Just give me a shady vine and a good view

There may be a prepper tendency to want to watch the world burn. At least, I am susceptible to that tendency.

I know it wouldn't be good for anyone, including me, but sometimes you just get tired of watching morons and political criminals destroying stuff and you just get to the point where you say "Screw it all. Let them have the destruction they've been trying so hard to get."

They've earned it.

I get to that point a couple of times per year. I'm teetering on the brink of that right now.

Just let them deny reality-- but stay out of the way. Reality isn't going to be forgiving.
Let them try to destroy liberty. Liberty always strikes back.

I've even seen government-supremacists showing doubt in their beloved institution recently. They want to believe government is legitimate, but government is working hard to poke holes in that delusion. 

You should have seen the reaction I got from one the other day when they were complaining about the most recent fraudulent election, but then pivoted to complaining about "illegal aliens" and I mentioned that the Constitution doesn't allow government to control "immigration". After a brief pause followed by a short explanation, I got a "Huh" and they moved on without objection. They seem ready to accept some truth they weren't ready for before. And I think it's all thanks to government behavior and overreach. When something puts in the extra work to prove itself illegitimate, you might as well accept it.

Either enough people will start getting a clue that disaster will be avoided, or they won't. I'm kind of past caring which way it goes... at least for now.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.
If not, tell me how I can.

Best to let people make own choices

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

I love people. I also know that humans are deeply flawed. This combination explains why I'm a libertarian.

Every other position insists that no one is smart enough to run their own life while also believing most people are smart enough to run the lives of people they've never met. This running of strangers' lives is carried out through voting and wielding political power. It's not a realistic position.

The libertarian position recognizes that most people are better at running their own lives than others would be and no one is qualified to run the lives of other people, not by a vote nor by having political power. Plus, no one has the right to run anyone else's life.

This doesn't mean everyone will be successful at running their own life.

Those few who can't are free to ask for help from those who are equally free to help or not, or they can choose to do things-- commit crimes-- which may result in suffering acts of self-defense directed against them. They are free to choose their path, but complaining about where the path leads won't change things.

Even those who can't run their own lives have the right to try, and no one has the right or the imaginary political authority to forbid them from trying. Letting them do it wrong is the right thing to do if they won't listen to your advice.

The person who tries to control others is worse than the person who won't control himself, regardless of how things turn out. I speak as someone who has suffered from the bad choices of people who didn't control themselves, so don't imagine I have some rosy picture of everything being butterflies and rainbows if people are left to make their own choices.

Some of those you think can't run their own lives have simply never been given the chance. Either they've been coddled like children and told others are doing what's best for them, or they have been punished for making choices others don't like.

The loving thing to do is to give them the chance and let them live with the consequences of their choices. This includes being held accountable and owing restitution for any actual harm they cause. How can they ever be functional members of society otherwise? Most people live up, or down, to your expectations. Keep your hands off and give them the chance.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Suspender holster

I've shared my journey to find a good EDC holster, but I haven't shown (or I don't think I have) my backup.

This is a holster I made for my little NAA mini-revolver. It attaches to my suspenders, and is worn under my vest. Cute, ain't it? I guess it could be called a "susPEWnder holster".

I made this one with some salvaged leather, from a paper pattern I created. I think I could now make an even better model since I've worked out the kinks, but I haven't bothered yet. It'll happen when it's time.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

A resolution?

Yeah, it's a week late, but I didn't resolve to be punctual.

I don't really make New Year's resolutions. I did when I was young. They usually lasted a few days.

Several years ago I made a New Year's decision-- to completely stop sitting at the computer and to only use a standing desk. That one was easy to commit to-- I got rid of the chair, built a shelf for the computer, and didn't really give myself a choice. It's handier, since I don't feel anchored down and can dash off to deal with crises (daughter, cats, etc.) much faster. It has also made me feel so much better; less "blah". I still haven't broken that one, although I have allowed myself to work from the couch a few times when I was sick.

Anyway, I saw a friend post the above Malcolm Reynolds picture and I loved it. 

Yeah, if I were to make a resolution, that would be it. I resolve to not be compliant or obedient when it comes to authoritarian demands-- no matter who is making them or how they justify them, whether they are in the name of w0keness or nationalism or whatever-- unless it is to simply avoid being shot right now. Political criminals will always be political criminals and it's sometimes useful to live to misbehave another day when they have the drop on you. Martyrdom is overrated.

Of course, that's not really much of a resolution since it's no different than last year or any year in the past few decades.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating. 

Or, send cash in the mail.

I guess it's good news for the LP

I had supposed my recent newspaper column about why I can't be a conservative would draw fire, especially considering the local audience. I got nothing but silence. 

I didn't think any liberals would even see the next column about why I can't be a liberal, so it was no surprise that I got zero reaction to that one. 

For a reaction, I had to wait for my column about why I can't be a Libertarian. That one was specifically about the Libertarian Party (LP). I'm not even saying I hate them or would fight against them-- just that I can't support them. Because I don't consider them particularly libertarian. 

People are very defensive of the LP. That must be good news to them. If that passion translated into v*tes they'd be sure to win at the political power game. That they don't must be (additional) evidence that the game is rigged.

