Make politicians invisible again

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 15, 2021)

You may have picked up subtle clues that my opinion of politicians is exactly as low as my opinion of freelance thieves, bullies, and vandals. It's impossible for me to dislike them more than I already do.

Still, I admit some politicians are undeniably worse than others.

My measure of how good or bad a politician is depends entirely on whether they force me to notice them. The more I notice them, the worse I consider them to be. Any politician who isn't completely invisible to my daily life is one I don't like. This not only includes their physical presence, but any legislative or bureaucratic nonsense they drop in my path for me to step in.

If they make up any legislation I might notice, they need to do better. If they flood society with minions acting on their behalf to impose this legislation on me or anyone else, they've crossed a clear line.

I want them to leave me alone, and I mean this in every sense of the phrase.

Obviously, if I notice them because they've stopped bothering me as much as their predecessors in some obvious way, I'll cut them some slack in this one area.

Yet, this wouldn't have been an issue if a politician hadn't meddled where he or she had no business meddling. Somehow, politicians have come to believe meddling is their business rather than being a crime.

It used to be a person could live an entire lifetime without ever meeting a government employee. They were like mythical creatures one heard about from mysterious travelers but had never seen with their own eyes. Much like harpies or Mongolian Death Worms.

Later, the only government employee anyone was likely to encounter was the person delivering the mail. Unless someone actually requested a government employee's presence, they were not imposing themselves in your life.

This isn't the case anymore, much to the detriment of society. This situation is as helpful to society as potholes in racetracks are to racehorses.

Worse, due to the licensing scams they keep expanding you are required to deal with government employees regularly to stay "legal". In some cases once per year, which is far too often. The number of required encounters keeps rising all the time like an overflowing toilet.

I want politicians to become invisible again. Even if their jobs don't go completely extinct, If we no longer see or hear them, it's an improvement.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Texas "Constitutional" carry-- how's it going?

Back before the Texas "Constitutional" Carry legislation went into effect, I had wondered whether it would make any difference. It seems like it may have, but I'm not sure.

I haven't seen anyone open carrying yet. I guess old habits are hard to break. I've always loved seeing regular people (not government tools) wearing a full holster on their belt, but I understand the wisdom of carrying concealed.

I had feared the "We don't care if you die!" signs would remain everywhere, and new ones would appear. That doesn't seem to be the case.

A few new signs of this sort may have shown up (I'm not quite sure), but most of them vanished. Some "Please don't open carry here" signs were posted. Also, a few places left up their old signage referring to license holders and such. I guess they didn't get the memo.

One change I didn't expect is how many of these pro-mass-murder signs vanished from New Mexico stores nearest the state line. Maybe it was only a coincidence that it happened at the same time, but it looks connected to me.

No new legislation was needed, of course; the old illegitimate rules just needed to be abolished or ignored. Yet it seems to have worked out pretty well, considering.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

How can it be both ways?

Why would you pin your hopes on the results of the next election while at the same time believing the last election was stolen? Are you going to v*te harder next time so that no one would be able to cheat enough to beat you? How would this work?

No election is legitimate because no one can have the right to govern anyone but himself. Never. Rights and liberty are not subject to majority opinion or political "authority". That's just how it is, like it or not.

Political criminals will still kill you to prove they are "right". And that's just how it is, like it or not.

But if you believe the last election was a fraud, how can you believe your v*te will matter next time? Do you think the winners will be scared to do it again? Do you think they'll behave because they know you suspect them and will be trying to watch more closely?

Or, do you v*te with the hope that your side will cheat harder next time to pull off a "win" in spite of the anticipated cheating of the other side? Would they need your v*te in that case?

Was there cheating or will your next v*te count?

It just seems really confused to me.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

Libertarianism is all about liberty. Liberty is freedom tempered with responsibility. Thus libertarianism is a deep understanding of, and respect for, freedom tempered with responsibility. If you're not smart enough to understand that, don't embarrass yourself by trying to tear down libertarianism with your statist strawmen built of ignorance and fear.

It's not the tool. It's NEVER the tool.

There was a mass shooting in Norway. With a bow and arrows. Five people are dead with more injured. Some people are commenting that bows aren't (yet) illegal or registered in Norway, hinting that this is a bad thing. Talk about missing the point...

 The tool used is not the problem and never is. It doesn't matter what tool it is (unless it is one which can't be used defensively by being aimed at the individual archator-- governments or bombs, for example).

The most destructive weapon is political government. It can't be aimed sufficiently to target only an archator-- just like a nuclear bomb. If you believe bombs and governments can be used defensively, the burden of proof is on you, because this is an extraordinary claim.

If the control freaks employ the least ethical "tool" to ban guns, knives, or bows and arrows, evil losers will use something else. If the political criminals ban that thing, too, evil losers will move on to something different. There's always a "best available tool" if you're an evil loser. In fact, the most horrible evil losers use political government as their weapon of choice. Banning political government would be pointless too, until humans grow up enough to make banning it redundant. Until then, don't let political criminals get the drop on you.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

Going with the flow (of traffic)

There are things I do that some might mistake for "obeying government". Such as driving on the appropriate side of the road.

