Liberty is among self-evident truths

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 9, 2021)

Many times over the years people have demanded proof that liberty is better than the alternative. Sometimes the detail being questioned changes-- maybe it's the concept of human rights or ethics they are objecting to-- but the argument is the same.

They don't accept the superiority of liberty over whatever they'd prefer, so they demand proof.

No matter what I say, with each response, they move the goal post. With each objection, I'll be asked to prove something different. At some point, I realize the person doesn't understand because they don't want to understand. No amount of effort on my part will make a difference. I'm wasting my time. There's some reason they want to keep believing it's OK to harm others who are not violating anyone's life, liberty, or property.

Occasionally I ask questions to see if I can figure out their reason; I never get a straight answer.

Asking someone to "prove" liberty is better than the alternative is like asking someone to "prove" it's better to not be boiled alive. If you're willing to claim it might be better to be tortured and murdered, what can I say?

Like it or not, there are some things which are objectively true. Only politics or other superstitions can make someone dispute this.

If it's not wrong to attack-- to violate-- peaceful people who aren't violating anyone in any way (or making a credible threat to do so) society is an impossibility. Maybe that's OK with you. There's no way to pretend it's only wrong when you want it to be wrong, but not in other cases where you'd like it to be right. Inconsistency brings down this house of cards.

There would be no such thing as theft. No such thing as self-defense. Slavery couldn't be wrong. Some people might like these ideas to be true. I've been told rights aren't real because they are only a human construct. Fine. If this is the case, there could be no right to govern others, so we are back where I began.

If you want to be enslaved, I respect your choice. Maybe it is better for you. I'm going to assume it isn't; that you'd prefer your liberty and self-ownership to be respected and defended. Then I'll act on this assumption until you explicitly tell me not to. I am sure liberty is always better even if you won't accept the proof.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

How 'bout them experts?

If you've spent any time on "social" media, you've probably seen proclamations from current or former soldiers (or Blue Line Gang enforcers) who use their gun expertise to tell the citizens what they need or don't need. They imagine their background gives them even more credibility than Joe "Fire a Shotgun Warning Blast Through the Door" Biden. 

It doesn't.

If you don't know what you're talking about, and form idiotic ideas based on your ignorance, it shows.

I have actually seen them make arguments similar to all those I sarcastically included in the image. And yet, they'd claim to be the experts. Experts you should listen to. Like a doctor who calls his superstitions "science".

Let them say their piece. I would never discourage these fake experts from exposing their ignorance to the world-- and being confronted by knowledgeable critics. I think it's a useful thing for them to do. It's just too bad some other people, who aren't knowledgable enough to see the obvious ignorance, get fooled. But, then they too will get ridiculed and "educated" for repeating the stupidity-- not that they'll believe the truth, since it isn't what they want to believe.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

A real piece of KRaP

The worthless loser (Kevin Ray Perry-- KRaP) who burglarized and set fire to my (now 97-year-old)  great-uncle's house a couple of years ago, and then this past January tried to burglarize someone else's house while they were home. got sentenced to 10 years in prison for that pair of crimes.

No, this doesn't make me happy. First of all, I am against imprisonment for anyone. Second, this doesn't hold him accountable for the damage he has done. Damage he intentionally committed. No restitution will be paid to his victims, so justice isn't on the table. It rarely is when the government "justice system" gets involved.

I would rather let people know who he is (and doing so relentlessly-- Kevin Ray Perry is his name), what he did, and then "let nature take its course". An "outlaw" in the original sense of the word-- outside the "protection" of "the law". Basically, a free kill. Yes, I hope his next intended victim kills him. That saves money and will keep him from ever violating anyone else.

None of my relatives, including my great-uncle's daughter, are happy, either. They believe this scum has shown he can't be allowed among the rest of society and needs to stay imprisoned much longer. I believe funding prisons only makes things worse. I don't see anyone this determined to be such a piece of KRaP surviving into old age, no matter what else happens, anyway. He's not bright enough and seems pretty dedicated to getting himself Darwinized. I'd like to see him get what he seems to be trying to get.

Now, I'm also ready to completely forgive him. It would take an admission of what he did, restitution to the satisfaction of everyone he victimized, and a guarantee (backed by immediate consequences) that he could never archate again. It's the same deal I offer every violator-- politician, cop, or freelance. It's simple, but not cheap. But it requires them to admit they are the bad guy, and most bad guys aren't willing to be that responsible (that's why they are bad guys in the first place).

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Sometimes, doing nothing is the right choice

I have the right to make choices-- to take risks-- that might result in me sacrificing myself. 

I have no right to make the intentional choice to sacrifice others. 

I continue to see it as more ethical to do nothing rather than to feel pressured into "doing something" which may result in sacrificing someone. 

This is why I don't fall for the trolley dilemma and it's why I am not going to get any Covid vaccine or gene therapy, while not caring one way or the other about the choice others make. Let the gears turn, but don't throw people into them.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Most people die of natural causes. If anti-gun bigots were consistent, they would scream to ban natural causes... even if it meant murdering people to prevent them from dying of natural causes. I mean, they are already on the side of murderers now, so it's not much of a stretch.

Can politics avoid using the political means?

If your politics encourages you to steal from others or to control what others do with their bodies or their property, it's a problem. And that's pretty much the definition of politics. Only if you try to pretend politics is about society by redefining it, and leave out what it really is, can it be justified. 

It's why I dislike politics. ALL politics.

This is why libertarianism isn't political-- not when it stays libertarian. And it's why a Libertarian (political) Party is going to be not-so-libertarian when it tries to do something other than educate people; when it tries to engage in politics.

I get it: others are using politics to violate your life, liberty, and property. They are using politics to archate. You want to turn the tables for a change. You want to use politics defensively to protect yourself from their politics. But I don't think it's any more possible to use the political means defensively than it is to set off a nuclear bomb defensively. You'll end up being the aggressor by your action. Theft and aggression are never defensive, nor are they restitution.

