Government owes business an apology

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 21, 2021)

After this past year, government owes business an apology.

Not just empty words, but a meaningful apology. An immediate suspension of all taxation on any economic activity whatsoever and a suspension of all business regulations would be a good start.

If you imagine I just said businesses should be free to poison or maim customers, you're hallucinating. I never said any such thing. If you harm someone (including harming them with government actions)-- on purpose or accidentally-- you owe them restitution. Responsibility doesn't hinge on government regulations but on the market. In fact, government is more likely to pretend such a reckless business only needs to pay a fine to set things right rather than make things right with the individuals who were harmed.

What about the taxes? Only someone completely ignorant of business economics could imagine businesses ever pay any taxes. They don't. They can't. Just like every other business expense, all business taxes must be passed along to the customer-- which is you and me, in case you aren't clear. I can't afford to have the businesses I patronize keep paying for government I neither want nor need. Can you?

This hands-off policy should continue as long as government insists there's a pandemic and won't allow life to get back to normal because of it. At a minimum. Better yet, it should be permanent.

I'm calling for a separation of economy and state.

Anyone should be able to start any business they want without asking government permission. No licenses or permits, no fees, no bribes, no zoning, no taxes, no handouts. If people don't want the business to survive they won't spend their money there and without any government handouts to keep them going, this would be the end of it.

I'm not claiming this would solve everything.

It may be too little, too late for some business owners. Their livelihood was destroyed by government's Covid-19 overreach and their spirit has been crushed. Along with their finances. This would still be the best chance of making things right with them. Maybe it would give some of them a way to start over.

I would love to see every empty storefront filled. Can you even imagine the improvement to your quality of life this would bring? It could be done, but government has to stop preventing it.

Government owes us this much at least. It would be better than a measly stimulus check.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

"Conservatives" ("right-statists") who imagine they are substantively different from left-statists are deluding themselves. Are you letting them fool you, too? Statism-- all statism-- is toxic and unethical. It doesn't matter much how it is imposed. It will only get worse over time.

Storm's a-comin'

As I write this post I am under a severe thunderstorm warning. If I step outside I can see dark, ominous clouds towering in the southwest.

There are reports of hail and high winds hitting the closest town in that direction.

I've put buckets over the tender garden plants (that also got pelted with pea-sized+ hail yesterday). I brought in all the plants on the back deck. I've moved the food for the stray cats under the front porch overhang and made sure the vehicles are under the carport the best I can manage. 

The clouds are now close enough I no longer see the tops. The sky is getting darker. I hear the thunder.

It may, as these things often do, somehow miss me. There's a mysterious weather-blocking force around this small area-- storms usually split and go on either side while missing us completely. But I am not going to depend on that happening.

In the same way, I see dark storm clouds of authoritarianism on the horizon. I'm preparing however I can, with the knowledge that it may a false alarm. I'd rather be ready for a storm that fizzles than be caught off-guard just because I believe it won't happen here.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

When people fight and die for liberty, who do you think they fight? It isn't muggers, deer, or rapists-- that's for sure.

Government rules can never remove or alter the human responsibility to own and to carry weapons.

Political government is never really held accountable because it has fooled people into believing only it is allowed to hold itself accountable. There's no situation in which that can work. If you or I try to hold government or its employees accountable we would be called "terrorists" or "assassins". This is why a free society, unmolested by political government, would be superior. If anyone acted like government acts today, you and I could hold them accountable and no one (other than the guilty) would bat an eye.

Rulers need to get out of our faces

How nice of the rulers to finally allow at least the fully vaccinated people to go maskless.

I'm going to continue to do so regardless of their wishes. As I have been doing all along.

Yes, I usually wear a mask (unless I forget) inside businesses which request/require it, since viruses (if I were infected) wouldn't stay inside my body, but would leak out onto other people's property, therefore being someone else's business. Not that I believe a mask would make that much difference, but if someone is that scared of it... whatever. If I know I'm sick, I'll probably stay home and not rely on a mask, anyway. It has never been important enough for me to make it my line in the sand.

But I have never worn one outdoors, or on my own property, nor inside my car. I certainly didn't wait for permission that still hasn't come for those like me who aren't vaccinated.

Do I think it is smart to require a mask? Nope. Do I think masks work? Don't know and don't care. It's the wrong question. The right question is "Who has the right to force anyone to wear a mask?" and the correct answer to that is "Not politicians!"

Do I like wearing a mask? Well, maybe a little-- sometimes. I confess I like the whole outlaw vibe I feel behind a mask or a bandana-- not enough to wear one when it isn't required by a business, but if they want to help thwart facial recognition software, I'm OK with that.

Any politician who imagines I am waiting for their permission to do anything is going to be very disappointed, because I'm not. Not on the issue of masks or anything else. 

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Once someone is trapped into seeing everything through a statist/government-supremacist lens, it's difficult-- if not impossible-- for them to free their mind to see it in any other way. I'm sure you've encountered these brain-damaged individuals. Instead of anger or frustration, feel pity.

I guess if you surrender your kids to kinderprison-- government indoctrination centers or "public" [sic] schools-- you shouldn't be too surprised when they are taught false things like statism and Critical Race Conspiracy Theory.