There are reasons to drive on the socially accepted side of the road. Legislation isn't necessary. I don't want to be in a head-on crash, and that's less likely as long as I go along with the social convention to drive on the same side as (almost) everyone else in this area. It is self-interest as well as being a way to avoid harming others

It's similar to the reason I don't archate. I have determined that my own life will be better if I drive on the right side of the road and if I don't violate life, liberty, or property. Who would need another reason?

I don't even believe legislation dictating the side of the road to drive on is legitimate. If you're self-destructive, how is it going to stop you? It's a pointless "law".

Along the same lines, if you're doing dumb or harmful things just because legislation says not to, you're being controlled by government.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

Statism is self-sabotage

Something I've noticed most of my life-- at least since I figured out that there were statists and non-statists-- is that statists are invariably angry or otherwise miserable. They've sabotaged themselves by adopting a broken belief system.

Even when I'm in a bad mood, it would only be worse if I were a statist. I know because that used to be the case. I'm much less angry now than I was back when I thought government could possibly be legitimate in certain situations.

The statists I know seem to always be angry over something and it looks like it's due to their statism. The more statist the person, the worse their anger and misery (and the more likely they'll project this anger on non-statists).

I think statism is naturally uncomfortable for humans, even though most seem to choose it. I suspect they don't realize it is optional-- this is probably by design.

They probably want government to do something it isn't doing, while it is doing something else instead. They seem to want to control what people do (cough-cough *wear masks, get jabbed*). They are possibly also upset by those they see living more free than they'd like government to allow. 

Basically I think they want the impossible-- to control other people completely. They don't seem to understand what makes humans tick. This ends up making them angry at other people and government for not solving this issue.

I wish people would be more responsible, kinder, and smarter. I am not under any delusion that I can force them to be. It would only frustrate me more to try, or to blame other people for not controlling the ones who can't control themselves. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of my wishes or my idea of what would work better for them. I'm not going to sabotage my peace of mind by joining the control-freak cult.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

Politics is no more the "real world" than TikTok. In fact, politics is the TikTok for people who take themselves too seriously and believe themselves to be "adults".

Political power is the power to bully

If you define political power as the power of government, then I don't want political power. It's the power to bully. This power is concerned with controlling others. I'm only concerned with controlling myself, and that doesn't involve political power. 

However, sometimes you'll need to remove a bully's political power before you are able to control yourself. I understand using power-- force-- to stop others from controlling you. 

Political power is initiated force such as government action, rather than defensive action. I don't believe that's justified. Everything beyond the economic means or defensive force is political power. 

There is an acceptable way to use power-- using power to take back, from an archator, your power to control yourself. But government action?

I think there are better ways to get rid of bullies and regain your control than by using government. Including simple self-defense. I consider it more adult to use individual self-defensive violence than to use government violence-- including v*ting-- against an archator. Government-supremacists would rather you didn't do this.

Their opinion is trash. 

I will never think it's wrong to violently deal with a bully of any kind. I've encountered too many of them to have any sympathy whatsoever. I do not care if bullies get shot and killed by their victims, and I would never punish the victim for doing so. The bully made the choice to bully, so the cost of that choice rests on them. Yes, those who support bullies and political power will probably punish you for standing up for yourself, but don't mistake this consequence for proof that you did wrong.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.

US may be one panic away from disaster

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 8, 2021)

A couple of centuries ago, a smart fellow known as Voltaire pointed out, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

This is a timeless truth.

It explains why a disturbing number of people in the year 2021 are calling for segregation, imposed poverty, or even concentration camps-- they prefer to use euphemisms-- for their neighbors who are, for whatever reason, unvaccinated against Covid-19. If this isn't a willingness to commit an atrocity, what is?

They've been fooled into believing absurdities concerning the virus, now they are publicly calling for atrocities. Society is ripe for some political functionary to start committing atrocities, using the excuse of "public safety", and these people would cheer and start lighting up the tip lines. Or dragging their neighbors to the "authorities" themselves.

There is a big overlap between those who want officials to punish their unvaccinated neighbors and those who want government to ban gun ownership. Maybe this doesn't mean anything, but it is worth noticing.

Many of these same people want to convince you that Ivermectin is only a horse de-wormer. Would they also characterize penicillin as only a horse antibiotic? Both are partly true, but incomplete.

Any medication can be dangerous if used incorrectly. Trying to shut down discussion concerning a medicine-- whether Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, or Cannabis-- is neither rational nor ethical. It's not science, but superstition. If you feel the need to shut down debate you've admitted your position is weak.

This doesn't mean I believe you should use any particular medication. Your medical decisions are between you and your doctor, with your informed consent being the deciding factor in every case. Government, social media corporations, and I shouldn't have any say in the matter. You might as well listen to your dog's medical advice-- the credibility is about the same.

I have no idea whether Ivermectin or anything else is effective against any specific virus, but I know when people are lying. You are being lied to.

It's not completely their fault. They've been lied to by politicized "experts" and they bought it hook, line, and sinker. Now, based on the absurd lies they believed, they have come up with what must seem to them to be a reasonable reaction.

It's not ethnic cleansing, but ideological cleansing. Does this make it better in their minds? America may be only one panic away from disaster because so many have believed absurdities.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"Tyrannovania has the right to..."

I do not support any state. No state has the "right" to exist. 

Yes, individuals have the right to organize and cooperate, but not to form states or otherwise violate the natural rights of any other individual.

