggression as masculine.

Not even close!

It's not masculine to aggress, but to defend from aggression. Archation isn't manly. Living up to your responsibility to not violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else-- even when it's hard to do-- is masculine. And more. It's the way to be a decent human being, whether you are male or female.

-

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.

So close; scared to face the truth

Sometimes statists can get so close... so close! But they won't take that final "scary" step.

They might recognize a problem caused by political government, but instead of facing the root cause, they do whatever it takes to avoid the truth.

Recently I heard one advocating getting rid of teachers' unions. I support this idea, but it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't strike at the root; it's thrashing at a branch. The existence of government schooling is the root problem. Abolish those schools and the teachers' unions are no longer an issue.

It's the same story over and over.

It's not that political government is being used wrong, it's that it is allowed to exist at all and to ruin society. In endlessly varied ways, by millions of wrongheaded people.

-

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.

Reasons NOT to wear a mask

If you don't want to wear a mask and you want/need more reasons to not do so, Jim Davies has made a thing-- TinyURL.com/WearNoMask

Personally, I'm not convinced-- even if masks do reduce transmission of the virus-- that it's a good idea to reduce the transmission of The Corona. At least among the general population.

I'm still pretty sure this "pandemic" or whatever will never get under control until just about everyone has had it or has proven themselves immune. As the mortality rate that even the politicized experts accept continues to plummet, it seems important to end this thing sooner rather than later. To take away the State's favorite toy. So add that reason to the list.

But that's just my opinion. YOU do what YOU want.

-

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.

Politics reason behind a lot of anger

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 24, 2020)

Why is there so much anger in the world?

People fight over statues; over differing opinions on gender, race, and policing. Over masks and whether to end the shutdown or keep society imprisoned until everyone is perfectly safe-- which can never be.

Activists are even protesting to abolish the Fourth of July... without mentioning Independence Day. I guess if they are successful, future calendars will skip from the third to the fifth... unless the activists are confused.

What causes anger over such issues? Politics-- where every win comes at someone's expense.

Politics forces everyone along the same path. Legislation dictates things only our ethics and morals should determine. To understand the anger, notice how politics makes a difference of opinion into a life and death struggle. An unnecessary one.

It's odd that something imagined to be a hallmark of civilized society is instead the root of most antisocial behavior. Trying to form a society around politics is like trying to form a pearl around a pellet of nuclear waste.

If you want to play politics, go ahead, but any results should only apply to you. You shouldn't expect others to be bound by your results. They shouldn't be expected to fund your political institutions or agencies. If you want it, you fund it. I have better uses for my money.

Just as there is no "one-size-fits-all" church, you shouldn't be able to force everyone to participate in the same political system based on location. Or any political system at all. If you force everyone to play your game by your rules, or else, your game is toxic. Society would be better off without it.

Just imagine if no one were forced to fund a park or a statue. If your group builds a park, good for you. If you want to put a statue in the park to honor Willie Nelson, people can choose to visit your park or not. As long as they aren't forced to subsidize it, they aren't harmed.

If, however, you force people to chip in for the park and pay for statues and monuments to things they dislike, it's no wonder people get angry. I do, too.

The way these things are currently done causes strife. It's long past time to give it up and try something better. Something voluntary, based on unanimous consent. If you want to chip in, go ahead. If you'd rather not, go your own way. It's the only civilized way to organize a society.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Robbed by politicians

I was supposed to be in the New Mexico mountains all this week with the extended family. I would be there now.

It was planned and booked in early February. I was looking forward to some time in the mountains and on some trails-- time I am in severe need of but can't afford on my own.

Then... The Corona.

Or rather, it was politicians who shut down so much stuff using The Corona as their excuse that the family decided to cancel the trip. The fascist/socialist New Mexico governatress proclaimed that any visitors to New Mexico were "required" to quarantine for 14 days, when our vacation would only last a week. Blocked just because I live less than 7 blocks east of an imaginary line.

The part of the vacation I was in need of-- mountain trails-- wasn't shut down but with the parents coming down with coronavirus just weeks ago, and not knowing if anyone else would get it, and everyone else caring that shops and restaurants might be "off-limits" to us, I understand why they and the rest of the family canceled the plans.

I'm trying to not let it get to me. Stuff happens, and all that. Still, I'm pretty unhappy right now. And, yes, I blame the political vermin.

-

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.