Do masks work? That's the wrong question, but...
Do bandaids work against mosquito bites? Sure. A mosquito is unable to bite you where the bandaid is.
Does this mean you should wear a bandaid to reduce your risk of mosquito bites and mosquito-borne disease? Or dozens of bandaids? Biden and Fauci would apparently say Yes.

New candidate for Statist of the Year

It's almost as though statists have a force field that prevents information from getting through.

On Twitter, a statist was arguing against anarchy. One topic he kept obsessively "circling back" to was that without the state, children would have no one to protect them.

Person after person chimed in to say they, personally, would step in to protect a child who was being victimized--even under the current "system" where doing so brings the risk of "legal" punishment. Even asking this guy whether he would just sit by and let children be victimized without stepping in (which he kept ignoring).

And yet, every other tweet this same guy would come back with "So you're admitting there would be no protection for children". Literally the opposite of what was being said repeatedly.

Is he just stupid or can he not read words that refute his twisted worldview? Your guess is as good as mine. 

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The ATF (BATFEces) are some of the most disgustingly horrible and crooked government goons ever created. Anywhere on the planet at any time in history. Truly reprehensible vermin. I used to have a friend who had an uncle or something who worked for them, and I told her as much (No, this didn't end our friendship, I moved away). Joining that gang is more unforgivable than becoming a Blue Line Gangster (which is unforgivable enough).

 A couple of months ago I saw news items about how much energy Bitcoin mining took, and how much heat it produced. 

I thought to myself "Someone is trying to destroy Bitcoin". Now it looks like I was right.

Regardless, I've done what I wanted with Bitcoin, so whatever happens, happens. I'm happy.

How not to get a broken finger

Last week I was at the outdoor (but semi-enclosed) garden center of a chain hardware store on the New Mexico side of my territory. I wasn't masked, and wasn't even thinking about it. By now, even the silly Branch Covidians have largely admitted that masks are pointless outdoors. Still, there were masks on some faces.

Then, as I stood in the checkout line, an older guy walking past, wearing a mask, poked his finger at me and asked my daughter where my mask was. He seemed to be good-natured about it-- he winked as he said it-- but I'm not thrilled about being approached that way, or poked at (he didn't touch me).

I said "We're outdoors" and he gave a bit of a nod and went on his way.

I'm not sure what reaction he was looking for. Did he expect me to apologize and mask up? Or was he pointing out that I'm a free thinker who doesn't follow the crowd? I couldn't even tell for sure whether he was disapproving or approving.

As in every encounter of this sort, I have to wonder if he recognized me from my newspaper column picture. It happens a lot, but he made no reference to it.

Whatever his intention, I don't recommend following his example with random people in public. Other people might not be as calm as I am. If you don't want your finger broken, don't go poking it at random strangers. This is how you get your finger broken.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Tools don't have rights

When speaking of gun-owners' rights, sometimes the phrase "gun rights" is used. But guns don't have rights; people do.

This is important because of another thing that is often said. People frequently discuss whether or not government has a right to do this or that. No, it doesn't. Ever.

Government has no rights. Government can't have rights, and nothing can make it possible for governments to have rights. 

Rights are a feature of individual humans; not of tools. Nor of a collective. 

Political governments are tools created by humans-- built of a collective of humans-- for a purpose. Chairs are tools created by humans-- built of various materials-- for a purpose. Chairs aren't usually imagined to have rights, but somehow governments are. 

Governments can no more have rights than chairs can have rights. And no one can have the right to use a tool they possess-- a gun, a government, or a chair-- to violate the life, liberty, or property of another.

Each individual comprising government has rights equal and identical to the rights had by every other individual human-- no more, no less. New rights aren't created by grouping lots of people together. Just like no rights are created by making a tool. You still have the right to use the tool you made or traded for-- in non-political ways-- but the tool itself has no rights at all. Whether it is a gun, a chair, or a government. So, "does government have a right to...?" No, it doesn't. It can't.

A slightly better question would be "Do I have a right to use government to...?" Substitute "a gun" for "government" and ask again and you'll probably have your answer.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Problem handled-- without gangs

An acquaintance recently had a problem with an eBay package. 

It was one of those UPS shipments that gets handed over to the USPS for final delivery. 

The UPS tracking number didn't show any problems during shipment, but when it was handed over to the post office in the Big City, someone put the new USPS tracking number on the package along with someone else's name and PO box number. (Does UPS make the new label or does the USPS? Seeing as how the label has the new USPS tracking number, I doubt UPS prints those-- but I don't know.) She knew nothing of any of this and kept watching for the delivery.

Saturday, the tracking said the package had been delivered the day before, but my acquaintance hadn't gotten it.

The post office here is closed on Saturdays, but she went and knocked on the door and they answered. She asked for her package but was told there was no package. Checking the tracking number showed it had been picked up by someone with a completely different box number. They said they'd look into it on Monday, but maybe that person would realize the mistake and return the package.

Not being content to let things sit for two days on a package worth over $100, she used the box number given by the post office and an internet search gave her a name and address. A further Facebook search showed the person had one mutual friend, Contact was made. (A lesson about the privacy-killing internet.)

