You're only responsible for yourself

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 23, 2021)

You are responsible for yourself. No one else can be as responsible for yourself as you are, nor can you ever be completely responsible for anyone but yourself. Please do your best in the case of babies and others who are totally helpless, though.

When your own responsibility fails-- and all of us have been there-- you can ask others for help. Friends, family, and charity are there to fill the gap when you fail to be as responsible as you should have been. The non-consensual institution of political government is also there for you to lean on, but this only creates more irresponsibility.

If you won't be responsible, no one else can force it on you. Not governments and their legislation, nor churches and their morals. No matter how hard they try, they're going to fail. It's up to you.

While you are responsible for everything you do, some people will try to convince you of a responsibility to do things which aren't your responsibility. This is one of the biggest tricks government plays on you.

This kind of person will make up an imaginary responsibility-- one which advances their agenda at your expense-- and try to convince you it's real. They will try to shame you for not doing what they want.

Among the false responsibilities which will be imposed on you is to "pay your fair share" in taxes for things you don't want and probably don't need. Just because someone else imagines it's a good idea.

You are also told to follow illegitimate orders which will harm someone; if you don't, you'll be called irresponsible.

A fake "social contract" is a great weapon to use to shut down rational thought and create imaginary responsibilities out of thin air.

You are responsible for not violating the life, liberty, or property of any other person. All your real responsibilities grow from this root.

You are responsible for supporting yourself, because if you don't, someone else may be forced to support you against their will. This violates their property rights.

You are responsible for keeping your nose out of other people's business, as long as they aren't harming anyone; to do otherwise violates their liberty.

As long as you have a conscience and can see the consequences of your actions, you'll know when you are being responsible and when you aren't.

Don't violate others. This is the foundation of responsibility. Anything less is irresponsible.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Don't cooperate with the slavers

A few days ago I pointed out that using democracy to defend yourself from the vampire of The State is counterproductive. You may or may not agree, but what else is there to do?

Plenty.

One of the best things I've read recently was "Be ungovernable" by Isaac Morehouse. I think his suggestions have merit. 

It's along the lines of "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.", by Etienne de la Boétie, but with more flair.

I resolve to be ungovernable while refusing to support the tyrant.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

War or "peace"?

I don't want war. I'd always prefer to avoid killing and violence whenever possible. But I also know that the "peace" of the compliant slave isn't something I want, either. Some people seem to think it has to be one or the other. I hope it doesn't, but if it does... well, I'm not cut out for complaint slavery, even if I doubt I would survive war. I'm just not mean enough.

Personally, I suspect it is past "Claire Wolfe time". I think the window of opportunity has closed-- at least to where it's no longer possible to "STB" without it turning into a full-fledged war. In an earlier time, maybe it would have been possible to "STB" in surgical strikes. There weren't as many, and the obvious bad guys were pretty... obvious... to the normal person who wasn't a political shill. ("Political shills" include anyone who imagines FDR did anything other than prolong the Great Depression. And don't forget Wilson. Ugh.) Now, it's a huge hive of bad guys-- including their army of enforcers-- compared to back then. 

They are still few, compared to the rest of us, but they have the illusion of legitimacy fooling most of our neighbors. That might make up for anything they lack in numbers. 

I don't think they'll ever leave us alone to live in peace as long as they are among us. They crave more control than that. To leave some of us alone would demonstrate how unnecessary they really are. They can't let that happen. I think they'll be compelled to keep pushing and pushing until something snaps.

I think they'll probably end up defeating themselves whatever else happens. If we let them and stop pretending they are anything other than the criminals they are. That means stop pretending they are in any way legitimate; that political government has any legitimacy.

Obviously, if they do what Biden (and other political criminals) suggested, and use nuclear weapons against the people, in America, they've lost no matter how many of their opponents they kill. They're just done. At that point, no one has anything to lose by resisting.

Those who wring their hands over anyone who suggests that war isn't necessarily worse than the alternative might not be wrong, but I don't think they are 100% right. And it just feels like something is coming. Maybe it's just due to the general negative feeling I've had recently. I hope it's a false alarm. 

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

 "Liberty" and "freedom" are not synonyms-- neither are "morality" and "ethics". nor "violence" and "aggression". But convincing people they are is useful for those who want to control how and what you think. Don't use the definitions that play into your enemies' hands.

Democracy-- A stake through the heart of tyranny?

I have no love for democracy. But I understand its appeal.

Those who advocate democracy seem to see it like garlic, a crucifix, and a wooden stake to be used against the vampire of political government ("the state"). They seem to believe it's their only hope of defending themselves from being trampled by political interests.