Starlink and "pollution"

I saw someone complaining about how their long-exposure photograph of comet "Neowise" was ruined by the passage of Starlink satellites.

If you are unfamiliar with comet "Neowise", well, it's a comet. And if you are unfamiliar with Starlink, it's Elon Musk's swarm of internet-providing satellites.

The various voices chiming in about the horrors of the ruined photograph sympathized with the harm done to the photographer, and the evils of polluting the world for profit. I'm more upset that Elon takes government subsidies and launches government payloads, but whatever.

But "pollution"? I HATE pollution, including litter.

Pollution damages property; without the damage, there is no pollution. I can't think of a way these satellites damage anyone's property. One of the dissenters told me that "damages property" was a strange way to define pollution, so I asked for his definition. He said he'd include harming people. I asked him who is being harmed. Silence. Strangely, I find most of my questions to those on the other side keep going unanswered-- some of them seem to have blocked me.

Sure, people are "forced" to see something they don't want to see, in specific circumstances. Or, perhaps they are forced to accidentally photograph something they didn't intend to photograph. A photobomb of sorts (but one you can avoid with a little prior planning-- at least for the time being). The newer Starlink satellites are getting harder and harder to see, even right after launch. Musk has been trying to make them less reflective to keep ground-based astronomers happy, so perhaps it is working.

Someone said the pollution is the damage done by ruining a little of the beauty of nature for everyone. That's too subjective.

I want to go outside and look at the horizon without seeing any man-made structures or invasive/exotic trees blocking the natural view. Am I being harmed that this isn't possible where I live?

I hate to hear dogs bark. I don't like seeing boys hobbling around with their pants below their butts. Is this pollution?

If I see my neighbor walk to the end of their driveway and they aren't attractive enough for me to want to see them, am I being harmed? I don't think so. A better case for pollution could be made if they were smoking and I caught a whiff of their smoke. Yet I'm not petty enough to make an issue about that. They can smoke cigars as they walk out to the street naked and I can't think of a way this actually harms me.

Yes, "astronomy" pictures taken with a long exposure can be "ruined" by the multiple streaks from Starlink satellites. How many satellite tracks does it take to ruin a photo? One? Three? A dozen? Do planes also ruin photos? Do meteors?

It takes a long exposure-- specialty photography-- to really have a problem with Starlink streaks. I could complain if I use infrared photography to take photos of my neighbor's house and I see them inside doing things I don't want to see, but who has the problem here?

Starlink is intended to fund Musk's Mars missions and Martian colony. I am in favor of getting humans to Mars and to seeing if they can live there sustainably. It takes a lot of money-- profit-- to fund these kinds of things. Either direct profit spent willingly by those who earned it, or profit confiscated from the rightful owner by government through "taxation"-- guess which one I like better.

One of the detractors said satellites are too expensive and it would be cheaper to run wires out to all the remote areas to provide high-speed internet. I think this shows a lack of understanding of how remote some remote areas actually are, and the economics of running wires out there and the people in remote areas being able to actually afford to use such a service. Plus, this only shifts the property damage to actual property. Would these people like to have a path bulldozed for this line-- either underground or hanging on poles-- through their property so they don't have to see (if they look hard) something they don't want to see in the dusky sky?

I have gone out at night and watched Starlink satellites pass overhead. Most of the time they were too dim for me to see. A few times I was able to see the "train"-- a string of satellites following one another across the sky-- with some success. It's rather interesting to see and even beautiful in a way. But, even though I really like antique stuff made of brass, bone, wood, leather, and glass, I'm not a Luddite.

I get it, though. If I had my choice I'd turn the clock back to the Pleistocene or something and wear animal skins and live in a cave. I don't care to see plastic everywhere I look-- I'd rather see mammoths. But I can't pretend someone is harming me just because the world isn't the same as it used to be or as I might wish it still were. There are more important things to fix.

-

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.

"War on the suburbs" by Ammo.com

I got this from Ammo.com several days ago.
War on the Suburbs: How HUD's Housing Policies Became a Weapon for Social Change

Reading it just made me mad.

I could point out that I am in favor of people living wherever they like-- as long as they aren't trespassing. I could point out that allowing political government to use sticks and carrots to "encourage" compliance and carry out anti-social engineering is stupid and self-destructive; that if "states" hadn't gotten addicted to "federal" handouts, they couldn't be manipulated by the feral government. I could point out that all DemoCRAPublican politicians are guilty to some extent. I could point those things out, but you already know it as well as I do.