Sure, it sounds amusing to say the Libertarian Party is all about plotting to take over the world so they can leave you alone, but is that true? If liberty can only be protected by using the political means is it worth it? Is this a case of raping to promote virginity? I'm not sure but that's how it looks to me.

Obviously, any type of libertarian is better than any type of authoritarian. Don't think I'm saying otherwise. I'm just bothered when libertarians advocate using politics against others in any way for any reason. It doesn't seem to fit with the principles of the thing. What if that's the only way? Do you really "have to" slaughter an entire village-- women and children, too-- to protect yourself from a few bad guys who live there and are a threat to you? I doubt it.

I've just never seen any politics that didn't involve justifying archation at some level. And if it existed, how would it still be politics?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

If anyone would like to toss a little bit of money into this troublemaker's PayPal account ( paypal.me/Dullhawk ), it would be appreciated. Thank you.

If you start with the assumption that government is necessary, that democracy is a positive thing, that vaccines are always good, and that cops are heroes, you aren't thinking. You're just parroting the tenets of your cult.

Government doesn't disappoint

When you expect nothing good from government you won't be disappointed. This is why government can never disappoint me. 

It can anger me-- as any aggressor or thief will-- but it isn't possible for me to be disappointed in it. Sure, I'll feign disappointment sometimes to mock government, but it's only an act.

When government does something stupid or harmful, I just roll with it as well as I can. Sometimes I am a little bit shocked by the depth of the stupidity, but never disappointed.

When legislation fails to protect the innocent, and actually makes things measurably worse, no disappointment. Anger, but not disappointment.

When government drops the ball on some "service" I am being (non-consensually) charged for, I am not disappointed. Neither am I disappointed that I never get refunded due to this failure to provide the service I was forced to pay for. Sometimes a little disgusted, yes, but not disappointed.

Government can surprise me when it fails to do the wrong thing. It has happened a few times, but not often. Even those pleasant surprises are tempered by the knowledge that those events were made illegitimate through theft ("taxation") and aggression.

Back when I was young and naive and I could be disappointed in government, it was nearly a permanent condition. One disappointment after another. I was young and dumb. I believed that politicians mostly meant well. I confused legislation for law. I believed it was possible to have a mostly good political government, if you did it right. But then I grew up.

I am not disappointed that thieves and arsonists violate property rights-- it's what they do. Sure, I like it when they get shot in the act, but I can't be disappointed that they act the way they act. The same goes for political government. It would be stupid to be disappointed that government does what government-- by definition-- does. People act, and things function, according to their nature. They can't do otherwise without changing what they are.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Hating the messenger

Some of the angriest responses to things I write come after I warn of bad things in the near future-- particularly bad economic things. Such as inflation. It's not the only thing people get mad over, but it's probably the strangest.

Why would people get mad over economic warnings-- mad enough to write to tell me how wrong I am? To tell me it isn't happening and that it never will. To say I'm an idiot for claiming it's already started because they don't (won't?) see it. 

One particular guy wrote me last August in response to this column, saying local prices weren't going up and the dollar wasn't losing value because "God is in control". I wonder if he sees prices going up yet, or if his head is still stuck in a prairie dog hole and he hasn't bought anything since he wrote that email. Would it be nice of me to follow up and see what he says now?

Why all the anger? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I hope I am; I don't want hyperinflation to happen. It's not that important for me to be able to say "I told you so". But they could show me why they believe I'm wrong, rather than simply expressing their anger over my warning.

I suspect the anger might be triggered by a few different things. 

Maybe they are just that invested in the current system. They believe it has served them well so far, and they want to believe it will keep doing so. Maybe they don't want to feel bad about what they've done to their grandchildren's future.

Maybe uncertainty scares them; if they proclaim their certainty forcefully enough, they feel safe. It's like a magic spell to chant for protection.

Maybe they just don't believe the government they worship through Holy Pole Quilts and pledges of allegiance would ever knowingly wreck the economy (while enriching its cronies) and put them in harm's way.

Maybe they just hate me and this topic pushes them over the edge and motivates them to write out of anger.

Or, maybe that one correspondent's religious faith depends on not seeing that government can do bad and stupid-- even evil-- things, and attacking anyone who suggests otherwise.

But if you don't see it happening now, I doubt you ever will. Not even when you're pushing your wheelbarrow of "dollars" to the store for a loaf of bread. Getting mad over it won't change anything. Hating the messenger doesn't prevent disaster.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Drug abuse stupid but prohibition evil

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 2, 2021)

It's normal to focus more on things which matter to us personally. It's harder to care about everything else. I'm most vocal about the liberty I see being attacked the hardest. This is why I mention gun-owner rights so often. These rights are currently attracting the most hate.

If you want me to defend a right, start a coordinated attack against it.

Beyond rights I care about the most, you have the right to do things that don't interest me at all, or things I don't like. As long as "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", as Thomas Jefferson said-- nor the pockets or legs of anyone else-- I support your right to live as you wish. I don't care who it offends; there is no right to not be offended.

I recognize and respect the equal and identical rights of every human being alive. It matters to me when those rights are violated, whoever is doing the violating and however they justify it.

So, even though access to marijuana isn't important to me, I write about it because it's a right which matters to many people. It attracts attention, both from those who recognize the right to trade and use it and from those who want to continue using government violence to violate the right.

All choices have consequences; accidental or intentional. Some of the things you have a right to do can hurt or kill you. Misuse of any drug-- especially those more dangerous than Cannabis-- is one of those things. I still oppose drug prohibition. Drug abuse is stupid, but prohibition is pure evil.

If you are irresponsible you can harm others; something you have no right to do. Saying you were under the influence when you accidentally harmed someone can't wipe away the debt your act created.