But it doesn't work.  Instead, it makes the problem worse.

First of all, the reason garlic, crucifixes, and stakes "work" is that ("human") vampires are imaginary. They can't hurt you even if you don't defend yourself against them. As long as you don't initiate force against a non-vampire with those weapons, you haven't done anything wrong.

Government, as the entity most people imagine when they picture it, is also imaginary. But to use democracy to defend yourself from government is to become the problem you fear. You bring your enemy to life.

The bad thing in most folklore about being bitten by a vampire is that you'll become a vampire, yourself. 

Trying to defend yourself from an imaginary thing called "government" by doing the very things government does-- by trying to govern someone other than your own, individual self through a majority v*te-- is like trying to defend yourself from vampires by attacking innocent people and drinking their blood. This is not defense, but is something no one has the right to do.

Instead of defending yourself from the vampire of government, you're just offering yourself to that vampire by becoming a vampire. You've done the vampire's work for it.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Liberty is illegal

Liberty is illegal. Liberty isn't piecemeal. Either you have the freedom to do everything you have a right to do-- everything which doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights-- free from political interference, or you don't. There's no halfway. And government doesn't allow you to exercise your liberty. No political government anywhere willingly allows it-- libraries full of legislation are written to violate your liberty. So, liberty is illegal.

This is why governments such as the USA encourage people to focus on freedom instead. It's why government-supremacist organizations publish "freedom indices" instead of something more objective.

Freedom is subjective. It depends on what you want to do. You may have the freedom to "Netflix and chill" but not to carry a full-auto Tommy gun to the store, but if you don't care about the Tommy gun and are happy about everything else, you feel free. You are free. But your liberty is being violated.

Only by getting rid of legislation can liberty stop being illegal. And that probably requires getting rid of political government. Which means liberty will be illegal all your life.

That's not the defeatism you might think.

If you know you're going to have to be an outlaw all your life to get as close as possible to living in liberty, it removes a lot of the hesitation about breaking "laws". Your concern then isn't whether something you have a right to do is "illegal", but about getting caught. And once you realize evildoers of one sort or another will always be trying to violate you (it's just what they do), even if liberty weren't illegal, you can get on with living and dodging or outsmarting the bad guys, which is just life. Don't let the opinions of your enemies-- of liberty's enemies-- dictate how you live.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Government overreacts to those who don't worship it hard enough

One of the clearest signs that government is a ridiculous religious thing is the severity of the punishments governments impose for not buying their lies. For not having the "proper" respect for the buffoonish institution and all its nonsense. 

Usually, historically, that punishment has explicitly been death. 

Sometimes, these days, they can officially only get away with lengthy imprisonment, which is still ridiculously harsh for the actual acts committed-- if any. If they can manage it, and they often do, they still make sure the prisoner dies in their custody one way or another. 

Instead of making me take government more seriously, this overreaction shows the emperor has no clothes. He's naked, scabby, and an embarrassment to those he imagines are beneath him.

That severity of punishment doesn't even make sense. Not to anyone not brainwashed, anyway. I mean, I get it from government's warped, narrow, perspective, but that perspective is what exposes the lie.

If government were worthy of respect, they wouldn't need to overreact to those who show a lack of respect. They would be strong enough to laugh it off and show that any criticism is misguided. But they do overreact, which works against them and their dishonest narrative.

Government takes itself so seriously that it completely undermines any respect I might have dredged up from the depths once upon a time. Yes, government can kill, but so can a papercut or a worm. I don't respect something just because it can kill me. I try to avoid it. And I hate those who try to harm me by using such things against me.

Speaking of worms, it seems that every day I have less respect for those who treat political government as anything other than a parasitic worm. Those who act as if there's some necessity to it, and that it could be good if only it ... well, did something that it is never going to do or stopped doing things it's never going to stop doing.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The solution to crime isn't police-- it's to stop allowing police to make people helpless victims. Who else do you imagine enforces anti-defense legislation? "Abolish the police"-- if done right-- is an acknowledgment of this truth. Abolish the police and abolish anti-gun, anti-defense rules. The problem of crime is solved, if you let it be.

Fear doesn't figure into it

I'm not scared of the coronavirus disease, Covid-19. Almost everyone in my family had it and they all recovered, regardless of how many comorbidities they had. And some of them had a lot of comorbidities. Only one of them developed any "long-haul" issues, but those cleared up without any apparent residual harm after about 6 months. So being scared of Covid, in my case, would be silly. I'm just not.

