Time to right marijuana wrongs

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 28, 2021)

Once the marijuana rules have changed, everyone with marijuana charges on their record should get a clean slate. At least where marijuana is concerned. Then they need to be paid the restitution they are owed by those who harmed them.

People arrested or fined for a crime which is no longer a crime deserve a break. Those who were jailed over marijuana were wronged. Those who were fined need to be repaid the money which was taken under phony pretexts. All for a "crime" which, finally, after nearly one hundred years of false claims and shoddy justifications, is recognized as not actually wrong.

Would you still consider runaway slaves criminals, with a record, after slavery was abolished? False claims and shoddy justification were used to excuse that evil institution, too.

What you ingest has never been government's business. Pretending it is doesn't make it so. Punishing people for ignoring the arbitrary wishes of politicians is wrong. Those who do wrong-- even if someone else has told them to do it-- owe restitution to their victims. "I was only following orders" has never excused such behavior.

Something can't be wrong one day and not wrong the next, or OK one day and illegal the next; based only on the opinions of smug politicians. Situations like this are why I have no respect for legislation. This exposes the absurdity of the whole system.

It seems silly to keep punishing people for past marijuana offenses, which is what is happening if those offenses stay on their record.

Even if the arrested individuals did something which will still be technically illegal under the new rules, it's long past time to let prohibition go. It's no more sensible than the witch trials of the 1690s or the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. Everyone who once "waged war on weed" looks as bad as those who came before them, and in the future may even look worse.

If you're going to insist on having police and government courts they need to focus only on those acts where someone's life, liberty, or property has been harmed. Beyond this is where any legitimacy ends. It's not a fuzzy gray area; it ends hard at that line. If they violate anyone's life, liberty, or property in the course of doing their jobs, they've become what they claim to be fighting. Prohibition is one example of them having done exactly this.

It's time to make it right.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The consistency of liberty

Liberty is completely consistent. But those who decide to reject it won't see the consistency because they don't understand what they are seeing.

Years ago a good friend of mine made the argument that gravity isn't consistent. She said gravity works on Earth but not in space. She also claimed that airplanes are defying gravity when they fly. She thought this showed that gravity doesn't always work.

She was no dummy-- very smart and in her mid-80s.

I tried to explain that gravity is consistent everywhere (even though its strength varies from place to place in the Universe due to the uneven distribution of matter), but due to different conditions, it looks different in space than it does on Earth. 

I tried to explain that "zero gravity" in orbit is just the result of falling around the planet. A "downward" falling path that misses the ground and keeps going around. Orbiting wouldn't be possible without gravity. (Deep space would be a different situation.)

I tried to explain that without gravity, airplanes couldn't fly the way they do. Gravity holds the air to the planet so they can use it for lift and thrust.

She wouldn't have any of it. To her, it looked different under those different conditions and she didn't understand the physics behind it, so that was the end of it. Gravity was inconsistent and unreliable, in her view.

Those who don't (or won't) understand liberty are much the same. They see different situations, and imagine that it looks like liberty is different in those situations-- that it doesn't work in every circumstance. But that's only because they don't understand what they are looking at.

Is it possible to explain it to them? Maybe not, but it works the same regardless of whether they accept and understand it or not.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Government doesn't unify people, it divides them

I wonder why so many people seem to be under the impression that political government unifies people. The opposite seems to be the case, and it seems obvious to me.

When I see people suggesting a global government, the excuse they often use is that it would "unite humanity". Well, it would give us a common enemy, but I don't think that's the idea they are pushing.

Political government divides. Whether it is two opposing governments dividing the people living under each, or one government dividing the people it seeks to rule. In the second case it makes me feel at odds with others who want to use that government to violate me in various ways. If I were political, it would make me believe I need to use that government against them in defense.

I can govern myself just fine. I don't feel the need to govern you. If this is a problem which needs to be solved by imposing the same political government on us both, I guess I'm on the wrong side.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Anarchist government?

In one of my recent "Blips" I wrote:

Is anarchy "a system"?
It comes down to what someone means by "system".
If "system" means a general way to do things, sure.
But if they mean an institution with someone "in charge" who imposes their will, no.
Same word, used in different ways, depending on the motives of the user.

It's the same way the word "authority" is used to mean two different concepts: a political bully or an expert.

A government-supremacist was whining that anarchy isn't a system of government-- and that's apparently all he cares about. That's the objection he kept harping on. It's why he kept claiming that others were describing anarchy as though it were a system while at the same time indicating that it wasn't a system of government. It was a distinction he couldn't grasp for some reason.