You also owe restitution just as surely if you are under the influence of political authority and harm someone with legislation. Accept your responsibility.

Self-employed bad guys are almost as much a problem as those who believe they are entitled to violate your rights. The mugger and the tax collector are doing the same job, with the same result. There is no difference, other than it is more socially acceptable to defend yourself from one thief than it is to defend yourself from the other.

Respect liberty, even those parts you don't care about. It's what society needs most.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Liberty requires perpetual secession.

Happy Independents Day

No, that wasn't a misspelling. If you get it, you get it.

I hate that Independence Day has become "The 4th of July" and a celebration of government and the government's military. That's so not what it's about, and something I can never participate in.

But for those out there who understand, celebrate your independence with me.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

I love America and therefore I hate its enemy, the United States of America. It's odd how many people are confused by that statement.

Body counts aren't a good argument

People who argue for even worse "gun control" [sic] than Americans are already burdened with love to quote various questionable statistics on how many people are killed with guns every year.

There couldn't be a less convincing argument for them to make. Sorry. And it isn't that I don't care. I care a lot! I've had three close friends who were shot; two of them died as a result of being intentionally shot by evil losers. (The other was intentionally shot by an evil loser who was mugging him, but he survived.) That's no excuse to support anti-gun legislation. I'm not going to punish you for the deaths because it wasn't your fault. You didn't pull the trigger. In fact, I believe if you'd been there and were properly armed you would have tried to save their lives-- and I say this to anyone reading this blog. 

The problem is never "too many guns", and there is no way to "keep guns out of the wrong hands" without keeping them out of too many of the right hands, too. And the wrongest of the wrong hands-- government employees-- are never even factored in. 

Even if you use the dumb excuse of preventing the "mentally ill" from having guns by imposing draconian legislation, that's a hard "No" from me. Keep legislation out of it.

People die tragically every day. If you believe guns should be banned or rationed by the state because they are a tool that is sometimes involved in tragic deaths, why not food? (And yeah, I realize there are government-supremacists like a former NYC mayor who would support rationing or banning food on this pretext, too.)

Thousands of people choke on food annually. I know of someone whose young son choked on a piece of popcorn and died before they could save him. People commit slow suicide with food by grossly over-eating and by eating horribly unhealthy things. You've seen it happen. Evil people have served poisoned food to others as a way to murder them. Sometimes there are food "malfunctions" (contaminated food) and people die from it. 

Still, no one has the right to ban food. It's crazy or evil to even suggest it. No one has the right to regulate food, either, but they've already got their foot in the door on that point.

Back to guns: You could argue that there are other defensive tools you could use instead of guns if guns were eliminated. But none are as effective as guns, especially in a world where you'll never get rid of all the guns as long as government employees have them. (If they were as effective as guns, I'd bet money that the gun-banners would want to ban them, too.) 

You could argue that there are alternatives to traditional food, too. Twinkies, for example. (Just kidding.) People could swallow nutrition pills instead of eating food to keep themselves alive. Or get hooked to an IV full of nutrients. The point is, there are suboptimal substitutes for food, but you could try to rely on them to keep you alive. Just like the suboptimal alternatives to guns.

With all its drawbacks, food saves more lives than it takes. So do guns, but that's not the part of the story that makes the news. It's more thrilling to focus on evil losers murdering people than on boring things like good people showing a bad guy a gun and encouraging the bad guy to go away quickly.

The lack of food kills. The lack of a gun can kill. Both are your natural human right-- which doesn't mean anyone is obligated to provide you with either one; they just have no right to prevent you from providing for yourself. Gun-banners are exactly as evil as those who would starve you to death to keep you safe from the very real dangers of food.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Getting permission to change your mind

People can't believe what they don't believe, and don't believe what they can't believe. I know; I've tried.

There have been times I really thought I should believe something I didn't believe. Either because I didn't like the implications of not believing, or because people I respected believed differently.

In those instances I was already primed to change my mind; any real reason could have nudged me over the line. Yet, in most cases, no one could give me good enough evidence to really change what I truly believed. No one could give me a good enough reason. No one could give me what was needed to actually change what I believed at a deep level.

I could lie and say I changed my mind, but why? There is no way for me to pretend to believe something I don't. I know it's not real to me. I won't act on it as though I believe it. (If I have any doubt, then I don't "believe" it anyway. I just lean that direction.)

This is something I can lose sight of when dealing with other people. Even realizing that they may be the same way I am when I'm in their shoes. If I expect them to change what they believe, I've got to give them a good enough reason to do so. Give them evidence. Maybe it won't help them change their mind, but if I don't give them at least that much, how could I expect them to change.

In the heat of a disagreement-- especially when the other person keeps pulling out insults and decides to call me a "mediocre white man" because I believe in liberty and rights for EVERYONE-- it's hard to not sink to their level. At least, I've never sunk to racism like they did, no matter how nasty they get.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Just in case you weren't clear on the issue, taxation WITH representation isn't OK, either.

Do you agree with me yet that politics makes people stupid? And that by inserting politics into anything, you make that thing political and stupid and anti-science? Or do you need even more evidence? How much evidence will it take if you don't believe me by now?

Things that don't help

Yesterday I wrote about when and why I started carrying concealed and the job that encouraged it. Today I'll tell you about a co-worker from that job who probably wouldn't have been helped by concealed carry.

I had worked with this girl for a couple of years and really liked her. She had nearly died in a car wreck a few years previously, and her face had been completely reconstructed. You'd never know, except for a few insignificant scars. And her jokes about the metal plates in her head.

But she was a bit of a free spirit and got fired when she decided to go to a Grateful Dead concert a state away instead of coming to work after her request for time off had been denied. (This boss was bad about that, even though the store had plenty of employees and one being off for a couple of days wouldn't be a hardship on anyone-- turns out he was in the early stages of Alzheimer's.)