The person with the package said yes, she had picked up a package, but her name was on it, so it was hers. She denied it contained what my acquaintance had ordered, but cautiously avoided saying anything incriminating about it. She even supplied a photo of the label with the tracking number; her name and box number included.  She ended by saying "Good luck finding your package".

Monday the post office said the package was in the other person's name, so that was the end of it.

My acquaintance notified eBay that she hadn't received the package, but they quickly denied the claim, saying the tracking number showed it had been delivered.

This is where I came in. She wanted to turn matters over to the police-- I said that since the other person's name and box number were on the package, that would probably be pointless (and I always try to discourage involving the Blue Line Gang anyway). So she gave me a chance to handle it and I wrote her appeal for her. 

I looked over every document and message back and forth. I gave eBay every bit of information available, including the name and address of the person who had picked up the package, saying that they were unknown to the purchaser and refused to return the package, saying that since her name was on it, it was hers. I offered to send photographic evidence if they'd tell me where to send it.

This made eBay relent and refund her money. I count this as a double win. My acquaintance got her money back and I found out where a person I probably shouldn't trust lives. I just hope the eBay seller didn't get charged unless the mistake was somehow theirs.

Is this how things might work in a free society where calling the cops isn't an option? Seems like it could be.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Gun control [sic] based on lies

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 14, 2021)

If you have a better idea, share it and convince people it's a good idea. If you can't convince them with the truth, that should be the end of it.

If you can't let it go, and decide to force everyone to go along with you, you'll use politics to make them do something you couldn't talk them into doing. In other words, you'll cheat.

There are different ways this can be done. You can let Congress make up new legislation, but this is hard and takes a long time. These days a president will often just declare "It is so" and skip all the constitutional safeguards, which-- truthfully-- don't often protect your rights from government anyway.

Presidents like this method because it gives them the power to impose their will unilaterally. There used to be a word for political rulers who did this, but it seems to have been removed from public conversation since January.

Executive orders, and their pale cousins-- executive actions-- are how recent presidents have managed to violate the natural human right to own and to carry weapons without bothering to go through the (still crooked and unconstitutional) legislative steps.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (which should be the name of a convenience store, not a government office) uses a similar trick.

The Second Amendment makes it a crime for government to make up any rules about weapons. Since courts are controlled by government, they usually allow this crime to go unchecked. It doesn't excuse the criminal act of "gun control" when courts allow it to happen.

Congress, the president, bureaucrats, judges, and all other political people are forbidden to violate any of our natural human rights. They do it anyway, and they get away with it almost every time. They cheat and lie until they get what they want, and most of the public is OK with it. People get scared and don't understand the issue because of the lies told by the national media corporations and politicians.

All "gun control" is based on lies. It doesn't make anyone safer. It isn't the government's job to tell you what you are allowed to own or how and where you can carry it. There is no authority for government to require background checks or permits or licenses. Those who do it anyway are cheating. They are cheating you out of your rightful liberty. Why put up with it?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Calling things what they aren't-- "Constitutional carry"

Texas politicians are debating "Constitutional Carry". Except, that's not really what they're debating.

Constitutional Carry would involve removing every single legislative impediment to, and unequivocally recognizing and supporting the exercise of, the fundamental natural human right to carry weapons, in line with what the Second Amendment of the US Constitution requires of them. 

That's not what they are proposing.

Instead of finally "getting right with the law" and ending a century and a half of criminal behavior, they are simply removing some of the counterfeit roadblocks. They'll be violating the law slightly less than before, but still violating it in huge ways.

If there are any exceptions or restrictions, they aren't doing what the US Constitution requires of them. It's better than before, but it most certainly isn't Constitutional.

You could argue that while it isn't in line with the US Constitution, it instead follows the rights violations "allowed" under the Texas Constitution. The Texas Constitution says: 

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

So, the state allows itself to violate natural human rights illegitimately, and this is what this "Constitutional Carry" legislation does. This is no different than the state saying slavery is legal-- it's as unethical as anything can be.

As I said, it's probably better than before, and I hope it passes. But it's still a big old statist rights violation. Just criminals continuing to be criminals, but being slightly "nicer" about it than before.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Be considerate-- Prep

Do you want to be considerate of others? Then you need to be a prepper.

Prepping is most considerate. 

In the early days of the panic-demic, do you know who wasn't out there competing for the rare roll of toilet paper? Preppers. 

Who wasn't fighting with karens in the grocery store aisles for a can of corn or a bag of dried beans? Preppers.

Prep now so you won't be a burden on society-- on your friends and neighbors-- later. Prep so you leave more goods on the shelf for others. Prep so you aren't adding extra demand and pushing prices higher than they'd otherwise go.  Prep so you can watch the collapse in relative comfort.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

You have to pick one or the other

I saw a quote by a right-statist who said "conservatives" want "secure borders and small government". That's so cute, it's hilarious. You can have one or the other, but not both at the same time on the same tax farm.

It's like those left statists who want to get rid of guns with anti-gun legislation and want government-- the same government they admit is a gang of thugs (depending on who they believe is "in charge")-- to enforce "gun control" [sic]... with guns and violence. And they hallucinate that this will save lives! The idiocy is astounding!