This always comes to mind when I hear someone say that such-and-such a state "has the right" to do something. No, it doesn't. Individuals do, as long as they aren't violating the life, liberty, or property of anyone else, but a state doesn't. No collective has the right to violate the rights of any individual. (Not even of those inside the collective, especially when their "consent" was coerced.)

The belief that they do has caused a lot of tragedy on a massive scale. "Consent of the governed" is a scam.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

No political government-- "government" or state-- is legitimate, credible, or ethical. Not one ever has been or ever will be. Because they are political. And if you remove the politics it stops being what anyone would generally call "government".

Abolish the police. That's not bathwater and whatever's floating in it is no baby. Toss it out.

William Shatner is going to space on Blue Origin's rocket. I can't help but think that's kind of awesome. Even if something goes wrong-- space is risky-- for Captain Kirk to die in a spaceship mishap (or even just in a spaceship) seems correct in some way. I'm hoping for his safety, of course, but he's 90 years old and has had a good run, and this wouldn't be the worst ending.

"Just breathe...."

The last few days I've been wound up. Too wound up.

I was worried about my dad's vaccination sickness-- he has finally recovered.

I've had some particularly aggravating repair projects going on that I wasn't having a lot of success with. Self-inflicted injuries, sore muscles, frustration, and things that didn't fit together the right way because they weren't the right parts. I'm sure you know how that goes. If not, you're more competent than me.

Then, on a visit to my parents' house, I was subjected to live "news" reports about that Arlington, Texas school shooting, and the absolute idiocy of the cops, politicians (including school administrators), and the news media comments just about drove me up the wall until I could escape. My daughter said I started yelling.

It was a perfect storm to stress me out and get me worked up.

Normally I'm a pretty calm person. Just maybe not these past few days. I need to recharge. I need a cave in the wilderness. Or, even just some wilderness-- which doesn't exist near here. I'd love to be a castaway on a deserted island somewhere. For at least a few weeks.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

A license is not the same thing as a credential. A license is government permission-- after paying government-- to do something government pretends to have political "authority" to ration. A license is mandatory.
A legitimate credential says you have been judged (by someone others believe to be competent) to be competent at doing something. But no one is prohibited from doing the same thing without a credential.

The view through "government goggles"

People who hallucinate that any part of political government is "ours" are going to see almost everything through that filter. In other words, they won't see anything accurately, but through the distortion of government goggles.

Scarier still, they'll not see you or your rights as you or they actually are. Since they don't see these accurately, they don't have any qualms about violating you. They may even deny you've been violated at all.

After all, if you think your life, liberty, or property are sacred, you'll get in the way of "our democracy", "our president". "our law enforcement", "our military", "our schools", etc. Standing up for yourself feels to them like you've violated them since you didn't allow them to do to you as they wish.

If you doubt me, take a quick peek through government goggles sometime. But don't let them stay on your face too long or you'll get brain damage.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

This morning's kinderprison shooting happened at the school my w0ke niece worked at a few years ago. 

To scare people into supporting mandatory Covid "vaccines" it has been necessary to convince people that a cold virus is as dangerous as polio.

It has been said "That government is best which governs the least". Thoreau was on the right track, but not exactly right. That government is best which governs the fewest. The best government governs only one individual-- the self. Governments get worse the more people they attempt to govern. Any government trying to rule, for example, 300 million+ people is pure evil and needs to be disposed of.

Politics makes people stupid, but it also makes them aggressive, evil, and easily manipulated. Divorce yourself from politics as much as possible. You'll still be cornered by people armed with politics, but defending yourself from them isn't politics; it's survival.

Malpractice

I'm more than a little angry.

Friday morning my dad got the (at least in his case) unnecessary Covid booster and the flu shot. He's been sick since Saturday morning. It made him more sick than he was when he had Covid back in the summer of 2020.

I think encouraging an 80-year-old-- who has already had Covid-- to get the "vaccine" and its booster is malpractice. Giving him the Covid booster and a flu shot at the same time compounds the malpractice to an almost incomprehensible level. Flu shots alone have always made him sick, but not this sick.

The only reason he and my mom got the Covid "vaccine" in the first place is that my 29-year-old niece-- who has been oozing w0keness ever since college-- insisted that no one in the family could see her baby unless they got the jab. I could live with that mandate; my parents couldn't. So they took the completely unnecessary shots. The baby subsequently caught Covid anyway and had the sniffles for a couple of days.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Not anti-vaccine but anti-mandate

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 1, 2021)

I am not anti-vaccine. I've been vaccinated for a few things in my adult life because I think the risk of those vaccines is less than the risk or inconvenience of the diseases they are supposed to prevent.

I wouldn't bother getting a quasi-vaccine which neither prevents the vaccinated from getting nor spreading a disease I'm not particularly worried about; a sort-of-vaccine which doesn't even last a few years, to moderate a new, slightly more dangerous, cold virus. A cold virus, which like all other cold viruses, will never go away.

It would be dishonest to call me an "anti-vaxxer". I'm not one. I think some vaccines are very useful and are a great benefit. Just not this one.

If you want the vaccine because your opinion of the relative risks differs from mine. I want you to get it. If you get the vaccine, I hope it works or at least makes you feel safer-- whatever you want it to do.