She immediately got hired at another pet shop in town, and later, when that shop decided to start selling aquarium supplies, she asked me if I would be interested. Since they were offering me 50% more pay than I was getting, and my current boss said he couldn't pay me more, I took the job.

After that job kind of fizzled I moved out of state. A year later a co-worker wrote to tell me my friend was dead. Murdered.

After I left she had been hired by a law firm and she started dating a guy who it turned out was a "resident" at the state mental hospital-- with a history of violence against girlfriends-- who would walk away whenever he felt like it. When she discovered this she broke up with him, but he refused to let her go. He was jealous. He said if he couldn't have her, no one could. He stalked her. After he painted threatening messages about her in the parking garage where she worked-- messages including "Lucifer wants your soul"-- her boss helped her get a restraining order. You know how useful those are.

Then one day, only a few blocks from the pet store we had first worked at together, this evil loser pulled up beside her at a red light and shot her in the side of the head.

This is a case where being armed probably wouldn't have saved her life. Yes, you can say she should have been more situationally aware, but who among us is that aware all the time? Even with a known threat lurking it would probably be impossible.

It still hurts to think about what happened to her, after all she'd gone through (which was a lot), to end like that. I still have newspaper clippings and magazine articles that were written in the wake of her death, but I haven't looked at them in years. She's one of the three friends of mine who were shot, and one of the two to die as a result. It's why I have so little sympathy for those who blame guns for innocent deaths, rather than blaming the evil losers who murder, and it's one reason I have no patience for jealousy. 

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

I've always considered hunting to be the more ethical way to get meat compared to the slaughterhouse. Putting myself in the place of the animals, I know which I'd prefer.

And so, I began to "carry"

When I was a kid I used to carry either a lever action .22 rifle or a 20 gauge single-shot with me in the woods. When I carried a gun. Carrying those long guns was inconvenient, and usually, when I needed a gun, I didn't have one with me. I always had a knife or two on me, but sometimes a knife is the wrong tool for the job. I once spent a few hours up a tree because I didn't have a gun when I should have.

In my late 20s I got a new job at a pet store in the ritzier part of town, and when they hired me they asked if I had a pistol I could carry, and if not, they strongly suggested I get one and carry it. (And, no, it wasn't "legal" there at that time. The boss mentioned this, while encouraging me to do so, anyway.) They preferred all their employees to carry while on the job. Nice!

But I'd never owned any handgun before. Nor had I ever really handled one. That was an oversight that needed to be fixed.

I went to my favorite gun store and immediately put a used 5-shot .38 SP Charter Arms snub-nosed revolver on layaway, picking it up a few weeks later. $265. 

I've carried every day-- with a few exceptions-- since.

I soon saw why the bosses made the request. The store was in a strip mall, and the Subway* sandwich shop 2 or 3 doors down got robbed at gunpoint twice in the 6 months I had that particular job. Plus, employees had to go out back, after dark, to put trash in the dumpster that was in the shadows. If practical, no one went alone, but it wasn't always practical. It was good to be armed and situationally aware.

It was fun seeing what my coworkers carried. The big boss didn't only carry concealed; when he took the money bag to his car at night, he would stick a huge, heavy-barreled stainless steel revolver in his waistband.

At the other end of the gun spectrum, one co-worker carried a little .25 semi-auto in his back jeans pocket. I wondered about the definition of "concealed" since his pocket had a clear outline of that pistol worn into the demin, a-la the Skoal can ring so many guys of that time sported. 

I moved on from that job, and although I never specifically mentioned to any subsequent boss that I carry, it was always the case that if there was any situation of danger that cropped up-- and they did-- I was placed on the front line. Maybe they knew I was armed, or maybe I was expendable. It doesn't really matter either way to me.

Because I care about you, I want you to be armed at all times. Just in case. That's the loving, civilized position to adopt with regard to my fellow human beings.

-

*I wonder if Subways are a popular target for armed robberies. When I lived in Colorado, a couple of armed robbers went down the highway across the state robbing Subways in each town they passed through, including the one across the street from my job. It was about an hour and a half between towns, and by the time anyone realized the pattern, they were finished. I never heard of them being caught.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Arguments for government work against it

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 26, 2021)

Any argument against the idea of having a free society-- one free of political government-- also works against the idea of having such a government holding society down.

The only reason anyone still tries to make this argument is because crimes are called by different names when they are committed by government employees instead of by the self-employed.

When you pretend criminal acts aren't criminal, you can justify anything.

Theft is called "taxation", "asset forfeiture", or "eminent domain". Kidnapping becomes "arrest" or "sequestering", and slavery is called "conscription". Mass murder becomes "war", while murder on a smaller scale becomes "capital punishment", "collateral damage", or "department policy". Propaganda becomes known as "schooling", "patriotism", or "a government press release", and torture becomes "enhanced interrogation".

The biggest lie of all is when the warlords occupying your land are called "the government"  to hide what they are and to make them sound legitimate. Often, the warlords are dishonestly called "leaders" rather than "politicians" or "rulers". The lie doesn't change what they are.

You wouldn't put up with being treated by self-employed criminals the way politicians treat you. The only reason you turn a blind eye to those who violate you now is because they twist the language to favor themselves.

Most people generally believe government is necessary, or even good, because they've endured thirteen or more years of brainwashing in government-controlled schools. Getting them when they are young and gullible works wonders.

If you won't live peacefully among others without government looking over your shoulder, you aren't really a better person just because it exists. In fact, you could (if you're smart) get a government job so you can get away with the acts you want to commit from a cover of legitimacy. If you can call the theft you commit "taxation", and pretend it is in the victims' interest, you'll probably never face justice. Yet the act remains the same-- taking property which doesn't belong to you, from the rightful owner who would rather not lose it, under threat of violence.