I actually started getting the latest batch of emails in defense of the LP several weeks ago when a "Big L" Libertarian reader of my newspaper column was confused that I was using the word "libertarian" while not endorsing the "libertarianism" of the LP. My first clue that we were discussing completely different topics was that he always capitalized the word "Libertarian". He was especially upset that I spoke out against the mask (and "vaccine") dictates, insisting that Libertarians would see that not wearing masks during a pandemic is aggression, and that people can't be trusted to do "the right thing", so they need to be controlled by The State. 

So, this isn't exactly new.

About this latest column, another respondent was also confused over capitalization; about why I capitalized "Libertarian" when discussing the Libertarian Party, but not "conservative" or "liberal" (when NOT discussing a "Conservative Party" or "Liberal Party"), apparently missing all the times I wrote "libertarian" in my column and in my replies to them. And this was happening in a conversation in response to a column about the LP vs libertarianism where I carefully spelled out the difference in capitalization due to the other guy's confusion.

Others had other objections, with one thread running through them all: people seem to feel trapped. In various ways, they told me (or hinted) that they feel they are left with no choice but to engage in politics because everyone else is doing it, thus the LP. 

One told me that withdrawing consent will not work in our current world, so you have to use the political means. 

This was in response to my quoting of Étienne de La Boétie: “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.”

If you imagine Colossus is a specific political criminal you might see v*ting for his opponent as "supporting him no longer". If, however, you realize that Colossus is the entire idea of political government, no matter who makes it up, you'll have a different response.

Something I wish the LP supporters understood is pointed out in this quote from Bill St. Clair: "Many complain that in anarchy, warlords will take over. I've got news for them. We already live in anarchy. It's been that way since God gave free will to Adam. And warlords have already taken over. They run for election, and wear badges. The secret is realizing this truth, so that, even though you obey when you must, to avoid being kidnapped or killed by the warlords, you know what they are. They rely on the fact that most people think their authority is valid. Once that stops, and people stop obeying them en masse, there will be nothing they can do about it." 

No one is ever going to v*te their way out of this mess. Hating on those who know this fact won't make it any less true.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating. Or not.

Working with your enemy

Are business owners actually unaware of the nature of government, or do they really embrace it, or are they afraid to speak the truth?

A couple of examples I've seen (on video) recently: SpaceX feeling the need to thank the FAA for allowing them to launch, and gun stores not pointing out that the FBI and BATFEces thugs are criminals for the illegal things they do regarding guns. 

Why?

Is it Stockholm syndrome? Or does it come down to just pragmatically trying to not anger the thugs who can ruin your day? Or, do these businesses honestly not see that government is their enemy?

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Beware counterfeits

I have a counterfeit Morgan silver dollar that I bought from eBay years ago. I didn't even realize it was counterfeit until years later, after I'd learned a little more and was examining my silver. Now I keep it as a reminder that I can be fooled, I'd probably sell it if someone wanted a counterfeit Morgan, though.

I'm sure I even gave the scammer good feedback at the time. 

The US Constitution is another counterfeit that once fooled me. I once thought it protected individual liberty. Then I encountered Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth W. Royce. But I was already almost there anyway because of Lysander Spooner and others-- as well as because of my own observations over the years. So it told me what I already believed.

More recently the Covid pandemic almost pulled me in. I was ready to panic-- not to impose anything on anyone else of course, just personally, as an individual. Fortunately, I recognized it as a counterfeit existential threat before I had given up my sovereignty or betrayed my principles. You can watch my thoughts about it progress over time by checking out, in chronological order, all the posts tagged "coronavirus". 

You are surrounded by counterfeits that you are supposed to accept as the real deal. The corporate media is counterfeit "news". Politicized doctors are counterfeit experts. Politicians are counterfeit leaders. Corporations are counterfeit "persons" with counterfeit rights. There are even people demanding you allow them (or someone on their behalf) to violate your real rights in favor of their counterfeit "rights". Don't be taken.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Are you scared of the future?

Do things you read or hear scare you about the future? Or do you take note and go on with life?

I've discovered that some of the preppers' videos I watch are scaring others in the household. Those videos don't scare me at all. Instead of fear, I feel better informed and more prepared. And I get valuable ideas.

I don't think there's any reason to be scared if there's something you can do about a situation.

There may be a reason to be scared if there's nothing you can do about it, but fear is still probably pointless. If a planet-killer asteroid is heading toward us, fear seems like an understandable reaction, even if it's not productive since there's nothing you can do about it.

But nothing I've heard from any preppers is reason to be scared. They are reasons to prepare. 

I'm not scared of Mad Max world-- I don't want it, but I'm not scared. I don't want my daughter to feel hunger when there's nothing I can do about it. That's why I prep. She might be more concerned about a world without "social" media, but that seems like a beneficial development to me. We'd push through that "crisis".

For most of the situations preppers discuss, I feel I could navigate my way through them. Maybe that's false confidence. I've made it through a lot of things that could have killed me. Looking back they don't seem nearly as difficult as they did at the time, and most of them taught me things to avoid.