New data might change my mind and make me decide I want one of these vaccines, too-- if the new data comes from a source I trust. A source more credible and trustworthy than those currently counting the numbers of cases and deaths. Government is not such a source.

Why would anyone assume the numbers reported by government agencies and other politicized entities are even close to true? It is an unsupported assumption. I don't trust anyone connected to politics.

I oppose using government power and threats of violence to force others to get vaccinated or to wear masks. I also oppose using government power to forbid vaccinations and masks for those who voluntarily choose them and bear the full costs themselves.

I'm not anti-vaccine. I am anti-mandate.

In this case, I see no difference between bullies, governments, or corporations. No government or corporation has any right to do anything, since rights are individual, not collective. A collective can't have the right to violate individuals' rights.

Yes, private business owners have the right to require masks in their business. I also have the right to refuse to trade with those business owners.

I oppose anyone who helps government create vaccine passports of any sort. I oppose those who advocate for social division based on vaccination status. Even if I later decide to take the vaccination, I will always oppose "Papers, please" and other authoritarian interference in life.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Justifying mandatory Covid "vaccines" for young kids in government school with the observation that other vaccines are mandatory for admission into kinderprison illustrates that mandating any vaccine is wrong rather than making the argument that a mandatory Covid "vaccine" is OK. Also: Death to kinderprison.

Heed the warnings you are lucky enough to get

It's a constant frustration for me to warn someone about an issue I can see on the horizon only to be scoffed at or told I am lecturing. Then-- at least when it's my personal life-- to be expected to fix the problem once it happens. After my warning was completely ignored.

It happens so often as to be a theme.

It's the same whether I'm warning people in public about looming inflation, warning people to prep, or warning someone in private that they are ignoring something that's going to cause a problem in the near future.

Do you experience this, too?

I am often a good "fixer", but I'd rather avoid issues I see approaching, heading them off before they become problems that need to be fixed. But when I warn others, and it's up to them to do something to avoid this future problem, they usually don't. Then they expect me to fix what their inaction caused. I guess they think it's easier to let the problem happen and then have me fix it. I should just refuse to do so, but I won't.

To be honest, I've been guilty of ignoring the warnings of others, too. More when I was younger, but it still happens sometimes. So I guess I can't be too hard on others.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

No, I'm not pharmacologically enhanced

A few months back I was asked by a reader if I had ever used "shrooms". 

He thought that the way my mind works, as seen in my writing, suggested that I had. I haven't.

He wasn't being sarcastic or mean by saying this-- we had a nice conversation about it after he asked.

It's an interesting thought, though-- that my mind might, without 'shrooms, work similarly to the minds of people who have had that experience rewire their brains. Or maybe it doesn't and that was just his way to make sense of the way my mind works.

Maybe 'shrooms would make me "normal". That would be a tragedy!

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Burn it with fire

It's always easier to keep from making a mess than to clean up a mess you've made. Not that it's easy to not make a mess, just easier than cleaning one up.

When you neglect the messes you've made, they snowball into bigger and bigger problems. After a while, the mess is so bad there's simply no way to clean it up anymore; you have to just burn down the house. 

Like one of those hoarders whose house can't possibly be cleaned up and made safe or healthy again.

Those who came before us had the chance to clean up the messes they were making by establishing states-- political governments. But they didn't want to. They just kept making more and more messes (governments) and pretending it was fine.

Now the disgusting thing is filled with rotting food scraps, dead cats, roaches, billions of pages of legislation filling every room floor to ceiling, and who knows what else. It can't be cleaned up. It will simply have to be burned. Don't blame those who are facing the reality you don't want to face.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Anthony Fauci is Death? Faucheus is French for the Grim Reaper. Coincidence?

Improbable things and gullibility

Sometimes I think about earlier eras, when naive people believed in sheep plants (not cotton) and other animals that grew from the ground. When they believed in things like cockatrices and werewolves and strange people with backward feet and people without heads but faces on their chests instead. And they wrote detailed descriptions of the characteristics of these things as though they were real, and told of encountering them somewhere off the map, where no reader was likely to venture.

But people believed in these things. Really odd beliefs based in a deep ignorance of what was real and why these things they believed in were biologically improbable (or impossible). 

But at least it was an interesting time if you allowed yourself to believe in these things.

And then I smile because I know sapient beings will eventually look back on the belief in political government the same way, shaking their heads that anyone could believe such silliness and improbabilities. Think how many of your acquaintances actually believe in this stuff even now!

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Government isn't as special as its supporters and many of its critics believe. If it's wrong for government to do something, it's wrong for anyone to do that thing. It's not wrong because government does it, it's wrong whoever does it.

Way too much, actually

I don't know if you ever watched the 1994 animated series "The Tick", but one of my favorite lines from that show happened when a group of Secret Agents converged on the Tick's house and told him, "We're from the government."

His response: "Well, no thanks. We've got all the government we need."

My sentiments, too, except that I know we don't need any political government or its agents/employees bothering us.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Good? Evil? "Both are fine choices"

Pondering my Twutter suspension, I got to thinking...

If a serial murderer explained in public that committing random murders was the only "skill" he had, would it be wrong to tell someone else, as part of a conversation discussing his claim, that the serial murderer would be doing the world a favor if he killed himself? Especially if he was telling the truth about this being his only "skill"?