Nor am I scared of the Covid-19 "vaccines" (or experimental, rushed-through injections). Most of the people in my family-- including, oddly enough, those who had already had Covid-- got the injections and didn't have reactions that were too awful. Just flu-like symptoms in a couple of cases, and pain in the rest. Nothing to fear, and coincidentally, not much different than the disease, itself. 

It's yet to be seen whether they'll turn into obedient zombies when triggered by the State through the "vaccines", like in the book Divergent. I'm betting against it (although I don't doubt some political criminals would love for this technology to be available).

As far as I know, I never had Covid-- I never took any test. I haven't gotten any "vaccine", either.

I dislike injections and avoid them unless I see a real reason for them. But I'm not scared of them. And in this case, I see no real reason to get one (or two-- or one every year). I would have to be afraid of Covid to think an injection is necessary, but I'm not.

I'm not fearless. There are things I am scared of. Large, aggressive dogs for example. And heights. So I know what fear is and I know when I'm experiencing it. Covid, and the "vaccines" for it, don't cause any fear in me. None. Fear just wasn't ever part of the equation.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Look toward cryptocurrency's future

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 16, 2021)

It seems nearly everyone is talking about Bitcoin and Dogecoin, as well as the thousands of other cryptocurrencies, these days.

Cryptocurrency is seen as a tool for financial freedom and privacy, as a way to hide profits from crime, and as a way to gamble and get rich (or go broke) quick.

Depending on how it's used, it can be all those things and more.

The prices of cryptocurrencies, as measured against government fiat currency like the US dollar, rise and fall, often based on nothing more than a comment from Elon Musk.

Some worry that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies aren't based on anything. Why do they imagine this is different than modern government money? The only reason a dollar has any value is because people imagine it does, based on the US government's promise to keep stealing from productive people far into the future.

Governments generally fear cryptocurrency and most want to regulate it. They frame this as "protection" for the people, but if that's part of the story, it's a small part. Mostly they want to tax it and stop it from freeing you from their control of the money supply. If you have alternative money, their inflationary schemes don't work as well for them and their cronies. They see this as a problem; I see it as freedom.

I don't believe governments will ever be able to control all cryptocurrency. They will keep trying and will have some limited successes which they'll publicize to try to scare you away from it.

If you want to try it, please diversify. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Not only should you get several different cryptocurrencies, but get some physical gold and silver, too, and even some of those US dollars. Realize, though, the dollars will continue to lose value due to the Federal Reserve's irresponsibility.

Recently there was some concern that Bitcoin is a climate disaster in the making, taking too much energy to create and trade. This ignores the environmental impact of creating and using dollars, or even silver and gold and barter, too. Everything has a cost. Accept this reality and make your choice.

I don't know what's in the short-term future for cryptocurrency. In the long term, I think it will replace government fiat money. Money of some kind will continue to be useful for trade. You should be able to decide what money you use.

(A reader didn't like this one and let me know.)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

How Things (fail to) Work

It seems many-- if not most-- people have hypotheses of How Things Work that depend on everyone being evil idiots... except when they have political power. In that case, they are necessary and society can't function without them.

Mmhmm. Sure.

These people never seem to notice how completely irrational and delusional this hypothesis truly is. And yet they'll lecture the rest of us to accept their diseased "reality". 

Usually, their main mistake is in defining every human interaction as "politics" when that's simply not the case. Only the unethical "win/lose" interactions are political, the rest aren't. And those political interactions aren't essential to society-- in fact, they are inimical to it; they are the opposite of social interactions. Politics is antisocial.

Are you going to be schooled on how to live among others by people who imagine everything is political, and that's not a bad thing? I will not.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"Fact checkers say..."

I'm cynical, but when I see anything prefaced with "Fact checkers say..." I take that to mean what follows is probably a lie. And probably one told to harm life, liberty, or property in some massive way.

There may be nothing they could do to stifle the opinions of others that would make me more suspicious. It's on the order of "Government experts claim...". 

I've seen some of the things "fact checkers" say. They'll take a tweet or story about someone's doubt, and they'll "check" things that were not a part of the piece they want you to be suspicious of. It's as though they are hoping you can't tell they've baited and switched, but will see the warning and that will be enough to convince you the writer has no credibility without looking into it.

Of course, sometimes it backfires on them.

The tweet at the top of this post was posted well before the "fact checkers say" lie hit social media. So, that's not the specific warning they applied to this one, but it didn't really work out well for TPTB. This tweet is still being shared on a massive scale. If the clowns at Twutter had ignored it, it would have been quickly forgotten. But that's not how it turned out. It's probably on course to become the most retweeted tweet ever, even though you have to jump through hoops to retweet it.