I personally hate cities-- except as an occasional dangerous thrill for a highly limited time. But to live in or near one? No thanks!

I don't really like suburbs or small towns, either. Still too crowded and too many "rules".

I don't mind that people want to live in any of those arrangements. And I do mind when meddlers try to coerce people into living as they believe they "should".

I wouldn't take well to being herded into an urban environment. In fact, I would feel the need to use self-defensive violence against those trying to herd me. I hope others would join 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.

Conservative copsuckers blame leftist politicians

Someone forwarded an email to me full of "memes". In one, it said something like "Did you ever notice that the police leave you alone if you aren't doing anything wrong?" Another showed a 911 operator and said something like "911, what is your emergency? Oh, I see you v*ted to defund the police. We'll send someone to visit you in 3 to 5 business days." While another showed the St. Louis couple guarding their home with their guns, saying something like "This is why you need an AR15".

I should have left it alone, but I replied.

I said that yes, the guy who used an AR15 (or whatever specific type of firearm that actually was) used his gun to defend his home, and then the cops, who will supposedly leave you alone if you are doing nothing wrong, came and stole all his firearms, leaving him at the mercy of other thugs. So much for being protected by police. And that this is why I am in favor of defunding the police and the politicians who control them.

The guy wrote back and said what the cops did wasn't right, but that it is the "leftist politicians" who are at fault.

Conservatives apparently imagine that if you just got the "right kind" of politicians holding the leashes of the police that the police would turn into the heroic saviors the conservatives seem to want so badly for them to be. Nope. That will never happen. Good people don't seek a job that gives them that kind of power over others. Not politics or policing.

-

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.

Falsifying liberty

I believe liberty to be worthwhile, to say the least. I also believe it is objectively superior to any alternative. This means I should try to falsify this hypothesis to myself. If I can't think of ways which-- if they held up-- would prove my belief is based on a falsehood if it is, my belief is worthless.

How could liberty be falsified? If I could find one example where liberty-- freedom tempered with responsibility-- fails, that would do it. So far I keep coming up empty.

People have given me lots of examples where they imagine liberty fails: drugs, sex, "immigration", etc. (and even the post office!) In every case, they weren't thinking their position through very well or were trying to argue against liberty by artificially keeping The State a part of the scenario.

Sure, some people neglect their responsibility. This simply means humans are flawed and since they can't always be responsible for themselves they certainly shouldn't ever be put in charge of others.

Sometimes, people want to argue that because exercising your liberty in some essential ways is illegal, it can't work even if it weren't illegal. They imagine this rights-violation shows that liberty would fail even if the artificial barriers they refuse to reconsider weren't there. The "we can't get rid of government border controls because of democracy and welfare" people fall into this category.

That's just dumb. If you want to argue against freedom of movement, you've got to at least discuss it without the artificial constraints of keeping other Big Government programs propped up to make sure liberty fails the way you want it to fail. And if you can get rid of one facet of tyranny you can get rid of the others-- don't pretend otherwise.

Yes, I am biased. I am pro-liberty and I am against theft, aggression, and slavery. I think I am able to consider all claims, however, I don't need to wake up each day and decide anew whether I would be within my rights to go next door and start slaughtering people so I can take their stuff. You can ponder that question with each new day if you believe it's necessary, but I'm done with it. No one has the right to archate and nothing can change that fact.

If, in the course of pondering this question yet again, you come to a different conclusion for reasons no one has presented before, try to convince me you aren't just wallowing in statist superstition. Maybe you're on to something and have discovered a way to falsify liberty, but I wouldn't bet money on 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.

Holster aggravation peaks

This is a topic I don't discuss much... or ever. I've had enough of my current holster. Actually, I'd had enough of it years ago, but I can't design, find, or afford to try something that might be better. But I'm finally reaching the breaking point, to the point that I'm not sure it's worth the pain and aggravation of carrying anymore.

This is what I'm wanting to try:

The link is here: Urban Carry G3

You might be noticing the price and figuring out why I haven't bit the bullet and bought one. My current one is homemade-- as have been the last several. Nice and inexpensive. The commercial ones I've used in the past weren't even as tolerable as the current abomination.

If people would like to chip in toward this new holster, just make a note that this is what the donation is intended for. If not, I'll make do or do without.

-

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.