Of course not. HIs death would be a great benefit to the world. And it's right to point it out, even if you end up encouraging him to kill himself because he found out what you said. There is really no downside. Some people simply need to be dead.

If your "terms of service" forbid such a thing, your "terms of service" are toxic to society. If you aren't allowed to call out those who are committing evil, then why would they ever change? Evil becomes just another fine choice among equally valid options that no one is allowed to criticize (where they can be heard).

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Shouldn't have been in Afghanistan

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 25, 2021)

Nearly everyone criticizes the way the U.S. left Afghanistan and claims to know what the right way would have been. I see it differently. The tragic situation in Afghanistan has lessons for Americans, but I see most Americans missing the lessons because they are looking at it wrong.

The problem wasn't in the leaving; it was going there.

It's smarter to not make mistakes in the first place, rather than to dig yourself in deeper and deeper for 20 years and then realize there's no good way out. The time to worry about what's going to happen to someone you've pushed off a cliff is before you push them off the cliff, not as they smack the ground below.

Yes, I realize some people chose to join with those who then pushed them off the cliff, but they've had 20 years to find a parachute, and chose not to do so. Maybe they see the error of their ways now, when it's too late.

The most important lesson to be learned from the situation might be this: Government is not your friend. Do you think anyone is paying attention and learning this lesson?

Another lesson is: Don't meddle in other people's business. Doing so is usually a mistake, especially if you're using them as pawns and putting them in the position to die if-- or when-- things go wrong. Yes, I know there are those who believe the US government should police the world. They are wrong. This ought to remove any remaining doubt. Those who most need to learn this lesson, won't.

The Afghans would have benefitted from understanding another truth before the lesson forced itself on them in a horrible way: Don't trust government. Don't rely on government employee promises that they'll keep you safe. Don't imagine your life matters more than their own life, or even more than their job. It doesn't, no matter what they say to get you onboard.

The Americans stranded in Afghanistan would have been better off had they understood this as well.

Yet another lesson which everyone should pay attention to: Never imagine a political situation won't change. It will. If something can't continue unchanged forever, it won't. And nothing can. Part two of this lesson could be stated as: Don't side with the team which is going to have to hang you out to dry sooner or later.

Were you paying attention? Are you learning?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Kitten update #9

Whiskers seems to be recovering nicely. He even spent the day yesterday having the run of the house, among the other cats, unsupervised. And seems to have done fine.

His frequent nosebleeds worry me a little. Maybe it can be explained by how often he crashes into things. His surgical site finally stopped oozing blood, and I haven't noticed blood in his stool for a bit-- but that might be because I don't get a good look very often. I was a little concerned he might have a blood disorder, but now I'm thinking he doesn't.

So, I think he's doing great. I'm not looking forward to his hernia surgery, but that can wait.

-

All the parts of Whiskers' story, here: Original, first update, second update, third update, fourth update, fifth update, sixth update, seventh update, eighth update.

>> If you don't mind, share his GoFundMe-- I'm almost done with it now, as long as nothing unexpected happens with him.

-

I've also been helping a family of feral cats that hangs out on the porch. There were originally two orange kittens, but one has disappeared so I'm watching out for the last one more closely. I was able to treat his stuffy nose and slightly goopy eyes with left-over medicines, and he's looking good now. I'm looking for a home for him.

Because there are no magic wands

In a magical Harry Potter world where magic wands are real, we wouldn't need cars, phones, or guns because the wands would do all the things those tools do. 

A wand would be the only EDC you'd ever need and knowing how to use it would be the only skill you'd ever need to master.

But in the real world, we need multiple tools to fill those needs.

To hate tools is to show the world how stupid you are. You can still hate those who misuse tools to violate life, liberty, and property, though. They are the problem, not the tools. And they would also misuse magic wands if those were real.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Skeptical of artificial "authority"

I don't mind real authority. In fact, I can appreciate it. 

I've always had an issue with political or otherwise artificial "authority", though. And it has affected my life in many ways-- some good, some bad.

Back when I was free to seek conventional employment, this limited my options. But it also kept me out of trouble several times by keeping me skeptical of people or organizations that it turned out would have been really bad for me to be involved with. 

Just about anything has good and bad sides, including the word "authority".

I'm not sure how wise it is to use the same word to describe experts (autual authorities) and bullies (political "authorities"), though, since those aren't even close to being the same things. But I see this problem with many other words, as well.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Another thing that shouldn't exist, so trying to fix it rather than eliminating it is a waste of time and effort: government-controlled schools.

Infuriating myself so I can grow

I intentionally expose myself to opinions I disagree with all the time. Even opinions that make me mad. 

One reason is that I might be wrong and I'd like to know if I am. How will I know unless I seek out the opposing opinions of others?

Another reason is that if I can see the holes in those other opinions and am able to describe how and why those holes make the other opinion collapse in on itself, it can help me strengthen my own argument. Plus, I can better see if I am ignoring any such holes in my own opinions.

Telling the other person why they are wrong isn't going to go anywhere, because they won't believe they are wrong, so it's probably pointless to debate them on it. Sometimes it's fun, anyway, but don't expect it to convince them of anything.

Regardless of the reasons, you should seek out crazy, stupid, delusional opinions sometimes. Just don't get sucked in like the poor sap you're listening to did.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Does it "work"?