As has been said, anarchy is no guarantee that bad people won't violate the natural rights of others, but government guarantees they will-- and will probably get away with it, too. Their offenses will be ignored or excused because it's all "legal".

If humans were angels, no political government would be necessary, but because they aren't angels, political government is a terrible idea.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Science, or medical practices?

People trying to manipulate others into going along with a medical procedure by saying "trust the science" are lying.

Medicine isn't the same thing as science. Good medical practices have a solid foundation in science, but the practices inevitably lag behind science. 

And often, the science is unclear or seems to point in different directions so people have to make a guess. They may call those guesses "science", and try to convince you this is what it is, but they are still guesses.

To confuse medical practices with science seems to lead some people to make mistakes. 

I'd rather a doctor be honest with me and help me make informed choices, realizing we may get it wrong, than to lie and claim "science" when it isn't.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Futurama predicted Covid-19!

People have talked a lot about the times it looked like The Simpsons predicted the future. Maybe that's not the only Matt Groening cartoon to see what's coming.

The Futurama episode "Cold Warriors" may not have exactly predicted Covid-19, but it is an eerily accurate parallel to the whole mess.

The fictional portrayal of the overreaction of the public, the media, and the government-- over a cold virus-- is cartoonishly similar to how things really went. It's almost as though Covid had already happened and this was a parody of past events.

Or, maybe, the writers just understand better than most how humans behave and extrapolate that into different situations so that when a similar situation comes along, humans do what they do and make the writers look psychic. Either way, you can learn a lot from certain cartoons.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

'm against imprisonment, even for murderous cops. I wouldn't want my stolen money ("taxes") going to keep him caged and fed. Let these creeps live among people who know who they are and what they did and see how that goes without the protection of their former gang.

If you confuse police for anything like "public safety", there's no lie too outrageous for you to fall for. You probably think "gun safety" means looking down the barrel while pulling the trigger to make sure the gun isn't loaded. Or tasting the sewage to see if it's safe to drink.

Anti-gun bigots' delusions

 

"Gun control" [sic] is anti-science. It is superstition. It is historical ignorance, technological ignorance, and sociological ignorance. It is racist, sexist, and government-supremacist. It is antisocial. It doesn't make anyone but the bad guys safer. Senile Grampa Joe embodies all of this and more (as has every president before him).

Without lies and ignorance, there is no way to advocate for anti-gun legislation. All justifications evaporate when exposed to reality.

It doesn't matter what guns were around when the Second Amendment was written because the Second Amendment doesn't address kinds of guns, it forbids government legislation or "policy" from touching those guns, The natural human right to own, build, sell, and carry weapons of any type already existed and will remain unchanged regardless of what political criminals do. Rights aren't subject to someone else's opinions, ever.

Maybe you don't have the right to own a nuclear weapon, but neither does any government. Rights, real rights which exist, are individual. Governments-- as collectives-- have no rights, and most definitely never have the "right" to regulate, ration, limit, license, or otherwise violate the actual rights of any individual. Personally, I don't believe it is possible to use nuclear weapons defensively-- there will always be innocents harmed. Thus, I don't think there can be a right to own nuclear weapons.

Neither is it just about deer hunting. Yes, the right to hunt game is important, but so is the right to hunt tyrants and otherwise defend yourself and others-- society-- from archators of every sort. 

I don't act as though anti-gun bigots have a point, because I'm not going to lie for their benefit. They are a danger to the human species and need to be treated as such. Their time is up.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

If you don't have an AR15, you need an AR15. Know how I know that? Because government doesn't want you to have an AR15 (neither do the government-supremacists). I was told, decades ago when I was a young adult, that any time government says you don't need X, you should go out and get X as soon as possible, because that's probably exactly what you need. I might be wrong, though. Maybe an AK-47 or an SKS would be what you need.

I doubt John McAfee killed himself. But if he did, he did it right by saying he never would kill himself and by saying who would be responsible if it looked like he did. Because now, no matter what, it looks like the murderous goons of the US feral government just committed another obvious murder and many people will never be convinced they didn't. Either way, thank you for your service, John.

No, I will not sneak your links into a blog post in exchange for the exact amount of money I have been secretly wishing would suddenly appear. Yes, I will do product reviews on free stuff I am sent to review-- that's no secret-- and I am brutally honest in those reviews; readers get my opinion, warts and all. But being sneaky about it..? No. Even if I were willing, and I'm not, my readers would see through it immediately. So, nope.

The lie that is "equity"

Equity-- "equality of outcome"-- is not only a bad idea, it's impossible. It's a lie. Lives will be ruined and wasted in the doomed attempt to secure it.

Even if the attempt was ethical-- and it isn't-- you can't guarantee everyone will have the same outcome. There are too many factors that can't be controlled-- or even known. 

Not only that, but I don't want the same outcome that someone else might want. Even financially-- I don't want billions of dollars, but I would like to have enough to buy whatever I need or want when I need or want it. Even acknowledging the near impossibility of that circumstance, I feel no need for extra beyond that. Taking away other people's money to bring them down to my level isn't going to improve my life a bit. Probably the opposite would happen.

Plus there are things that matter more to me than money. Guaranteeing that I'll have the same outcome as someone else who values money more than I do isn't going to make me happy. And there's no way to guarantee everyone is equally happy. That's why the pursuit of happiness was mentioned in America's real founding document, not the outcome of happiness.

I don't want the same life anyone else would want.

I don't want government involved in my life the same amount that it seems others do. Again, I don't want your equity, even if you think I'm being cheated out of something,

I expect equality. I already have it, as does everyone else, although it isn't respected by archators.

Equality is better and the only real equality is that every human alive has equal and identical rights. If everyone would simply respect that fact, it would be enough. That they don't just shows why the right to self-defense is essential. Even against a president who declares war on America-- in front of cameras-- maybe without even realizing he did so.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

It's too much fun to handle

This past weekend was a busy one for me. My birthday, my parents' anniversary, the new Holyday of JuneNineteenth, and Father's Day in the space of only 3 days. 