I don't think there's anything to be scared of-- no, not even authoritarianism. Just keep learning and be open to better ideas. And try to help calm down anyone around you who is afraid of the future. Panicky people around you isn't going to be helpful.

-

If I've earned your support, or you want to help me 

buy another gun, consider subscribing or donating.

Real world better than metaverse

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

Have you been hearing about the metaverse? What is the metaverse? It's "virtual reality" taken to another level. Like experiencing the internet as though it's the world you live in-- to see and hear it all around you as if it's physically real. Imagine the best video game you've ever seen, but so much better you have a hard time believing your character isn't actually you, doing all the things your character is doing, surrounded by other people's characters experiencing the same.

It's not just about playing games, though. Business, social groups, education, and other features of the real world would be there, too. Anything from the real world, or anything someone can imagine, could be present in the metaverse.

I can see limitless benefits... and limitless downsides.

Some think it may replace reality for most people when the technology gets good enough. People might choose to spend all their time in the metaverse instead of the real world. When I see those obsessed with online gaming or other escapism, I think it's possible.

I see the attraction. You could avoid your boring, unpleasant reality. You could be the superhero. You could experience things and places you could never experience in real life. You could form relationships and even make money. Yes, you'll still need money to keep your meatbody alive and your internet bill paid or you'll lose your connection to the metaverse, which would probably feel like death.

Will this just be another thing people become addicted to? Yes.

Anything enjoyable is addictive, and things which can be specifically tailored to be addictive, such as the metaverse, will be especially addictive to those who are vulnerable to addiction. I'm guessing that's somewhere between 10% and 40% of people when you include everything people already get addicted to. For something like the metaverse, the percentage might be higher.

I prefer the real world-- with all its warts and scars-- because it is real. Unless we already exist in a simulated reality, which doesn't really change anything important to this discussion. I can imagine how age or disability might make me reconsider, though.

If you don't get pulled in, will the metaverse remove a lot of excess people from your daily life? It might feel like the population of the world has plummetted when so many people are staying plugged in all day. Maybe the person who avoids the metaverse will end up King of the (real) World.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Don't fall for the brainwashing

Can you tell when someone is trying to brainwash you? 

Well, one way to know is to watch out for revealing words. Such as when they say "our government" or "your government". That's a lie, but it's one most people won't catch. That also applies to "our president" or other politicians.

Another red flag is when they speak of "leaders" when talking about rulers or politicians. Another sneaky lie.

A newer trick that emerged with AGCC ("climate change") but went viral (how punny) during the Covid overreaction is to speak of "the science" when spreading the opinions of politicized "experts". Science is a process, not a proclamation. "The science" is a lie.

If they can make you accept their deceptive words without hesitation, they can fool you into believing the world is as they would prefer you believe. Often, they are trying to make you accept the legitimacy of political government-- something which can never be legitimate.

Brainwashing doesn't have to be a complete lie but could be a half-truth presented in an untruthful way. Such as what often happens with corporate "news". In fact, it's their only gimmick.

Don't let the bullies brainwash you into giving up your individual liberty. It's never worth it.

Any comfort you get from embracing the brainwashing is fleeting. The pain could last the rest of your life.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating 

so I can buy one of the two guns I'm currently craving.

I'd even do a review.

Happy New Year!

I still think "New Year" is an odd concept. Especially at this arbitrary date. But whatever. It's "accepted" by almost everyone and it doesn't matter to anything real. So, happy New Year!

I'm hoping authoritarianism meets a painful death in the coming year. It has earned this much. I'll do my best to not do anything to prop it up with cowardly compliance and disgusting obedience.

I'm also hoping this will be the final nail in the Covid overreaction coffin. It's gone on way too long, and for nothing. 

I heard someone say something about a 2021 "year in review", but my brain heard "urine review". That would probably be just as interesting. I mean you were there so you know what happened. You don't need anyone to remind you. 

So here we are. Let's make the best of it. Keep prepping, go through tolfa.us again (or for the first time if you have neglected to do so until now), and keep exercising your liberty to the fullest. Don't let this be "2020 too".

Let's go Brandon and all other politicians as well. Into the dustbin of bad mistakes with you all.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Keep believing in the rituals!

I have a long-time friend in a state far away who has been Covid-panicked from the very beginning. Back then she worked in food service in a nursing home, so I was able to relate to her panic-- it was a job requirement-- but she now works in a convenience store. The stink lingers, though.

She was over-the-top with all the prescribed prevention rituals: masks, hand sanitizer, social distancing, and all the shots. And scolding me for being skeptical. Now she has Covid.

Maybe the shots did help her. She's asymptomatic and only got tested after finding out she'd been exposed. Still...

Plus, she says she'll continue to get boosters into the indefinite future if she's told to-- even after catching and recovering from Covid! She says she still "believes in" vaccines, even though (she says) she knows I don't.

She's got that wrong. I believe in vaccines... when they are helpful against a disease that's an actual threat. If a vaccine against "the common cold" were created, I probably wouldn't bother to get a Rhinovirus vaccine, even if it was 95% effective and 99.99999...% safe. Because why bother?

I don't want to control what other people do, but what people do makes me wonder about them sometimes.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Experiences are filtered

Everyone's experience of everything is filtered.