And, if you'll notice, the clowns of Twutter, after claiming that the tweet is "misleading" (it's not), want you to follow their link to "learn more about how vaccines work" even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the tweet. They can't even criticize it honestly.

I see the same sorts of things happen with any skepticism concerning the most recent president selection, too. "Fact checkers say" all sorts of things that are demonstrably not true, and usually have little or nothing to do with the information they don't want you to know.

When you see "fact checkers say" you can probably ignore what comes after. It's most likely going to be an authoritarian lie. At least, if you see that preface, take anything after it with a grain of salt.

(It's probably a coincidence, but as I was trying to post this I suddenly started getting a warning that the "update failed"-- it wouldn't auto-save. That hasn't ever happened, other than a momentary glitch. But this time, it kept going on this way for a long time, over and over. It's enough to make a person suspicious.)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"That's too far!"

Is there anything government could do that would make statists, government-supremacists, or just the average person who wants to believe government is necessary or good, say "That's too far!"? I have growing doubts.

I think they'd either deny it's even happening at all-- it's "fake news"-- or they'd claim it's being misinterpreted, or they'd find a way to justify it.

That's the difference between you and me and them. If government does something right, I'm able to say, and I believe you could, too, "Government did a good thing" and still say that doing a "good thing" using politics is unethical. I mean, even mass murderers can sometimes do something right, and they should be acknowledged when they do.

This is a level of awareness or honesty I just don't see from government's supporters.

I don't think government supporters are rational. I think they are able to fake rationality pretty well in some cases, but their superstition eventually trips them up.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Freedom is subjective; liberty is objective.

Liberty is great, promoting it is hard

To keep promoting liberty is hard work. It's not popular and is mostly thankless (there are greatly appreciated exceptions, though). In the 20 years since I first got online, many of the writers I have paid attention to have stopped writing. Some died, others just vanished. Did they get burned out? Did they say everything they had to say? One, Claire Wolfe, has cut back quite a bit on posting, but I'm glad she's still around. Others who didn't stop writing found more popular bandwagons to hop on.

One actually started advocating communism, maybe he was trolling but if so, I didn't stay around long enough to find out. 

Others got distracted and started promoting Trump or became obsessive anti-Trumpers-- either course made them lose credibility in my eyes and I stopped paying attention. Some went nationalist. Promoting any brand of authoritarianism just isn't going to fly. Yeah, I understand it's pragmatic.

"Social Justice" collectivism seduced a few more. I think that's an easy way for liberty advocates to feel more popular since it can be spun in a way that looks like supporting individual rights, even when it isn't.

But, whatever the reason, when I look back at who I was reading and learning from at the beginning of my online journey, most of them are gone now. Either actually gone, or gone from my sphere. Just like I am gone from the sphere of others who believe I parted ways with them over one issue or another. It happens. Views evolve. 

I have to stay true to myself and my interpretation of liberty. Wherever that takes me. I do a self-evaluation pretty often to see where I stand with regards to individual liberty-- to see if I think I'm going off track, and nudge myself back on course when I need it. Sometimes I get that nudge from others.

It might be nice, in a way, to find something more popular to focus on. I'm sure it would pay better. But I just can't put that much effort into trivial things that I see as passing fads. At least, even though this is hard work, it's worth it to me.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Imagine if the rabies virus mutated and got weaker over time like the coronaviruses (and others) do. After a couple of days of being grumpy due to a headache and a tight throat, you'd be fine and immune for life. It would have simplified my life.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like having a really strong opinion for or against a vaccine might be tempting the Universe to smite you.

"Anonymous" art buyer: "Hey Hunter, when one of your paintings sells for exactly $251,963, that will be me. You can then have your dad's handlers return the favor." See how easy that is?

Don't "trust science" or "follow the science", DO the science. Yes, you really can in many cases. Science is not magic beyond the capacity of normal humans.

They just don't want it to work

It took years, but I eventually came to realize that when someone claims liberty (a libertarian society, anarchy, Voluntaryism, whatever you want to call it) "won't work", they are telling me about themselves. That they aren't capable. That they might not be trustworthy or responsible. That they can't imagine living without a Big Brother.

I already know all about the faults that humans have. I know how liberty recognizes and accounts for them. I trust myself to be able to navigate the world without an aggressive gang of thieves to fall back on.

I feel bad for those who can't. 

I may still call them out, though. It should be embarrassing to be that way. 

What's funny is that these people so often see themselves as the intellectual opposite of communists and other collectivists, who they'll try to group me with, while operating from the same playbook as those they imagine they aren't like.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

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