Politics makes people stupid and makes them agitate for things that are contradictory; for things that can not coexist.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

How much risk is too much?

The amount of risk I'm willing to take depends on how bad the alternative is. And it's completely subjective.

If the danger (or pain) is great enough, I'm willing to do extreme things-- even really risky things-- to alleviate it. It's pure desperation.

If a fireball is chasing me down a hallway I might be willing to jump through a window, not knowing what's on the other side.

Similarly, I would be willing to try experimental mRNA treatment for something like cancer, but not for an over-hyped cold. The risk/reward in the Covid-19 situation is completely upside-down in my subjective opinion.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Skewed, self-selected data

Back in February, I had a routine annual medical check-up. During the course of the questioning, I was asked if I was interested in getting the Covid-19 vaccine. I said I wasn't. 

The doctor asked, "Do you mind telling me why?" My answer was that I just wasn't worried about Covid-- everyone around me has already had it and it wasn't that bad for any of them. 

His response: "Well, my experience has been different. I've seen lots of bad outcomes."

I'm sure he has. Think about it. 

Who is going to come to the hospital emergency room? Those who aren't having problems, or those who are? Which group of people is more likely to have a bad outcome? His data is self-selecting. It's going to give him a skewed view of reality. 

I know someone else who worked in a nursing home during the first several months of the panic-demic, She also is convinced this virus is a really big deal-- and in her limited sphere, it probably was. But that's not representative of the world at large.

Of course, neither is my experience. But it is still my excuse for not being interested in a vaccine experimental gene therapy that won't prevent the disease it is being advertised for fighting, won't prevent those infected from transmitting the virus, and won't confer herd immunity (according to its advocates)-- so getting it won't eliminate antisocial social distancing or masks. Remind me again... what is the point of a vaccination that won't do any of the things normal vaccines are expected to do?

Other people have other reasons, both for getting the vaccine and for refusing to do so. I'm fine with that. I'm not anti-vaccine, but I am anti-mandatory vaccine.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

What are your chances?

I don't have any statistics to prove it, but I'd bet most people have a greater chance of being killed by cops than by freelance thugs-- as long as you do your best to avoid sketchy people, places, or activities.

What do you think?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

NM fumbled on legal marijuana

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 7, 2021)

Leave it to government to fumble a chance to do the right thing.

New Mexico has finally decided to legalize Cannabis. This could have been a win for liberty, but they did it wrong. Instead of letting the market handle it, as they should have, they wanted to get their fingers in as deep as possible.

It's good when a government backs off on violating natural human rights, but the state never had the right to criminalize or control Cannabis to begin with. Neither did the federal government, since no constitutional amendment was ever ratified to give them this power.

Cannabis should only be as controlled as parsley; neither should be controlled at all. Plants-- and who grows, sells, possesses, or consumes them-- are not government's business. Quality issues and fraud are the business of the market, and that's where this should be handled.

This change is driven by a hunger for more money rather than any new respect for human rights. Greedy governments get excited over any new source of money. Taxing Cannabis, or anything else, is wrong because taxation is always theft. I don't want Cannabis taxes to help pay for more government-- we already have far more government than any civilized society would put up with.

Like other states which legalized marijuana, New Mexico's government is sneaky. They legalized the plant while setting so many traps with new rules that the chances of committing a crime under the new system will increase. Marijuana will be "legal"-- if you dot all the "i"s, cross all the "t"s, jump through every arbitrary hoop, and hold your mouth just right while hopping on one foot.

In other states where similar plans have been put in place, people have noticed it was less legally risky to use Cannabis before it was legalized, regulated, and taxed.

On the prohibitionist side, there's the fear of more impaired drivers on the road. A reasonable fear, but unnecessary.

If you harm someone's person or property in an accident it doesn't matter if it was because you were drunk or stoned, sleepy, texting, or speeding to the scene of an accident. The responsibility is still completely yours. No regulation is needed to make you extra responsible.

I wish, instead of finding new ways to have more control, government could keep its hands off our lives for a change. This was a chance to lead the way, and it was squandered on politics.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The evil stupidity of government "authority"

Politics makes people stupid. Government "jobs" that come with any "authority" will make them evil.

An early event that drove this home to me was when I was attending a mountainman rendezvous in the Rocky Mountains years ago. It had been a dry year, so the forest was under a burn ban. No fires for cooking, warmth, blacksmithing, or anything. 

Now, I understand the danger of fire in a tinder-dry forest. I understand that some people are irresponsible with fire (and everything else). I am not opposed to reminding people of dangers inherent in such situations, even though I don't support edicts and mandates.

But, a few days before the rendezvous began it started to rain. And rain and rain. Like it couldn't stop.

The Forest Circus goons invaded our camp, wading through standing water and mud in their uniforms, to remind us that the burn ban was still in effect.  Threatening "legal" action if anyone dared light a fire.

There was no way to start a forest fire under those conditions without a nuclear bomb. Only the best woodsman would have been able to make a campfire anyway. It was the first (and only) time I ever actually slept in standing water. Thank goodness for wool blankets!

A few days later the goons relented a little, allowing the blacksmith to light his forge for a certain number of hours per day, and allowing some cooking fires, but for me, it was too late. My wife-at-the-time demanded we leave.