I see people pointing out that if 100% of the population is "vaccinated" then of course 100% of the deaths will be among those who were "vaccinated". It's simple logic and couldn't be otherwise. No argument here.

However, they say this to explain reports that in some countries where somewhat less than 100% of the population is "vaccinated" (potentially every country on the planet, in other words) a significant percentage of those dying of the target disease were among those "vaccinated" against it. And this doesn't hold up the way they seem to believe.

There's a huge difference between 100% "vaccination" rate and any other rate.

If 90% of the population is "vaccinated" shouldn't it still be overwhelmingly the unvaccinated dying of the disease? Even if total numbers are way down. Even if the unvaccinated are a small percentage of the total population. Like hundreds to one-- or more. That should still be true even if 99% of the population is "vaccinated"... if the "vaccine" works. If that's not how it adds up, I don't think the "vaccine" can be said to work.

Something isn't adding up here. It might be my assumptions, my speculative numbers, or whatever on my end. But it might also be the official story.

Also, if a vaccine needs a booster every 10+ years, that's reasonable. If it needs a booster every day, it's NOT a vaccine. If it needs one every six months or so, that's a lot closer to "not a vaccine" than to a vaccine. You'd have to stretch your definition of "vaccine" beyond all reason in that case.

Things like these, that make me not trust the official narrative, just keep piling up. 

But, if you want one of the Covid "vaccines" I hope you get it, and I hope you feel better for having done so. I hope it keeps you healthy. Just don't demand government violence or corporate coercion be used against those who choose differently.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Today, for the first time, I was asked to wear a mask as I entered a store in New Mexico. He said, "You have to wear a mask", as he tried to hand me one. I said, "No thanks, I'll just leave", and I did, as he was apologizing, saying it's "store policy".

No, I don't think I will

Someone posted a video clip of a cop (I think it was in Australia) saying he agrees with those protesting the lockdowns, but he's just doing his job, and that policing is the only skill he has.

So I commented: "If your only 'skill' is being a hired gun for a tyrant, enforcing legislation or policy, you need to end your pathetic existence. You are taking up space from worthwhile lifeforms."

So, Twitler (his minions, I'm sure) suspended my account. 

I can get back on if I delete the tweet. Not going to happen, at least not today. If they don't like it, they can delete it, but I'm not going to do their dirty work for them. Because, like it or not, what I said is 100% true.

I've never been suspended or banned from any "social" media platform until this, and have always thought that if it happened, it would be time to stop using that platform.

Yes, I've gotten a lot of value in the last few years from Twutter, but not enough to beg to be in their good graces. I've had several people who I interact with a lot tell me they never see any of my tweets on their timeline anyway. So maybe I overestimated Twutter's value all along.

(Just for laughs, you should share this on Twutter!)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Do those who seek power over others enjoy it?

Is the pandemic response a way to increase authoritarianism?

Yes.

Intentional or not, this has been the result.

No, there was no secret meeting where this plan was hashed out. Political government is authoritarian. Those involved don't have to discuss it anymore than fish have to discuss how gills work. It is just the nature of the thing. Leave them alone and they will become increasingly authoritarian over time. And if pathetic cowards actually encourage them to be more authoritarian, they'll go at it faster and harder. They like it and if no one stops them...

You want to know who gained power? Well, the New Mexico governor, for one. But she wasn't the only one-- almost everyone at every level of political government gained power from the Covid reaction. Do people like power? Are they happy to gain it and unhappy to lose it? Do you understand what motivates people?

What power did the New Mexico governor, as one example, gain? The power to control how and if business owners are "allowed" to run their business-- beyond the illegitimate controls they agreed to by getting a business "license". She also gained the power to make individuals wear face masks (through threats of state violence) and to get a "vaccine"... among other powers she didn't have before. Did this benefit her, personally? She must believe power benefits her. If not, why did she seek political office-- power over others-- in the first place?

People look really dumb when they argue against stuff like this just because they like government as a general principle (as long as it's doing what they want).

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Libertarianism works in real world

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 18, 2021)

When you take a libertarian and whittle away everything nonessential-- all the philosophy and politics-- what is left is the understanding that no one has the right to use violence against those who aren't harming someone else, and no one has the right to violate the property rights of others.

This simple idea is often phrased as "no one has the right to initiate force". Another name for the initiation of force is "aggression", so the definition of a libertarian is anyone who rejects aggression.

Even most children understand this concept. It's why they say "He started it!" rather than admitting they threw the first punch. Children instinctively know libertarianism is the right way to live among others, even though they often fail to follow it very well. Come to think of it, the same could be said for most adults.

Property rights violations are sometimes counted as aggression but are more commonly called theft (including fraud, taxation, and fines), trespassing, or vandalism. Either way, they are still wrong.

What's wrong with aggression?

Aggression is offensive force. You have the human right to use force-- violence-- as long as you use it in defense of yourself or someone else. Violence used in defense is not aggression. Every living thing on Earth has the natural right to violently defend itself. Legislation can't overrule this right, nor can it legitimately forbid or control the tools of defense, be they claws, horns, fangs, knives, or guns.

Most people have been fooled into accepting aggression and property violations when committed by those who claim it's their job. These are the people among us who live by "the political means" where one person wins at the expense of another, rather than by "the economic means" where everyone comes out ahead and feels they got the better end of every deal.