So, yes, anarchy can be used as a system. It can show you a path to successful consensual interaction with others.

No, anarchy isn't a system of government, but there is one system of government which is consistent with anarchy: You govern yourself and no one else. It's the only legitimate form of government, being removed from politics.

Anarchy, as a system, means as long as I follow it I am not going to try to rule anyone, nor will I accept anyone's attempt to rule me. It means I alone am responsible for my actions. It means I will respect the life, liberty, and property of others.

But there is no room in there for me to claim anarchy while trying to govern you. This use is outside of the "system" of anarchy. Completely. It's as far from anarchy as slavery is from liberty.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I'm not a fan of face masks as a way to fight viral disease, but if a business requires them, it's not usually a line in the sand for me.
I'm not a fan of Covid-19 vaccines or experimental gene therapies, but if a private business or a corporation (which is government) says "no unvaccinated person may enter", I'll shun them and take my business elsewhere. Yes, I think they are being foolish, but I have no control (with a mask or otherwise) over whether a virus will be released from my body if it were to be present in me, so it is their business, even if their fear is silly and hysterical.

Like a cool drink of water in the hot desert

Yesterday someone wrote and told me a little story of a recent experience of theirs that my writing may have-- in a general way-- played a small part in. You don't even know how happy this sort of thing makes me. Even if I'm vastly overestimating the part my writing played in what happened, it is a great feeling.

I've gotten similar notes from people several times over the years and it never gets old.

If anything I write gives you ideas for standing up for liberty, I'm more successful than I ever dreamed I could be-- whether I'm financially successful or not. Honestly, if I had to choose between monetary success and inspiring others, I'd choose inspiring others nearly every time. (Only having second thoughts about this choice when I'm in a bad financial situation.) Which is why I am where I am.

I get the same kind of rush when people write to gush over my Time's Up flag design-- or even buy one or more. It's a validation that I never really expected.

But I am grateful and I thank all of you.

I'll keep on keeping on as long as I feel I am contributing something. Hopefully, it's not an empty feeling.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I don't care what the CDC says even when they say something I like. They lost all credibility with me decades ago and they aren't going to get it back.

No matter what else happens in my life, no one can take away that I "celebrated" the roll-over from the year 1999 to 2000 sitting at a campfire in the snow, down by the river, in my buckskins, firing off a blank shot from my Hawken at midnight-ish (judging by the other celebratory noise drifting up from town). I wish I had more ideas as good as that one. It felt like pure liberty.

Is anarchy "a system"?
It comes down to what someone means by "system".
If "system" means a general way to do things, sure.
But if they mean an institution with someone "in charge" who imposes their will, no.
Same word, used in different ways, depending on the motives of the user.

Antisocial diseases

It is so puzzling to see people praising politicians. No matter how bad they are, they all have a big cheering section that won't stop. And won't stop v*ting for them.

People fall all over themselves to praise Bidump (either incarnation) in ways that make absolutely no sense to me. They ignore his flaws, or downplay them, and praise his political actions. Political actions... crimes. And they praise them.

What?

It's as bewildering as the people who can't let go of politicians after they are out of office-- they hate them and are still so obsessed with them that they can't get on with their lives just because that presidency happened. Someone has to pay!

Imagine if people were still looking for ways to punish Obama supporters. (If they are, I haven't seen it.)

Some people care way too much about the politicians who infest civilization. Politicians are a disease. Treat them as such. Cure the sickness and move on.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Twitter feed: "Scientists and public health experts say that vaccines are safe for most people"

Me: Yeah... and so is COVID-19

I had a strange TSHTF dream last night-- or a dream about the beginning of TSHTF-- and it wasn't even a little scary or unsettling. I was just approaching it like "Well, this is what I need to be doing next..." It was very interesting and detailed. I would have liked seeing how it turned out.

Good outlaws are good people

Whenever I see any mention of new legislation that is being plotted, my only thought is that whatever they do, I'm done complying. And I have this thought a lot these days.

Sure, if the legislation respects liberty a trifle more, that's good. But if it doesn't, which is generally the case... well, I'm OK with being an outlaw. Aren't you?

The origin of the word "outlaw" is said to have meant the person so labeled was declared to be "outside the protection of the law". I'm assuming they meant "legislation" (or those who enforce it) rather than "law", since no human can decide another is beyond the law.

How long has it been since you felt legislation protected you in any way? I can't remember the last time I felt that was the case, if ever. I may have always felt I was "outside the protection of the law" and it doesn't bother me even a little.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

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