A little bit of imaginary "authority" ruined rendezvous that year for me and for a lot of others; more than any amount of rain could have done. Political stupidity plus political "authority" equals government evil.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Statists' imaginary friend

For a lot of people, government is their imaginary friend. In more ways than one.

"The Government", as many people seem to think of it, is imaginary. It is not something above and beyond the sick people who populate its buildings and agencies. It is no more powerful than the gang of people who work for it. It is not wise. It is not helpful. It is not one monumental block.

Also, it's an imaginary friend because it is not your friend. If you act as though it is, you're going to be taken advantage of and you will be hurt. It doesn't care about you. It cares about its own power and position over you. The individuals who make up government are more concerned with keeping their paycheck coming than with doing the right thing. Keeping that paycheck coming means keeping government running, which means violating you in whatever way is necessary to that end. It means "nice" government employees will kill you to protect government.

Government is the imaginary friend it's most harmful to believe in. It's long past time to grow up and stop believing in it. You don't need it like you may have when you were immature.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Non-political politics?

Can there be any such thing as politics that is divorced from the political means? How would that work, if possible?

I get it that many people really like politics. Some feel the need to participate, rather than just observe. Some of these believe they are being self-defensively political. But is that really a thing? Isn't that like setting off a bomb in a crowded store and saying it was in self-defense?

I get protesting against some anti-liberty scheme. But is v*ting ever really a purely defensive protest?

How can you "be political" without violating the life, liberty, or property of anyone else in any way-- without archating?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

A debt you don't owe

What do humans owe each other? Lots of clashing claims get thrown around, but most of them are complete nonsense.

You don't automatically owe others housing, medical care, safety, or food. Not without a prior, mutually consensual, agreement.

Recently, I've seen more and more claims saying "we" also owe each other respect.

There is only one kind of respect you owe others, and it is very specific.

You are obligated-- you owe it-- to respect the natural, equal, and identical human rights of every individual. Not a generalized "respect". You can't owe something that hasn't been earned by a consensual agreement or by a debt your actions created.

You owe it to others to not violate their life, liberty, or property-- including by trying to prevent them from securing those things for themselves. Your primary responsibility is, always has been and always will be, to not archate-- this is how you show the respect you actually owe to others. You owe it to them to not stand in their way of providing housing, medical care, safety, food, or respect for themselves.

But respect for their opinions? Nope.
Respect based on the color of their skin, their sex, their sexual proclivities, their culture, or their political/religious beliefs? Nope, again.

You owe others respect for their human right to be who they are, as long as they don't seek to use government violence to impose themselves and their opinions on you. 

The quickest way to show yourself unworthy of even that level of respect is to try to force others to give you "respect"-- or else the State will use violence against them on your behalf.

Don't be guilted into taking on a debt that isn't yours. You owe what you owe, and not a bit more.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Just crazy enough it might work

Hey, here's a great idea! Let's form a gang! Only, we'll call it something nicer than a "gang". A "safetisnug", maybe. That sounds nice, right?

We'll claim we have recently discovered (through revelation) that we have the right to tell others how they are allowed to live, and the right to take a cut of their property so we can afford to keep telling them how they are allowed to live. And we have the right to beat up, rob, cage, or kill anyone who resists our help. But it's to keep them safe and snug from other dangers out there, so it's better than the alternative.

If anyone objects, we can say "Yoda said we have to do this or you'll live wrong because you are evil and stupid, and we aren't because He guides us with his infinite wisdom". 

Or, we can just write a document saying we are going to do this, claim that everyone says it's OK if we do, and point to it as proof that we have a right to do this. 

If anyone knows what rights are and points out that we can't have such a right, we'll just make up some magical quality with a new name-- I propose "powerness" -- that would lead to the same result. "You are obligated to comply with my document-sanctioned (and society-approved) requests or I have the powerness to rob, cage, or kill you!" See how that would work?

Yeah, it might be hard to talk people into going along with this crazy new idea. People aren't just going to roll over and give up their lives to a gang that says they have to.
Maybe that's why no one has thought of doing anything like this before.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Rebel, but make it responsible

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 31, 2021)

This past year has been hard on liberty.

It started with world-wide government overreaction to a pandemic. This was still going strong when some focus shifted to choosing a politician to run your life. 

Recently, as the pandemic hype began to fizzle in many places and after most of the post-election drama had faded, the push to further violate your natural human right to own and to carry weapons was triggered by the horrible crimes of a few evil losers. Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.

If it wasn't one thing it was another.

This has probably always been the case, but sometimes it feels worse. This has been one of those times.

Did the past year signal the end of liberty, or just put a few more nails in its coffin?  Is liberty under a greater threat these days or is it only a matter of perception? I hope it's the latter, even though I suspect it's the former. I plan to pry some of those coffin nails out before it's too late to salvage what we're losing. I hope you'll help.

The question is, how can this problem be fixed?

Most people don't think about liberty very often. It may even scare them if they do. They won't miss it until it's so far gone it will be hard to win back.