Much socializing-- more than someone like me is comfortable with. But I made it. 

With so much going on, I was forced to choose between all the celebrations, so I skipped JuneNineteeth this year. As I probably will every year since this part of June is already filled to overflowing for me. There's just not enough time. I hope I can be forgiven.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Get Time's Up flags before they're gone (Expired)

(Expired: See message at the bottom.)

If you want a Time's Up flag, buy one in the next day. The shop is getting taken down if I don't sell 2 before the 23rd-- I lose money if I don't sell 2 per month and I don't have the money to spare if they aren't selling. Maybe everyone who wants one has one. If not, now's the time to jump on it.

Update: If you find yourself wanting a flag in the future, email me. I'm buying a couple to sell, and will probably offer a couple more on eBay.

.

My economic confusion

Does everything economic seem really upside-down or backward to you? It does to me. But I'm no economist; I don't even pretend to be.

Still...

The feral government "created", out of nothing, a huge percentage of all the fiat "dollars" that have ever existed just in the last few years. Yet there is no hyperinflation.

The prices of gold and silver seem artificially low. So do the prices of cryptocurrency. Especially considering what seems inevitable with the creation of all those new dollars.

I realize there are financially powerful people who are able to manipulate certain things so they can continue to get richer while you and I don't. Is this all that's happening? What happens when they stop? Will they stop?

Or is it all caused by something else?
Or am I just wrong with my expectations and understanding? 

Is everything upside down, or is it fine? Have we already hit the iceberg but don't realize the ship is taking on water and sinking fast? Or, is there some voodoo that's buoying the ship when there should already be coral growing on the passengers' bones? I don't know. Do you?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Government should have less control

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 19, 2021)

If you're going to tolerate politicians, and a political government for them to operate in, what should they be allowed to do?

Not much.

Their ability to control anyone should end at government employees. The rest of us shouldn't be touched by their policies and rules.

How would this work? Government can allow its employees to do this or that, or prohibit them from doing these other things-- but anyone not employed by government isn't government's business. If you believe this would make government pointless, welcome to my world.

Beyond this limitation on who it controls, what would I accept government doing? I would accept it acting as an advisor to society, as long as it was funded by donations rather than through taxation.

Here's what I mean.

I've criticized the political Covid-19 overreactions many times, but only because government approached it like a control freak.

I wouldn't have much of an issue with government warning people about a new cold virus spreading; one which seemed to be slightly more dangerous than most. I wouldn't have been bothered if they had made suggestions and recommendations based on what they believed were the best ways to avoid harm. Advice, not rules.

If they wanted to work on a vaccine or an experimental gene therapy to combat the disease, to calm those who were scared of it, I wouldn't stop them.

Once anything becomes a mandate, though, I'm out.

The same goes for fighting crime.

Make recommendations and give information, but don't try to forcibly remake society in a way they imagine would make things better. If your idea has to be forced on society, you've failed.

Prohibition, of every kind, only makes crime worse every time it is tried, whether it is trying to limit access to alcohol, drugs, or guns. If you want to make matters worse, try a new prohibition or double down on one which is already failing to improve the situation.

Other problems require the same approach. Government could still help those in poverty, but any real solution requires staying out of economic matters, not giving handouts. Get government out of the economy and the problem would largely solve itself. Poverty wouldn't go away, but it could shrink to currently unimaginable levels, levels where those who need help could easily get all they need.

This is the kind of government I wouldn't object to very much.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The word "Juneteenth" sounds ignorant and uneducated. I thought that the first time I heard it and I still do. Like you can't say "June 19th" for some reason? It would embarrass me. Not only that, it memorializes when a president of one country "freed" the slaves in a completely different country, but not in the country he ruled. But any excuse to shut government offices for a day is fine with me.

They had more than enough time

Time's Up for statism. Government-supremacists and other statists have had 5,000 to 10,000 years-- depending on who you talk to-- to get it right. That's plenty long enough if there were anything worthwhile there. But, perfection is always just over the next hill (of corpses). No thanks. Statism is a failure.

Time's Up. It's time to throw it out. That's not bathwater and that's no baby floating in it. Reject politics and embrace liberty.

-

Time's also running out for the Time's Up flags being for sale. I need to sell 2 flags in the next week-- by the 23rd-- to keep the site up where they are made and sold. I like having them available, but I can't lose money on it and 2 flags per month is my break-even point.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

If your only objection to "public" schools is that they teach Critical Race Conspiracy Theory and other w0ke nonsense, you are too accepting of child abuse and indoctrination.

Random Acts of Anarchy Day 2021

It's Random Acts of Anarchy Day once again. Go do something free, voluntary, mutually consensual, and do it without permission. Do what you want, just don't archate. If you can think of a way to help others in the process, that's even better. If you have a Time's Up flag, wave it around or fly it over your activity for a little extra spice.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

It's just crazy to imagine the FBI (or other legislation enforcers) would encourage and push others to commit acts of terrorism. That's like thinking firefighters would ever have a reason to be arsonists.

An over-reaction, I think

Sometimes I just don't get people.

In response to my latest newspaper column, a reader wrote to call crypto "a disaster" and claimed it will cause people to lose all their money. He declares that "Bitcoin is not money it is a scam"; and goes on to say "it is not financial freedom". He says he would advise people to "stay away from it if you have any common sense".  Then he proclaims it's from China. 

That's a lot of information.

Where did he get his information? He must be an insider to be certain of all this. Maybe Illuminati. Otherwise, who gave him his opinion?

Anyway, I'm open to hearing other opinions and the reasons behind them. But I also think that when those opinions seem off-base, people might be happy to hear the other side. I'm usually wrong about that.