Take the Covid example:
Health care workers probably feel Covid was more dangerous than it was because their experience of it was filtered to expose them to the worst outcomes. People who went to the doctor or hospital skewed what doctors saw happening. Those who experienced Covid as just another cold didn't go seek help. How often do you go to the doctor from a cold (assuming you aren't a hypochondriac)? I've never gone to the doctor for a cold.

Of course, my own experience of Covid was also filtered. I probably saw it as less dangerous than it was because people who were too sick to go on with their lives didn't interact with me. I saw only those who either experienced it as a cold or who-- because Covid was on their minds-- sought medical treatment but were sent away and told to treat it as a cold or flu. My personal experience was also filtered such that I came to believe "long(-haul) Covid" was confirmation bias.

Paying attention to the (fake) "news" is another way experiences are filtered one way or another.

Thus, healthcare workers or people who believe the (fake) "news" were more likely to be concerned due to what they were exposed to, and I was less likely to be worried due to my own experience and because I don't pay much attention to the (fake) "news". 

But all of us were influenced by the way our experiences were filtered before they reached us. 

It is helpful to be aware of this effect when making decisions-- particularly before deciding to force your opinions on others under threat of violence.

I've noticed the same filtering in other things, too. All your experiences are filtered before you experience them. Being aware of that might help you navigate the world in a more realistic way.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Being offended by "Merry Christmas" makes as much sense as being offended by "Happy Thursday". So what if you don't worship Thor or any of the other gods the days of the week are named for? Have a good Thursday (or whatever day) anyway! I'm not going to feel bad about wishing you a pleasant day-- if you choose to feel offended, that's on you.

The Holiday "No politics" zone

I can get through almost anything "social"... as long as politics (anti-social behavior) is left behind.

I am an introvert. I can enjoy time with people, but I have to recharge afterward-- and during.

We had a very busy, crowded holiday weekend. Fortunately, it all happened at my parents' house. That gives me a place to flee to, since that's only 7 blocks away.

But it was a good holiday.

Our family contains people of every sort of political inclination, and me, who's against politics. No one said anything political other than my dad's one crack about "defunding the police" during a Christmas movie scene where Santa was arrested.

The only real stressor was the big anxiety-ridden dog who came with one couple (because they couldn't find a sitter). My parents' cat is now terrified of coming in the house, but will hopefully get over it now that the intruder is gone-- all but the smell.

Everyone got along and had a good time. It's amazing what can happen if politics doesn't poison it.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating. If I haven't, maybe I will.

Good jury makes the right choice

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

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial may have served as a canary in the coal mine. That's how I saw it.

Government doesn't respect your right of self-defense and would prefer you die at the hands of attackers. Fortunately, the jury saw through the malicious prosecution.

Unfortunately, much of the public believed the lies spun by the national media corporations to advance their anti-gun, anti-defense agenda. Rittenhouse was even called a "white supremacist" and his attackers were called "his victims".

Rittenhouse was persecuted for doing something everyone has a natural right to do. Even the attacker who testified admits he wasn't shot until he pointed his gun at Kyle. It would have been irresponsible of Kyle to allow himself to be shot.

The trial, if legitimate, would have been thrown out immediately with this admission. It wasn't.

Some excuse his attackers because Rittenhouse had a gun. So did the attacker who survived. Holding a gun is no excuse for anyone to attack you, physically or politically. Guns aren't the only tools which can kill; so can skateboards and fists.

The ridiculous prosecution even argued that someone has no right to claim self-defense if they have a gun.

To claim you lose the right to claim self-defense if you are armed with a gun is not rational, but political. First of all, rights can't be "lost". Second, who claims you've done something wrong by being prepared for an emergency?

It would be the same if the roles were reversed and Kyle had been the one to point his gun at an innocent person and be shot because of it.

To charge him with a crime and force him to defend himself from government was itself a criminal act. The dishonesty of the prosecution was astounding. The prosecutor in this case is as much a criminal thug as those Rittenhouse shot in self-defense. He had no case to stand on.

Kyle Rittenhouse was a political prisoner and is owed restitution by those who kept this farce going. Individually from their personal bank accounts and from selling their property, not from tax funds. The prosecutor-- and others-- should be destitute after committing this crime against Rittenhouse. Proper restitution would make Kyle nearly as rich as Elon Musk.

I don't believe the government court system is legitimate. I have no respect for it whatsoever. I'm still relieved it sometimes, thanks to a good jury, stumbles across the right decision.

-- PS: Support fija.org

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The Omicron variant will likely turn out to be to Covid as cowpox was to smallpox. If you know medical history you'll understand.

Merry Christmas!

Being better at thinking

Not only do most people seem to be stuck in binary ways of thinking, but they also aren't even very good at that.

Being against "vaccine" mandates doesn't mean you hate vaccines. Those are completely different, unrelated, issues.

Being against police doesn't mean you like crime.

Being against political government doesn't mean you want chaos.

Being against democracy doesn't mean you support autocracy.

See the jumbled "thinking" involved in all these thinking mistakes?

That's not even the end of it.