Thinking isn't their superpower

Government-supremacists aren't good at thinking. They imagine they are, but the evidence is clear that they aren't.

Here are some examples:

1-- Chicago has strict anti-gun rules and high crime rates. Does this mean "gun control" [sic] isn't effective, or that high crime rates cause political bullies to impose strict anti-gun rules in response? Which is the cause and which is the effect?

It doesn't matter. It is unethical to impose anti-gun rules no matter whether you believe it "works" or not. No studies needed. No one has the right to impose or enforce anti-defense/anti-tool legislation.

2-- Do police murder more "black" people or more "white" people? We must argue over who they murder more-- and why it might be so-- in order to prove a point.

No, we don't need to. It's not about "race"; it's about police and policing. Police are a criminal gang even if you are scared to live without them, and this fact matters more than who they are murdering, what causes them to murder, and at what rates the murders occur.

3-- Should schools be allowed to re-open in spite of the risk of Covid-19, or should they be kept closed for safety? What does the "science" say?

Wrong approach. Schools shouldn't be part of government, shouldn't be theft-funded, shouldn't be compulsory, and shouldn't be confused for educational facilities. If someone wants to fund a school, they can decide how to run it. Anyone who doesn't like how it is run doesn't have to chip in and doesn't have to subject their kids to that institution.

In each instance, the statists have erected blinders to keep the questions within parameters that limit the possibilities considered in a way which results in a false "answer". An "answer" that empowers them no matter which way it goes. This isn't so much thinking as plotting against society. Apparently, unethical plotting is easier than doing the hard work of rational thinking.

I could keep going with endless examples but you get the picture. Government-supremacists aren't good at thinking, but they imagine they are. That's a dangerous combination.

I think it's time we give their opinions all the consideration they deserve.

-

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.

Respecting liberty will still work

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 17, 2020)

The world's a bit crazy. Not as bad here as in other places, but we see the effects of those crazy paces even here. Pandemics, riots, gangs of trespassers setting up their own governments... what's next? A volcano spewing out zombies?

Whatever happens next, you can rest assured that respecting liberty will still work. It always does. It would even work against the volcano zombie invasion.

No matter how crazy the world gets, you don't have to be crazy with it.

Aren't you glad to know we had the cure for Covid-19 the whole time? Who knew all it would take to solve the pandemic were riots? Oh, sure, some has-beens are trying to keep the pandemic panic alive. Few people are still listening to them. Their fifteen minutes of fame was over before they were ready. Maybe they'll be happy if the virus comes back for round two this Fall.

Speaking of riots, don't confuse the riots with the peaceful protests. They aren't the same thing and didn't involve the same people. They only happened alongside the protests because parasites saw their chance to make trouble and latched onto an important issue. It seems to have ended when the protesters realized most of us were already on their side, but the rioters were driving away support.

Then the rioters became squatters taking over property they didn't own. Much of the national mainstream media misidentified them as "anarchists". Will they be calling horses "dolphins" next? It would be as inaccurate.

They aren't the only ones who think of socialistic nihilists as "anarchists". This is what they've been taught. Yet, anarchy only means you accept no human master. It doesn't mean chaos, theft, destruction, or aggression. Those who seek to misinform you never define things correctly when a scary lie works better for their purposes.

How can you know the squatters aren't anarchists? They set up a political government in the stolen territory-- this is not "anarchist" by definition. Anarchists wouldn't set up political institutions, nor do ethical anarchists steal property from others. I know this from personal experience.

What's a person to do?

Liberty, which is freedom tempered with responsibility, could solve all these problems to the extent they can be solved. Exercise your freedom to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't violate the equal and identical rights of any other person. There's no better way to live among others. Try it and I think you'll agree.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Freedom is subjective

If you live in a cage, eat only the slugs and rats you can catch, wrap yourself in newspapers the wind blows in (when the wind brings you newspaper), sit in your own waste, and totally rely on someone else to decide everything that happens to you, and this is exactly how you want to live, you are completely free.

It's not the life I would choose. I wouldn't be free in that situation. But freedom is doing what you want so whether you are free or not depends only on what you want.

Many people are free in a police state. They don't want liberty because the responsibility scares them, or they are too lazy to handle it. This is why they crow and celebrate "freedom" while smarter people look at them in stunned silence, wondering what they've been smoking. But, by their measure, they are free.