Liberty is responsibility and people don't like responsibility. Too many people want to believe someone else is protecting them and doing the thinking so they won't have to. I hope you're not among those who want to be treated like a child, needing 'round-the-clock supervision and care. But if so, government is happy to oblige.

It's easier to control a population of people who won't think for themselves and who feel dependent on you. Those who don't want to be shielded from the real world are a danger to those whose plans require mindless compliance.

Most people comply too quickly.

It's going to take commitment to win back the liberty which has been lost. Part of that commitment will involve standing against politicians and the legislation they impose.

Rebel, but rebel responsibly. Good people never intentionally harm another's life, liberty, or property as a way to show they can think and act for themselves. They rebel only as a way to responsibly exercise their rightful liberty. Do you have it in you to stand for liberty?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Don't follow the crowd unless you really think they're right

One thing that DemoCRAPublicans commonly do is to follow "their" crowd no matter how dumb the position is. In my experience, libertarians are less likely to do this. 

This is why you'll find libertarians disagreeing so strongly over certain issues.

Sometimes, there is a way to see something from multiple angles that seem incompatible with each other, and a good case to be made from multiple sides.

I have no doubt that consistent, smart libertarians can be on both sides (or perpendicular to those sides) of the abortion debate, because I've talked with them. 

Some think of "maximum liberty" as only achievable with a "night watchman" state; others think any state is necessarily less liberty than is optimal. 

Some think liberty relies on morality, some think it only requires individual ethics in those willing to live by them.

Other topics are much the same. 

Yes, sometimes someone is wrong and someone is right-- and you can't tell by which side has more popular support. Sometimes there's no way to know for sure which is which, and sometimes there is. As long as we don't sink to using (or threatening to use) government violence on each other over differing opinions, I think we'll work it out eventually. Or, keep arguing over it into the distant future. That still seems better to me than some elite declaring "The science is settled!" as if that makes it so and delegitimizes further discussion.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Sacrificing the innocent for "safety"

Why is it that the first reaction of government-supremacists when there's any real or potential danger is to violate natural human rights-- to violate liberty-- in the name of "safety" and saving lives?

Are they really this clueless and ignorant of history.

Yes. Yes, they are.

Violating liberty never saves lives in the long run. Not ever. It always ends up costing lives-- more lives than are lost by respecting liberty completely. Liberty is messy-- but violating liberty is evil.

To violate liberty for "safety", saying it is because you want to save lives, is one of the dumbest public positions you can take. This is what anti-gun bigots are doing with their calls for "gun control" and "common-sense gun reform" or whatever new anti-gun owner scheme they are pushing.

It's never going to increase safety-- except in the short term, for bad guys like thieves, politicians, rapists, kidnappers, and murderers. Why make them safer? Why sacrifice innocent people for the sake of the bad guys? Makes no sense to me. But, then, I'm not political.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Painful truth about police

"Police officer" isn't an occupation; it's a gang affiliation. 

They are automatically guilty just by joining such a gang, even before they use this gang membership as justification to violate life, liberty, or property-- which happens as soon as they get their first paycheck, if not before that when issued theft-funded equipment that the population fleeced to support them isn't "allowed" to own and carry and use in the way they are.

Yes, that's a very unpopular truth that those who imagine cops to be "necessary" or even the good guys don't want to hear. And they'll shriek about it, doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to counter it.

It's still the truth.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The Chauvin verdict

As you might have guessed since I didn't rush to post this, I was neither upset nor happy about the Chauvin guilty verdict. I don't really care one way or the other.

As I explained earlier, I'm completely hostile to both sides. I consider police to be the worst criminal gang there is and consider them guilty of evil behavior from the moment they take that "job", but I don't like to see the prosecution "win", either. This was just one evil creep vs. an evil "system"-- I wish there were a way both could lose hard.

I don't believe in imprisonment, or even punishment. I prefer justice, and that was never on the table. (It never is in government courts.)

Let the guy run free among people who know who he is and let him live with the consequences of his actions.

I see some copsuckers worrying that this accountability will cause people to reconsider becoming cops. If so, maybe there could be a positive from all this monkey-business.

PS: If it is being reported accurately, and if the situation was as it seems to have been (all big "ifs", as you know) the Columbus, Ohio shooting death of the girl-- who is on video attacking another girl with a knife when she was shot-- is an example of a justified shooting. No matter who pulled the trigger it was a good shooting. That shooting probably saved an innocent life or two. If you make the choice to archate, whatever happens due to that choice is on you. Trying to make it fit the "racist" narrative and make the attacker out to be a victim is just dumb. Do you think the girl who was being attacked believes it was a racist shooting?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The Canary in the coal mine

Why do I care so much about guns and the right to own and to carry them? 

Because I see it as liberty's canary in the coal mine. It's one of the first things evil control freaks want to control, and it's one of the easiest things to brainwash non-aware people into going along with... "for safety".

If gun ownership weren't singled out so often by evil people I wouldn't single it out either. I don't think it is inherently more important than any other natural human right, but other natural human rights aren't as often targeted for destruction. That makes gun rights special.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Advice to one faction of The Dark Side

I'm not on the side of any branch of the DemoCRAPublicans, but I'll send this warning to the Democrats: It's almost surreal watching you become what you claim (or imagine yourselves) to be fighting. 