Being opposed to something doesn't mean you're afraid of it. I'm against "vaccine" dictates, police, political government, and democracy, but I'm not afraid of those things. Nor am I afraid of Covid, crime, chaos, or autocracy.

People who are driven by fear see fear where it doesn't exist. Maybe it helps them feel better about themselves. I feel sorry for them, but I can't arrange my life to comfort them.

And, just because I say "Merry Christmas" doesn't mean I'm against every other Winter Solstice celebration. There's room for all of them. The more, the... well... merrier!

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

I'd prefer Dr. Frankenstein

I really dislike Fauci. 

I have had a negative reaction to Dr. A. "SciencePersonified" Fauci (full first name: Anti) from the beginning. Something about his face and his eyes and voice and mannerisms, but also because I don't like what he says. If he said things I agree with, maybe my reaction to him would be more positive. 

We'll never know.

He just doesn't seem trustworthy to me. 

Of course, trustworthiness is subjective. I couldn't trust him, but maybe you could. Your impression of him might be completely opposite of mine. If he doesn't seem repellent to you, do you agree with what he pushes? Or should I have reversed the order to ask "If you agree with what he pushes, does he not seem repellent to you?"

No president has had this negative of an effect on me. Not one. That makes Fauci special-- in a "class" with that harpy Hillary Clinton and that murderous David Chipman guy.

If Fauci said drinking clean water is essential to staying healthy, I'd keep drinking water. But then I already know this is true and his proclamation wouldn't make any difference. If he said new data shows I need to put a spoonful of sewage in my drinking water (or in my veins) to keep from getting sick, I would ignore him (and advise others to ignore him, too). His opinions don't sway me either way. 

No, I shouldn't let myself be influenced by how repellent I find a political criminal. Maybe he's right about everything and I'm a fool for discounting his advice. I'm willing to take the chance.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Imagine being so blinded by your religious devotion to the Cult of Covid that you believe "vaccine hesitancy" is the same as being anti-science or a conspiracy theorist. I guess in their minds, rational people just accept anything they are told, without question or pause, by someone who chants "It's Science, Baby!". Nutjobs.

Daughter ramblings

I'm thankful my daughter still talks to me. I've seen families where that wasn't the case.

My daughter was just telling me a couple of days ago that Christmas isn't as exciting for her as it was when she was younger. I explained that as a little kid, you're very excited by what you get, but that as you get older, that excitement is replaced by excitement over what you give. If you want to feel Christmas excitement, give gifts you are excited to give. It made sense to her.

I hope she's able to appreciate the wisdom I offer. Haha.

At least she doesn't roll her eyes at me-- that I see. That doesn't mean we never have friction between us. 

I tried to immunize her years ago by warning her that hormonal changes were coming that would make her hate me for no real reason, but that I would love her through it all and we'd be OK in the end. Back then she said that she could never hate me... but that was then. Some days I think she almost crosses the line. The next few years might be interesting.

She's at the age (14) where every w0ke pronouncement sounds like truth, and actual truth is ugly and unwanted. Truth sounds mean, and social [sic] media and her friends tell her it is horrible and backward. 

She sometimes tries to sell me some w0ke; I don't buy it.

I just listen to her saying her piece. I agree when she's on the right path; I usually say nothing when she's off in the w0keweeds. Sometimes I try to say something much later to make her think a little more about what she had accepted as true, but that is crazy once you examine it outside the bubble.

Speaking of weed...

Yesterday we were picking up an item for someone else at a flea market on the New Mexico side of our territory. Just inside the door, the guy had a scraggly marijuana plant growing in a pot. I nudged my daughter and told her what it was. She said later she hadn't even seen the plant (I admit, her observational skills are normal), and wouldn't have known what it was until I told her.

We burned some gas and spent some money just hanging out together all day. We had some hours to kill and we didn't want to be home without something to keep our minds busy. Vet offices need waiting rooms.

The past few days both of us have been a bit anxious because Whiskers-- our one-eyed rescue kitten-- was going in for his hernia surgery. He came out of it in great spirits. He still has one issue, but we'll work on solving that.

The kitten is one bond between us, but we have a pretty good relationship beyond that-- at least so far. We can still talk about anything. I don't take it for granted!

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

The other side isn't what's evil

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 17, 2021)

It's popular to paint the other political side as evil. The people probably aren't, but their ideas and actions may be. Remember-- you are "the other side" to them.

Evil isn't just whatever you don't like. That would be too easy. Evil is any action which violates someone who isn't currently violating the life, liberty, or property of another; an act which harms someone who doesn't deserve to be harmed at this moment.

Philip Zimbardo, who became famous for his 1971 Stanford prison experiment, in his book The Lucifer Effect, defines evil like this: “Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize, or destroy innocent others—or using one’s authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf.”  I appreciate that he counts as evil the use of political "authority" to influence others to do evil.

People aren't evil, but they can commit evil. Some seem to prefer it. I think it's useful shorthand to refer to someone as "evil" when they consistently and repeatedly commit acts of evil, even if it's not exactly accurate.

So how can you tell if the "other side" is the evil side, or if your side is? Check to see which is violating the life, liberty, or property of another. Sometimes you'll discover both sides promote evil, but in different ways.