So they keep v*ting. They keep supporting cops. They don't mind "taxation" and legislation-- at least in concept. They are OK with anti-gun legislation and policies. They don't think about the licenses and permits they are told they must rent. They don't care about their privacy because they've been convinced that as long as they have nothing to hide privacy doesn't matter. All those liberty violations are fine with them-- they are living the way they want to, so they are free. And they will do whatever it takes to prevent changes they don't want.

Maybe you can convince them to be unhappy in their chains, but maybe you can't. You may need to leave them behind; leave them fighting for their chains and against those who can't live their way. Your destiny may not involve 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.

Masks and oxygen

With all the hysteria over face-masks; those who say masks are starving people of oxygen and those claiming masks can't impede oxygen flow-- and the anger boiling up from both sides-- I decided to do my own experiments.

The argument from the pro-mask cultists is that there is no way the fabric weave of a mask can block the exchange of oxygen or carbon dioxide molecules. They are much too small compared to the weave to be hindered. Which may be true... but I don't believe the flow in and out is instantaneous. This delay does have an effect, which I can feel. The hot, exhaled air lingers long enough to be re-inhaled. Is this a problem?

I bought an oximeter (an over-the-counter unit) right after I was exposed to The Corona. I know wearing a mask causes me to do the face-mask gasp every so often, but is it just due to the heat or due to a lack of oxygen.

I thought I should test this for myself (and for you). So, I did.

Without a face mask, my %SpO2-- oxygen saturation percentage-- runs between 95 and 96 rather regularly. After a few minutes of wearing a mask (an actual face mask and a silk bandana were used separately with the same result), that drops to 93-94. Not a huge difference, but a difference. After a couple of minutes of this I do the face-mask gasp and bring my oxygen back up to maskless levels, but it won't stay there.

Is this really due to the mask? I don't know. Here are some alternative hypotheses...

Maybe I breathe differently while wearing a mask; shallower or less frequent breaths.
Maybe I am too self-conscious of my breathing while wearing a mask.
Maybe the effect is due to the heat build-up.
Maybe this was a fluke and a coincidence that my %SpO2 fell a little just at the time I was wearing the masks.
Maybe my bias skewed the results.
Maybe it was magic, elves, or faeries.
Maybe there's more than one cause.

It seems to me, the claim that masks can't reduce your oxygen levels has been falsified. It's not a big difference, and maybe not enough of a difference to even notice or cause harm. But there was a difference. I now believe all of those saying it can't happen are either lying or are mistaken.

Don't trust me; do your own tests. Listen to your own body.

-

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 have masks been politicized?"

How amused are you over the karens whining about masks and the coronavirus having become politicized? How clueless can someone be?

They politicized it by getting government involved-- forbidding and mandating things-- and then when things don't go exactly their way on every tiny issue they get upset about it being politicized. Looking to shift the blame elsewhere.

It's as though they don't understand what they are talking about.

-

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.

Opinions and "opinions"

On Twitter and elsewhere, I see people who express opinions I disagree with. Sometimes opinions I disagree with very strongly. But opinions based on credible information which they interpret in a way I believe is wrong.

I see other people expressing opinions I'm certain are based on fake news, lies, emotionalism, and delusions.

Guess which people I take more seriously.

-

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.

Balanced imagination

There are people who have no imagination. They can't imagine anything but what is right in front of them right now.

Then there are those with overactive imaginations. They imagine-- or fall for-- everything, regardless of whether it's possible or realistic.

And many people exhibit both conditions simultaneously, but it depends on what you're talking about at the moment.

Statists can't imagine any way beyond how it's done now. Or how they mistakenly believe it is done now. "Who will build the roads?" is just one example of this trait.

Statists also have overactive imaginations-- they imagine that government actually builds those roads for example.
They imagine just about anything is permissible if it is "legal".
They imagine "taxation" can be ethical.
They imagine that warlords are lurking under every bush, and they imagine the government they support is somehow different than these imagined warlords in an important way.

As with all things, there's a proper balance. You need to have enough imagination to see beyond what is to what could be. Otherwise, you'll stagnate and die.

But your "could be" needs to be based on what's possible. I know some statists will argue that it's "not possible" to get rid of institutional archation... but that's just a lie. Of course it's possible, but you've got to exercise your imagination to find ways which could work without doing wrong to anyone's liberty, then test them. A lack of balanced imagination could make you give up or seek unicorns.

-

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.