In their zeal to rout all vestiges of Trump and his supporters, they are acting like Nazis. They are also working to rig the system so they'll never again lose power, and not even hiding it. 

It's interesting to watch them self-destruct. I've never seen any group doubling down on its own doom so hard-- and I've watched Republicans doing their best to do the same. 

I'm sure the Democrats believe they are winning since they seem to have all the power at the moment. They have control of almost all media, corporations, and universities. Even most of the most vocal public...for now. They'll lose it all if they don't wise up fast. 

Hopefully, they don't change course, and hopefully, the Republicans follow in their footsteps right over the cliff. 

The tighter you squeeze your fist, the more of us will slip through your fingers.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Never give anything to government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 24, 2021)

It is disappointing to read that the Bill Dalley windmill collection-- which had been entrusted to the Roosevelt County government-- is being split up. Let this be a lesson: if you want something protected and preserved for the future, don't give it to a government.

I spent some time exploring those windmills several years ago. I love the ingenuity shown by their various designs. I like seeing mechanical devices, especially if they still work and work well. I also appreciate the history they represent, and the years of love, expense, and effort which went into collecting and restoring them.

I wish they were still in the hands of someone who appreciated them as much as Bill Dalley obviously did.

You can't take it with you when you go, but if you want it preserved for posterity it would be better to hand it over to someone who values it as much as you once did. At least those windmills scheduled to be auctioned off may end up in good hands.

Never give anything to government. Government owns-- legitimately-- very little. Nearly everything government has was bought with money stolen by a taxing agency or counterfeited by the Federal Reserve-- if the property wasn't flat-out stolen from the rightful owner in the first place. This case is the exception since the collection was donated in good faith. The faith was misplaced.

I would rather see the windmills in private hands, even charging admission to see them, than under the control of some institution which didn't care enough to take care of them. I'll gladly pay a little to see things I'm interested in, while I don't want a single cent taxed from anyone else to fund things they might not appreciate as much as I do.

Anything voluntarily handed to government should come with strings attached. If it isn't properly taken care of or it is going to be discarded, ownership automatically reverts to the donor or their heirs, or someone else of their choosing-- unless they clearly say they don't want it back. Then it should be offered, without cost, to anyone who'll take it. Even if the new owner uses it for scrap, this is better than leaving it in government's hands.

Whether it is your windmill collection, your security, or your liberty, never entrust anything you value to government. They will never take care of it as well as you did.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

"He had a gun!"

Even supposedly gun-friendly Republicans have a large anti-gun blindspot. And it's where their idolatry comes into play: cops.

They'll frequently excuse a murder-by-cop by saying "Well, the guy had (or the cop imagined he had) a gun!"

That's no justification for murdering someone... unless cops would like all of us to adopt the same standard with regard to them. "I had to shoot the cop. I saw he had a gun and I feared for my life!" If it wouldn't work for you or me, it doesn't work for them.

If you're a cop and you believe that seeing a gun justifies shooting the person, you need to be locked in a padded room without access to any sharp objects. You are unfit to live among the rest of us.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Balanced and fair?

Believe it or not, I would have been about the best juror possible on the Derek Chauvin trial.

On one hand, I have zero respect for members of the Blue Line Gang. I want them held totally accountable for everything they do, and I am not deluded into imagining that a badge grants "extra rights".

On the other hand, I don't like the prosecution winning, ever. It always feels like a win for the state. My automatic bias is to declare "not guilty" in every case so as to not reward the state.

In other words, I would be completely hostile to both sides. That's about as balanced as anyone could be.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Keeping a cool head in a deadly situation

How many of you can keep your cool and stay perfectly rational in a sudden life and death emergency? Knowing the exact right thing to say and do?

Some people can, especially if they've been trained on what to do in such situations until it's automatic. But the vast majority of people can't. It's a shame, but that's just how it is. I've seen people fall apart under situations that I didn't even see as dangerous. Normal people who function perfectly well in everyday situations, unable to handle something slightly different and (to them) scary.

How scary is an unwanted encounter with an armed, aggressive gang member who you realize can kill you and most likely get away with it? Knowing that even if you survive, you're going to be poorer because he's allowed to rob you at gunpoint. Isn't that scary enough to make most people do unwise things?

If your criticism of people who get murdered by cops is that "They were acting stupid, or they wouldn't have been killed" I guess if a grizzly bear suddenly attacks you while you're minding your own business taking your trash out at night, you'll act the exact right way to defuse the situation so you can both survive.

If not, shut up. You're just being a stupid copsucker (but I repeat myself).

-

Here's a weird thing: you can buy a piece of me on BitClout.

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Comedy break

 

Breaking comedy news:

It started with a tweet and an unwise reply to that tweet by the guy exposed above.

I've written before how some people simply can't let go of Trump. Well, you're about to meet one of the faithful.

After he replied in a ridiculous way, I quote-tweeted his reply just because it was so incredibly dumb that it surprised me. I thought others should have the chance to enjoy it as much as I did.

It went on from there. I screen-shot all the replies because I thought he would eventually realize what he was doing to himself. Nope. Anyway, I redacted other participants, but if you follow the links above you can see the whole thing... until he deletes his embarrassing tweets, anyway. It takes a "special" kind of person to double down on their stupidity once it gets called out. 