Do you support the use of government violence-- through enforcement of legislation-- to take people's money or other property?

Do you advocate the use of government violence to punish people for their choice to use substances you believe they shouldn't use?

Do you approve when government violence is used against those who defended themselves from attackers in a way you didn't like or used weapons you don't believe they should use?

Do you applaud the use of government violence to ignore private property rights and the right of association in favor of government borders?

Do you favor government violence forcing parents to have their children indoctrinated into beliefs which are useful for the state?

Can you see how all these political preferences harm the life, liberty, and property of people who aren't currently harming anyone else? Do you engage in mental gymnastics to try to justify any of these positions anyway? If you can't see this for what it is, you may think of the other side as "evil" while embracing your own brand of the stuff.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"Law" enforcement is NOT the solution to crime. Not any more than amputation is the solution to a splinter-- or the possibility of getting a splinter. It only makes things worse, even though it might-- might-- reduce the appearance of crime if you wear blinders. In reality, it just shifts the direction most crime comes from slightly.

Carefully crafted failure

You can't be surprised that an idea fails when you've put artificial constraints on it to make sure it can't succeed. When you've planned things so it must fail.

Defunding the police-- as invariably done by city governments-- is one such idea.

If you defund (or abolish) the police-- without simultaneously encouraging the population to effectively defend their life, liberty, and property from all violators-- crime is going to increase. 

This failure doesn't mean police are essential. It means you rigged the outcome so it would look like they are. And the Blue Line Gang members still employed will be the ones targeting the people trying to defend life, liberty, and property to make it dangerous to do so.

Any mayor who doesn't ditch all anti-gun legislation and policies is sacrificing the population so The Gang will win. They didn't even try to solve anything, but did everything in their power to make things worse. This is because government can't allow the people to see that it is their biggest problem. "I want EVERYONE to remember WHY THEY NEED US!" 

To the lamppost with any such mayor.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Government's job

Government's job is not to protect people. Its job (if political government were ever legitimate and actually had a job to do) is to protect the rights of people. Of individuals. Against all violators, including, especially, its employees.

There's a gigantic gap-- a planet-splitting chasm-- between those two things.

"Protecting people" means violating their rights when they have the right to do dangerous things-- which they do. It's the excuse of slavers and abusive parents.

Protecting your rights means you are going to be at greater risk. It's a matter of putting liberty before life.

That government almost always (I'm being unreasonably generous here) violates your rights, putting your safety-- or worse "public safety"-- first, means government isn't doing its ONE JOB. It simply isn't possible for government to do what its only justification for existing would demand. Toss it out. That's no baby, and that's not bathwater.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Is it corruption?

Is the mafia corrupt?

You might wish it served to protect your property, widows, and orphans-- after all, that's what the mafia would claim it does-- but in reality, it steals your money, threatens you with violence, violates your rights, and murders people.

Corruption is something like rust, which isn't necessary, but damages and weakens the structure. Corruption isn't just that the true shape of the thing isn't to your liking. Rust on your blade is corruption; the sharp edge isn't.

You might believe the bad things the mafia does are signs of corruption, but those are really the things that make it the mafia rather than a social club. Without those unethical acts, it wouldn't be the mafia. You can't get rid of the things you might inaccurately call "corruption" without abolishing the mafia entirely.

Oh, wait, did I say "mafia"? I meant "government".

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

I don't want to be a hero because to be a hero, bad things have to happen in your presence. But if bad things happen in my presence, I hope I can behave correctly.

You and I may be standing alone

"Conservatives"-- Right-Statists-- aren't the force against "health" mandates that they see themselves as. Or that Left-Statists see them as.

The "conservatives"/Republicans I know personally are all much more trusting of the Covid narrative than I am. In fact, there's not much difference that I can see between them and the "liberals" I know personally (two of whom are Maddow-loving California imports). At least, not in how they act or what they seem to believe about it.

Although I don't pay enough attention to the "news" to know for sure, I suspect the "news" is the reason. Where Covid is concerned, I'm assuming it's all fake and it's all designed to scare people. Scared people are easy to herd-- and even easier to stampede.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating. 

If not, I'll keep trying.

U.S. Capitol belongs to people

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 10, 2021)

Pretending the January 6th demonstration was an insurrection is silly. An "insurrection" which didn't seek to topple any government, which was in support of the sitting president, and where the armed people were all on the other side? Nonsense.

On top of this, it infuriates me that anyone could be charged with a crime for entering a building which belongs to the people-- not to government-- and for protesting there. To treat this as a crime is injustice. Any government pursuing this sort of case against any individual has delegitimized itself beyond repair. It's done.

Did the demonstrators have a right to be protesting inside the building? Yes, they absolutely did. Would I have joined the protest? Not a chance.

The U.S. Capitol belongs to you. It doesn't belong to politicians or the Capitol Police. If anyone is trespassing, it is those congresscritters who are doing things the Constitution doesn't allow them to do. They are ignoring their clear Constitutional limits and doing the opposite of what the people they supposedly represent want them to do, within those limits. They are the ones who have no right to be on the Capitol grounds.