If you use force against someone for not wearing a seat belt or for offending you with their words, you have used aggression. You've done something no one has the right to do. I consider those who do this to be the bad guys, no matter what justifications they use.

Libertarianism works in the real world, every day, without being forced on anyone. The alternative only works when most people have been tricked into believing aggression and theft are the only way to get things done. For a growing number of people, the trick isn't working anymore.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Foot in mouth, without realizing it

Sometimes government-supremacists put their foot in their mouth; they make a point that works against them without realizing what they've done.

I saw someone point out-- with regard to mask/"vaccine" mandates-- that good ideas don't require force.

So a statist piped up that "The Republic is held together by force".

Yeah, that didn't quite make the point he believed it did. It seems to make a great argument against "The Republic"-- beyond all those I've heard in the past.

In the same way, I saw someone pointing out that there is no database for long-term vaccine problems, as justification for not letting the lack of such data for all the Covid "vaccines" keep you from getting the jab. But, that's not exactly what I took away from that. It got within spitting distance of turning me into a full-fledged anti-vaxxer. No, it didn't quite get me there, but a few more brilliant points like that, and it might happen.

It makes me wonder why government-supremacists are so clueless about what they are saying. So often, if they pondered the words they utter, they'd see that they've dismantled their own position.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Who woulda thought?

It's odd. People I never expected to hear saying smart things have been saying smart things. 

Some famous girl, Nicki Minaj (a rapper, I've heard) has been quoted as saying people should watch what substances they put into their bodies. She believes a friend of her cousin had a bad reaction to the "vaccine". Whether that really happened or not, she would still be 100% correct.

Then Sarah Silverman (I've seen her before but I can't remember where) says the US needs to break up because this "isn't working". Some of us have been pointing this out for years-- practically forever. Yes, it's long past time. The "Civil War" [sic] should have ended that way. "The Union" isn't. It has become a forced marriage between people with not enough in common. Breaking up would be the healthiest alternative. It's dumb to stay together just because you're scared that someone else might come along and force you into another coerced "marriage".

It just goes to show you never know who's going to say something smart (or who's going to say something stupid).

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

You can't fix what shouldn't exist

A while back I watched an informal interview with Elon Musk as he walked around Starbase, Texas. One thing he said really struck me.

He has said many times that the best part is no part, and the best process is no process. 

In this interview, he described wasting time trying to optimize and improve something that really just needs to be eliminated. The brilliant insight is to realize this fact and to stop trying to fix it. Just ditch it!

This not only applies to landing legs on Starship, but to police, elections, and the state.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

New Mexico mask mandate update #3

I've made some observations about New Mexico's newer mask mandates, and it's not going the way the governor wants. Not in this region, anyway.

Links to previous observations here and here.

Today my daughter wanted ("needed") to go to a hobby/craft store. I could either drive 90 miles one-way to visit one in a big city in Texas, or drive about 12 miles one-way to the local one in NM. I chose NM.

Again, there was a state-mandated sign on the door, but this time at least 50% of the customers were unmasked. I didn't try any other stores to see if the percentage held there, too. But, it appears as though compliance is actually fading with time. At least in this more Texas-like part of New Mexico.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

How can you tell that the suspect is either a cop, a politician, or a politically connected person?

Clovis police announced Aug. 31 they had identified the vehicle and the driver in the hit and run, but the police report on the incident has not been made public. (link)

That's how.

A ban on mask mandates is still a ban. Just like a ban on slavery is a ban. Neither would be necessary without government creating the conditions that allow both to become a problem.

Doctors vs. veterinarians

Yesterday I had a routine medical checkup. The doctor wasted the majority of his time in the room trying to talk me into the Covid "vaccine". 

Thinking back on this later I had a realization: Covid-- or at least the social turmoil surrounding it-- destroyed my trust in doctors. 

But at the same time, recent events bolstered my trust in veterinarians.

There is a huge difference in how the vet spoke to me and how the doctor did. 

The vet gave me what she believed were the facts to the best of her knowledge, told me the options, and accepted my decision. I didn't feel judged.

The doctor told me anecdotes with giant obvious (to me) holes in them, tried to scare me, assumed I get medical advice from F***book, told me the experts say it's a good idea, and didn't want to take "no" for an answer. I felt I was being manipulated and judged when I didn't succumb.

One gave me respect and the other treated me like a stubborn, stupid child.

This is how it felt anyway. 

Was this the real situation, or just my perception? Is it just a difference in their personalities? Or, is it understandable that a doctor "cares" more because his patients are human so he's going to try harder to convince you of what he believes is the right course? Maybe. I know I have biases that will color everything.

I come away from the vet feeling good about the interaction, even if she says something I don't want to hear. I came away from the doctor appointment feeling terrible about life and about myself.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Kitten update #8 (and something about puppies)

His good side, to save you the shock

Whiskers is home. He looks kind of bad-- mostly because they shaved that side of his face. I knew they'd probably need to do so.

But he's in good spirits and playful-- if a little clumsy. He seems very happy to be home with his humans. He hasn't ever (since I've known him) been able to see out of his right eye anyway, so not having it isn't going to be an issue.