I responded to him, and if you'll notice I didn't say he was wrong about anything he claimed, I just put my own perspective on it: 

"I've used it to buy 2 guns, silver, and gold. Even if the price went to zero today, I've gained. And if it did get that low, I would buy more. It's more legitimate than US dollars because no matter who invented it, no one controls it-- that's the benefit of the blockchain. And others who don't like it claim the CIA invented it. At least no one (other than El Salvadorans) is forced to accept it.
What is money? http://blog.kentforliberty.com/2009/11/requires-no-government.html"

He sent a terse reply. His final word? "Keep it out of the US"

Why? Just because he's scared of it because he doesn't have even a rudimentary understanding of it? Sounds more like a witch panic to me.

I don't get the hostility. I like Bitcoin; more so with the passage of time. I wish the price would only go up, but that's not how things work. As it is, I'm satisfied with how it works for me.

If YOU don't like it and don't trust it, don't use it. But how are you going to keep it out of the US? It's already here. Are you going to steal it from me and send it to someone in another country? Do you support using government violence to that end? (That approach is doomed to fail.)

I don't like or trust the Covid vaccines enough to put them in my own body, but I don't say to "keep them out" of America. You do what you want. If I die because I didn't get the vaccine, that's my fault. If you die from a reaction to the vaccine (or from the virus) I'll feel bad for your family, but I don't imagine I have any right to order you around* for what I imagine is your own good. Nor to use the violence of government to force you to do as I believe you should, even if I have a firm opinion of what I think you should do. 

Statists believe differently. That's a problem.

-

*Not allowing you to order me around isn't the same as me ordering you around-- I've seen this mistake several times over the years. "If you don't do what I tell you to do, you are controlling me!" No, I'm not. I'm simply not allowing you to control me. There's a difference.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

There are FOUR lights!

"Free will" is irrelevant

I recently listened to a bizarre debate between two sciency guys who don't believe there is any such thing as free will because the Universe is deterministic, but they interpret this in different ways, which is why they debated.

Yet, every point that each of them made was made with the assumption of free will. They were swimming in it the entire time and didn't notice. "She could have done differently" or "What kind of upbringing did he receive?", as if those ideas have any meaning outside free will.

The reason these free will skeptics kept assuming free will exists is that they were focused on how it relates to crime (and things government pretends are crimes). Free will has to exist for them to justify their belief that governments have rights which include allowing a government to punish people (often, Trump in their examples) for their actions. In other words, their statism-- their government-supremacism-- required them to be absurdly inconsistent to avoid exposing the fallacy. It required them to never notice their absurdity or inconsistency.

In my view of the world, if there is no such thing as free will, it doesn't matter.

Does the lightning have free will if it strikes a tree, causing the tree to fall and crash through your roof? It doesn't matter. The lightning did a thing, that thing set other things in motion and damaged your roof. The lightning (in fact, the laws of physics that made that particular lightning strike inevitable) owe restitution for the damage to your house, but the lightning can't and won't pay. Maybe you now believe you or your insurance company have the right to punish the lightning... good luck with that.

If a person commits an act which violates you, it doesn't matter whether the person had any free will to make that choice or not. Something was caused to happen and restitution is owed. A person can pay restitution, even if it is only symbolic and can't erase the whole debt. The person could have been as destined to commit the act as the bolt of lightning was to strike and it doesn't change the debt which was created.

Maybe you also believe that person should be punished.

I don't believe in punishment, which I see as nothing more than revenge with lipstick. It doesn't reduce the debt at all, and in the case of government "justice [sic] systems", it creates even more debt which requires restitution which will never be paid by the archator which owes it: government. I understand the desire for revenge/punishment. I have felt it many times. But I also understand why it is wrong; why it is beyond what I have the right to do.

I understand the arguments against free will. I am not entirely convinced by them, but since free will isn't necessary, I can live with not knowing for sure.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

You don't have a right to not be exposed to free-range germs. No one has a right to spit in your face to expose you to their germs, but people have to breathe and this means germs are out in the real world. Otherwise, you would have no immune system. You can't have a right to enslave others because you're scared of germs. That includes using legislation to force them to mask or to vaccinate. You have the right to avoid others if you're worried.

Craft Holsters suede magazine holder

The guys at Craft Holsters were nice enough to send along this Leather OWB Magazine Pouch back when they sent the belly bands. There's not a lot to say about it, but here goes.

It is made of a nice thick suede leather and has the same strong steel clip as their in-the-waistband holsters, so it STAYS in place. Those clips are impressive.

Although they call this an OWB (outside the waistband) pouch, I chose to wear the magazine holder inside my waistband, on the side opposite the pistol. It worked just fine in that configuration, too.

It wasn't too noticeable; never uncomfortable. It never lost a magazine, nor did it ever threaten to do so. It works great. What more can be said? 

Thanks, again, Craft Holsters!

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Glad I have as much choice as I do

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 12, 2021)

It's good to have choices.

The continuing Covid-19 overreactions of New Mexico's politicians mean I've spent much less time and money in New Mexico than I would have normally. Why would I go where businesses are either closed or operating with restricted capacity when I have other options? I prefer to go where businesses can decide whether they'll force customers to wear a mask, rather than where a one-size-fits-all mandate declares businesses aren't allowed to decide for themselves.

Yes, I have to drive a little farther to have similar shopportuities, but in many cases, it's worth it.

We are lucky. Most people don't have such a clear and easy way to express their choice. If you are trapped in the middle of an oppressive political regime's wide territory, you don't have the option to simply drive one direction instead of the other to express your choice. Here near the state line, we have this choice, and-- thanks to New Mexico politicians-- it's been good for Texas's economy.

It's also good for those who are still afraid of Covid-19 for the same reason. Choice.

If you are still scared of the virus after more than a year of hearing the propaganda surrounding it, you have the choice to stay on the more cautious side of the line.