We can disagree over whether there's any point in protesting a criminal government. I don't believe there is, since I don't think any political government can be redeemed, but I'm not going to criticize those who hold out hope there may still be a slim chance. If you think it's time to protest, it's probably too late for a mere protest to fix anything.

To arrest the protestors was criminal, but the government's crimes went beyond that.

The monetary punishments levied against those who demonstrated are no different than any other violent mugging. It's especially telling when a fine and restitution are imposed separately. A fine is simply another tax-- more theft by government. And government can't be owed restitution because it isn't an individual; it has no rights that can be violated.

I don't know the Clovis doctor who was recently sentenced for entering the U.S.Capitol. I would probably disagree with him on most topics. I was not a Donald Trump supporter because I don't support politicians of any sort, ever. It doesn't matter. What he did wasn't a crime in any real sense. The crime was committed by those who sought to punish him and others like him. I'll always remember who these real criminals are.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Lots of small earthquakes relieve geologic pressure and make big, damaging earthquakes less likely. It is said that fracking for oil causes lots of small earthquakes. So, wouldn't it make sense that fracking would reduce the chance of large damaging earthquakes? Frack California!

"But the dictionary says..."

If you want to understand why I don't automatically accept the dictionary definition of words, here's a new example.

The definition of "anti-vaxxer" was changed in the Merrian-Webster dictionary to include "opposes...regulations mandating vaccination". Combined with how the definition of "vaccine" was itself recently changed (at least by government) so it could include the Covid shots, this should break anyone's loyalty to "dictionary definitions".

Check out what I said about "mandatory vaccines" back in 2015, and see whether my opinion has changed since that time.

I have never been an anti-vaxxer. Not by my own definition nor by the definition that used to appear in dictionaries. But by this new definition...?

As I point out in my own Liberty Dictionary, dictionaries don't tell you what words really mean, but how they are used. 

Any dictionary that is authoritarian/government-supremacist in its bias is going to define words to be more useful to what "authorities" want you to think. That's why the dictionary definition of "anarchy" is so bad. Why the dictionary definitions of "freedom" and "liberty" are so incomplete or misleading. "The dictionary" doesn't exist-- every dictionary is going to slant things according to the authors' biases.

I'm not suggesting we go all Humpty-Dumpty, but that we realize the authors of dictionaries are also prone to do just that. They aren't immune.

Check the dictionary definition, then weigh it against what you know to be true. You may find they don't agree.

-- H/T to JP

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

I've begun to suspect the correct formula is not "risk of the shot minus the risk from Covid" but is, instead, "risk of the shot plus the cost of compliance minus the risk from Covid". If you believe there is no cost to compliance, you are mistaken.

Some of the smartest things I've ever heard

I enjoyed this interview of Elon Musk where he completely bewildered the poor government-supremacist interviewer, especially with his comments toward the "infrastructure bill". Maybe you'd enjoy it, too.

He's not there yet, but he is close.

I still wish I could get a Cybertruck when they come to market.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

You can keep your exceptions

Recently, as if to illustrate a problem I've written about, I have gotten several comments and emails explaining why "X" is the exception. Why "X" is the one issue where other people's liberty can't be respected-- why they can't be trusted with it, but must be subject to control and enforcement imposed politically. And they all give perfectly reasonable-sounding reasons.

The thing is, everyone who has weighed in has a different specific exception. No two "X"s were the same.

Each specific exception hinges on the issue (or issues) they are most concerned about. The thing that worries them the most, or that they can imagine impacting them the most.

This is why you can't make exceptions. 

Liberty-- no exceptions.

You are responsible for you. Yes, many (maybe most) people are not responsible. It doesn't change this. 

You might not like having to watch your backtrail for those who aren't responsible. It's still your job to do so. Cops, bureaucrats, legislation, dictates/mandates, rules, law, etc. don't alter this one iota. It's still 100% your responsibility even if you're tired of it or feel inadequate to the task. 

You have the right to defend yourself from archation or credible threats to archate, but if you overreact you owe restitution. 

And there is no such thing as a "right" to proactively archate against them before they can archate against you-- and that includes through legislation and enforcement of legislation.

Once you start carving out exceptions, you have no basis to complain when others do the same for whatever "problem" bothers them the most. You'll have to fight among yourselves to see who violates whom the most righteously. Guns, Covid, vices, immigration, cars, Rock n' Roll, or dancing-- it's all on the table. Soon, what's left? You are only "free" to choose which hand your sex-monitoring chip is implanted in?

No thanks. That's not the world for me. I'll accept risk to avoid violating your liberty, even if you don't reciprocate and even if you don't want liberty, but only freedom. Your issues-- even if shared by the majority-- don't affect my principles.

-- Also published in The Libertarian Enterprise

-

As I have done in the past, I encourage you to enroll in TOLFA

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

Politics is the pits

I dislike politics very much.

As has been pointed out, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you. In violating you, to be precise.

I don't appreciate feeling like I need to pay attention to unscrupulous people who are plotting to use politics-- the political means; cheating-- against me. Yet, it is said to be unethical to use force to stop them. Just lay back and enjoy it, I guess.