So, as you can see, these people really do exist. They are just as deluded as you'd imagine. Just as immune to reality. I may update this later with new silliness he posts in reply, but only if it adds to the hilarity. Otherwise, follow the links.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Use the new rules to your advantage

I'm against all forms of government ID.
I'm against v*ting, democracy, and political government of any sort.

I don't believe there's anything legitimate about any election, no matter who v*tes, where, or how many times. The last thing I'd want to do is make it easier for the mob to gang up on my liberty. Don't encourage that kind of bad behavior.

But... I see how the pro-ID people could use this development. If there is no ID requirement to v*te, why not embrace it? Why not take advantage of that for your side? What's stopping you? A superstitious belief that it's legitimate if done by the "rules"? It's not. And if the rules change, in spite of your warnings, you might as well go along to your advantage.

It seems that the people who want v*ter ID to be required could just decide to overwhelm the "system" with their... enthusiastic agreement to the terms... until the other side changes their minds.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Seeing the police brutality problem wrong

Anyone who believes the police brutality problem is a sign of racism isn't seeing the root cause and therefore won't have an actual solution.

If it were racism, you wouldn't have black cops violating black victims, you wouldn't have white cops violating white victims, and you wouldn't have Latino cops violating Latino victims-- unless they were self-loathing. Cops would mostly target their abuse on people of whatever "race" they happen to hate. This doesn't seem to be what's happening.

Are some cops racist? Of course. Do all racist cops murder people? Nope. Is every murderous cop committing his act due to racism? Nope. I doubt many are.

So what is the underlying factor? The problem with cops is that they are cops. They imagine they have "authority", and they are cowards who see any hesitation in complying with their arbitrary demands as a threat to their "authority" and life.

How do you survive an encounter with a cop? The same way you survive an encounter with a rapist:
Be overly polite.
Don't make the cop or rapist afraid.
Comply immediately and completely-- if you feel you're being violated, grit your teeth and comply anyway so you survive the encounter and can take your attacker to court later. 

Scott Adams suggests that the way to survive an encounter with a cop is to recite this: "Officer, how can I keep you safe-- and me, too?" I'm betting that would work with rapists, too-- just substitute "Sir" for "Officer". This assumes your death isn't what either of them want-- not necessarily a safe bet, although the cop might be slightly less likely to want that, what with all the paperwork (if anyone is aware he is interacting with you).

The only real difference is that many people have been conditioned to believe one category of violator is somehow legitimate and the other isn't. Neither is more legitimate than the other. Neither is a good person, although either might be "nice" as long as he isn't currently violating you.

People who imagine cops are necessary (or good) will have a problem with everything I've written. I've lost close friends over this bitter pill of reality. Although, one did apologize years later after he'd had some encounters with police that didn't go the way he'd been brainwashed to expect, and which he could probably have avoided had he listened to me. His eyes were opened and he didn't like it, but he was big enough to admit it to me. Like it or not, it's still true.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Nothing is off the table

Let's say, one day while minding your own business, you see a cop jump a guy for not wearing a mask. Let's say the guy was struggling against his attacker and more cops showed up and joined in the beating.

Would it be ethically wrong to use whatever force was required to make the cops stop, possibly saving their victim's life in the process? What if deadly force was what it took-- whether intentional or just as a consequence of the violent circumstances?

Someone I was talking to earlier initially said it would be OK to struggle with the cops, but not OK to employ hidden snipers on standby to save such victims.

He said it has to be up-close force from bystanders. He also admitted that filming cops hasn't done much to stop their attacks.

When I pointed out that using any physical force against the cops would result in your probable death-- at least your arrest-- he changed his angle somewhat. He shifted to recommending that bystanders yell at the cops and tell them they don't like what they are doing. (Didn't that happen with the George Floyd event? What did it accomplish?)

He says what needs to happen is that people like me need to get the message out to the public about how bad cops are. He claimed that the "public" needs to be convinced that cops are not the good guys so they would shout them down in the event of any such attack-- shaming them into quitting the attack or even quitting their illegitimate "job".

I think that deserves a place in the arsenal of protecting society from roving police gangs, but that you can't rely on that as your only course of action.

I think that automatically dismissing any tactic is letting the bad guys know they can get away with whatever they want to do. If you say "You'd better stop molesting and killing people or I will call you names and yell at you, but don't worry-- I won't touch you", you're telling them they can do whatever they want.

If they were that worried about "public opinion" they wouldn't do what they do.

I'm in favor of avoiding violence-- even in self-defense when possible. But I also recognize that some aggressors aren't going to stop aggressing until met with sufficient force to stop them. It's not always going to work to talk a rapist out of raping someone-- sometimes you just have to end him. Unless you're OK with him continuing to violate people into the future.

Cops are a very large gang, with almost endless numbers of gang members and supporters. Yes, by all means, whittle away at their support-- undermine the argument that they are in any way good guys. But, also, be mentally prepared to defend yourself and others from their attacks-- in a way which allows you to protect yourself from their retribution whenever possible. I don't need more martyrs for my inspiration.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two