On the other hand, and on other issues, Texas is more oppressive than New Mexico. Marijuana and open carry of firearms being two examples that spring to mind. Again, you get to choose where to go depending on which rights matter to you.

If you're going to allow politicians to run your life, which I don't recommend doing, this is a good compromise. Let people choose how much tyranny, in which areas, they are willing to tolerate.

Of course, your natural human rights don't change when you cross an arbitrary and mostly imaginary political line. The only thing that changes is which of your natural human rights the politicians ruling over each side of the line have decided to violate, and how badly you'll be violated.

Liberty-- real unobstructed liberty-- is never an option as long as politicians have this power. They don't like liberty and are scared of it. They know liberty would be the end of their sweet deal. I can't understand why anyone cares what politicians think.

I'm glad we have this much choice; I'd prefer more because I'll never fear your liberty.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

You aren't violating the mugger by refusing to allow yourself to be mugged. Not even by shooting him to stop the mugging. You have the right to keep from being violated, he has no right to mug you. You aren't being controlled just because you aren't allowed to control someone else.

Standing in the middle of Congress or a group of cops and saying "They can't all be bad" is like standing in a junkyard of rusted wrecks and saying "Some of these must run fine".

On the effect of politics on a person

I am more and more convinced, with the passage of time, that politics makes people stupid.

What I mean is this: People will reject reality to stand by their "political team". They'll shoot themselves in the foot to avoid the appearance of disunity once they've committed to a political team. No matter how little sense it makes, they'll hate what/who their team tells them to hate and support what/who their team tells them to support. The "Trumpets" and TDS sufferers being a prime recent (and ongoing) example. It's like they do no independent thinking at all, but default to their team's mob-thinking instead.

By "politics" I mean the use of the political means as opposed to the economic means; force, fraud, theft, legislation, "democracy", and other types of coercion rather than voluntary, mutually consensual agreement. If it doesn't rely on the political means, it's not political even if some would mistake it for politics. Shooting an attacker in self defense, even if he dies, is not the same act as murder.

And, by "stupid" I mean against their own interests, against the interests of society, against objective reality (or the best estimation thereof), and against what their own mind could show them if they weren't determined to stay on the path they are on even if it requires self-imposed blindness.

It's not just "the right" and "the left", although those are the most obvious examples in modern America of where politics leads. Where "libertarianism" becomes political instead of being above politics, it is just as bad. Politics makes people stupid.

I get that some people enjoy politics. Maybe as a hobby or a diversion. Maybe those people can avoid the trap. Maybe they can't. It's a daredevil hobby, likely to result in damage sooner or later. But as long as they don't hurt anyone else (I don't see how that's possible) it's their business.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I just didn't see it

If it hadn't been for the news media, social media, or the mandates, shutdowns, and other things government did in response, would you have noticed the pandemic on your own? Would your observations have registered a big health threat?

I wouldn't have. I saw nothing unusual, healthwise, in my sphere. I saw some people catch colds-- some of them had a bad cold and others not any worse than normal-- but in a typical year, I would have seen that anyway. And I know plenty of people who didn't get sick with any sort of cold-like disease.

I heard that some old or unhealthy people died; friends told me of this happening to people they, or someone they knew, knew, although no one I knew personally died. In a typical year, this happens several times anyway. This past year or so wasn't unusually deadly for people in my sphere. In fact, it's unusual that no one I know personally died since the beginning of what was advertised as a deadly pandemic.

I'm not claiming there was no pandemic. I'm just saying if I hadn't been told it was there, I wouldn't have observed it on my own. Like an invisible unicorn that can't be touched; that you have to have described to you by priests to know it is there at all.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Self and money

Some guy on Twitter was apparently angry that libertarians exist. So, in a response to a thread of libertarians discussing an issue, he posted:

A libertarian’s priorities:
1. Themself
2. Money
3. That’s it.

(Then why am I broke?)

Anyway, isn't it odd that the most selfless and truly generous of philosophies is characterized this way?

Libertarians recognize that no one has the right to violate the life, liberty, or property of another, and that everyone has the right to defend themselves and others from anyone who does so anyway. I describe this as the Zero Archation Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to archate, nor to advocate or delegate archation."

That is, at its heart, what makes a person libertarian. That is the opposite of selfishness, and money isn't even mentioned.

One time, when I couldn't afford to do so, I bought a set of tools for a guy I'd just met so that he could get a job that required him to bring his own tools. That act certainly didn't benefit me, nor did it say much about money being my priority. There are plenty of other examples of me putting others ahead of myself, and other things ahead of money, but that's one that came to mind because it was the most personally difficult example.

There are so many examples of libertarians I know being selfless and generous with their own money-- often with me as the beneficiary-- that the claim is completely ridiculous.

I think what this guy is really objecting to is that I don't think "taxation" is ethical, and he can't imagine a way to support the helpless without forcing people-- through "taxation"-- to do so. In fact, this is what he later claimed as he tried to make his point. He rejected every voluntary solution suggested as a way to help such people. That says much about his non-libertarian character.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Of all religions, w0keness is probably the most toxic-- and it is competing against some real monstrous ideologies, so that's quite an accomplishment.

Any time I see or hear the phrase "Critical Race Theory" my mind automatically inserts the word "Conspiracy" before "Theory": "Critical Race Conspiracy Theory". That makes the phrase a lot more honest.

Will it make any real difference?

I'm assuming the Texas governor is going to sign the "constitutional carry" bill like he said he will. Yes, I know taking a politician at his word is stupid.

I'm wondering whether this new legislation will make an actual difference in the legal ability to carry a weapon. 

Judging by the fact that almost every business in this region already has "We don't care if you die!" signs posted, I'll bet it won't.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Even though it doesn't really impact my life, I love seeing Cannabis advertised on billboards.