They neutered him (I told them they could, if they thought it was advisable) at the same time they took out his eye, but I forgot to ask about the hernia, so they didn't fix that yet. That means there's still one more surgery in his future. Still, he's getting there!

Thank you for all your support as I try to do my best for this little guy!

  
  >> If you don't mind, share his GoFundMe.

All the parts of his story, here: Original, first update, second update, third update, fourth update, fifth update, sixth update, seventh update.

              PS: I've actually rescued more puppies over the years than kittens, even though I prefer cats. Shocking, I know! 

I once raised an entire litter of boxers after the mother died a couple of days after they were born. That was interesting. Those guys were fat, destructive, and numerous. OK, so there were only 5 of them, but it seemed like a lot more sometimes. But they were all healthy, so that was easy. I raised them until they were weaned and gave them back to the people their mom had belonged to. They kept one of the pups; the one they had named "Number Five".

I also once raised a puppy of indeterminate breed that was brought into the pet store I worked in. It was a newborn with a still wet umbilical cord that was already the size of a half-grown guinea pig. The person said they watched a dog cross their yard, squat and have a puppy, and keep going. So they picked it up and wanted to know how to raise it, but then decided it was easier to leave it with the pushover at the pet store. That one became a big dog with a HUGE appetite-- I found a home for him after he was weaned (too long after, I think), but they said he ran away the very next day and they never saw him again. I regret that mistake. 

Anyway, just in case you thought I only rescue kittens...

A police officer is someone who commits the unethical act of legislation enforcement, just like a rapist is someone who commits the unethical act of rape. Opposing those who commit unethical acts isn't being collectivist and is in no way similar to racism.

What it is vs. what people believe it is

Exhibit A

Whether or not what social media corporations are doing these days to those they disagree with counts in your book as "censorship", most of those affected negatively by it feel that it is. And they are reacting to what they feel-- as humans usually do.

Whether or not you believe social media corporations and other corporations are "private companies" or "private property", a growing number of people no longer see them that way. And people are reacting to what they see, not how others define things.

So, whether people are right or wrong, they are going to go with the assumption that they are right. They will act on this assumption. Even if you believe they are wrong, and even if you are 100% correct, you'd better get ready anyway. Your definitions (or mine) aren't going to persuade them out of what they see and feel.

Interesting times.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Kitten update #7

Whiskers went to the vet this afternoon. As expected, the eye has to go. He is going in first thing tomorrow to have the offending eye removed. 

My daughter is kind of upset about this, but understands it's what he needs. I'm kind of the same way.

I'll post another update sometime after the surgery.

   >> If you don't mind, share his GoFundMe.

All the parts of his story, here: Original, first update, second update, third update, fourth update, fifth update, sixth update.

I'm not afraid of the current political/economic/social situation, but I definitely feel a looming sense of unease.

Ending the "worker shortage"

Do you want to solve the "worker shortage" problem? Then stop making it unnecessarily difficult to work for you.

No, I'm not saying you shouldn't expect people to do the work you hired them to do, I'm saying you shouldn't try to control them beyond what is necessary to do the work.

That means no sexual molestation/urine fetish called "drug testing". If someone is at work and you think they seem impaired or unable to do the job-- for whatever reason-- fire them. You have the right to do that, but to demand a sample of their fluids to see what they might have done when they weren't working for you is an indication that you don't respect their boundaries. You're a terrible boss.

Along the same lines: Don't demand they get vaccinated against a new cold virus. Send them home or fire them if they get sick. Firing them would demonstrate to everyone what a jerk you are, but you have that right.

If the person doesn't clean themselves and is making people sick by how they look or smell, that affects job performance.  If they are rude to others and drive away business or make their cow-orkers miserable, that matters. If they are so incompetent that they endanger life and limb-- even if they aren't on drugs-- that person needs to go away. Some things matter, but a lot of what makes it hard to find good employees doesn't.

It's the same as the old silliness of (mainly) the past of not hiring a person based on the color they dyed their hair, the length of their hair, their visible tattoos, or anything else that's irrelevant to the job. If you want to have trouble finding good employees, then continue down that path. But, if not, the solution is in your hands.

The last "normal job" I held was burdened by bad management. They treated employees badly and took advantage of them, and fired hard workers for silly reasons, and then moaned that everyone in the area was too lazy to work. (Even though they had hired and rehired everyone around, even after firing them or driving them away-- the available jobs were as limited as the available bodies to fill those jobs.) When I pointed out that the evidence didn't support their claim, that there was an obvious problem they weren't acknowledging, they shut up about it. I'm sure their opinion didn't change, though.

This doesn't mean everyone is suited to hire. If the person preaches "seize the means of production", giving them the job is not a smart hiring decision. Such a philosophy is relevant-- it's a warning sign. I would say there are other signs that warn that the person will likely be more trouble than they could possibly be worth-- there are warning signs all over the place, such as social media bios. Believing in "microaggressions" and other w0ke nonsense being a big one. You are free to take the chance, though.

The deal-breaker for me, as a potential employee, is selling out your employees to government, on any basis. Yes, I know, government bribes you to do so, and threatens to punish you if the bribes don't work. Still, you really don't have the right to do that, "private business" or not.

The "worker shortage" could be ended overnight, but you'd have to be courageous enough to do the right thing. Fewer and fewer are that brave anymore.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com