They are literally scheming to rob me at gunpoint, to kidnap me if I try to prevent this robbery, and murder me if I resist effectively. Most people see nothing wrong with this situation. And that's just with regard to "taxation". They are plotting against me-- and against you-- from many directions besides that one. That's what politics is.

I understand that some people-- even libertarians-- like politics. They find it interesting. To each his own.

For me, it's a drudge. A dangerous drudge that threatens me. I just wish I could ignore the creeps safely.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

I can't care when evil losers die

I expect everyone here to disagree with me completely. That's fine.

"School shooters" are evil losers. Without exception. I don't care why they do it. I don't care if they claim they were bullied. I have no sympathy whatsoever. Especially when they use the bullying as their excuse to shoot people who weren't the ones bullying them.

However, if they target only those who are bullying them, I also have zero sympathy for their "victims". Bullies are evil losers, too. I don't care even a little about what happens to them.

Sometimes bad guys clash with bad guys and bad guys die. Ho hum.

Bullying has a price, but it is one that is rarely paid. That doesn't mean it is never paid.

Bullying is not that much different than murder, and bullying can include murder. Murderers are bullies. Murder is when the bullying becomes final. Bullying can be murder that takes decades to kill, or it can kill through suicide a lot faster. I'm in favor of bullies being stopped in the act, however that is accomplished. And I'll never care about them.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

Liberty > life

I recently had a self-revelation. In every case I've been able to think of, I value liberty over life if there's a conflict (real or imagined) between the two.

Life, liberty, and property are all important. If I were forced to rank them, though, I would rank them this way: liberty > life > property. And I think property and life are almost interchangeable-- property is what helps you hang on to life.

I get that some people reverse the order and value life more than liberty. Many people seem to value one or the other more depending on the specific issue. I don't think the issue matters at all to the equation. Liberty (to me) is always more important than life.

But which one is really more important? The question is meaningless.

Value is always subjective.

Liberty is why I will always support the absolute natural right to own and to carry weapons. Regardless of whether someone believes-- rightly or wrongly-- that doing so puts lives in danger. I'm pro-liberty.

It's why I'm going to side with the woman on the topic of abortion, even though I don't like abortion and think it is generally a sign of irresponsibility. I'm pro-liberty.

It's why I support the right of addicts to use drugs without being attacked by state goons. I'm pro-liberty.

It's why I am not a supporter of government borders, of cops, of Covid mandates, or of the safety nazis. I'm pro-liberty.

It's about liberty, even over and above life. Liberty is my priority.

Yes, you have to be alive to enjoy liberty. A corpse can't enjoy liberty. However, a life without liberty (or at least the hope of liberty to come) is worse than death in my opinion. I believe liberty is worth dying to protect and promote.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

Supply chain is government problem

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 3, 2021)

I hate to sound like a parrot repeating the only phrase he knows until everyone is sick of hearing him. Even though it's true. Squawk! Government is the problem.

If you've seen any news or visited a store recently, you may have noticed the supply chain seems to be broken. Almost every retailer is having trouble getting products, and many of them are telling customers to start trying to get what they want early. They are warning customers that the things they want may simply not be available in time for the holidays.

So far, this supply chain failure isn't as bad as is common in more completely socialist regimes, but it's worse than most of us thought would happen here in America. We are accustomed to being able to find what we want when we want it.

It will probably get a lot worse before it gets better.

Once again, those crazy "preppers" don't look so crazy.

Ever since the supply chain failure became noticeable, I've been hearing supposed experts giving their opinions on the reason behind it. Like me, you've probably heard many different reasons, not just one. All of them sound completely plausible, even though they are all different. Everyone is looking at the problem from their own angle, seeing a different part of the whole.

This inability to find one good reason usually indicates every reason you hear is wrong.

That's not the case this time. Not if you dig below the surface of every individual reason suggested for the failure. If you do so, you'll see there's one common feature connecting all of them.

At its foundation, every reason I've heard comes down to this: the "just in time" supply chain was fragile, and something was going to break it. That "something" was government interference.

It's been a long time coming, but the Covid overreactions of the recent past-- still ongoing in some backward political offices-- brought it to a head.

Regulations, licensing, legislation, handouts... they all came together to create this mess. It won't be solved by doing more of the same. Getting government out of the way is the only permanent solution, but it's one you'll not hear from the mainstream or from government (as if those are different).

Yes, government caused this problem, too. Government is the problem so often it can't be a coincidence. To pretend otherwise is to live in denial.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"I didn't pull the trigger"

Can a Colt Peacemaker copy fire without someone pulling the trigger? Maybe...

I hate to trust anything an anti-gun bigot like Alec Baldwin says. When he said he didn't pull the trigger when he killed the person on the movie set, like probably most of you, my first inclination was to scoff. Then I wondered if it could be true.

I once had a black powder rifle fire as I pulled the hammer back to full-cock without my finger touching the trigger. Fortunately, I had it aimed downrange at the time (those gun handling safety rules work). Turns out that a sliver of wood from inside the stock, around the lock, had gotten into the sear's full-cock notch, preventing it from catching. It was a scary experience.

But my experience showed me that the common claim "a gun can never just 'go off'" isn't 100% true.

I happen to have a Colt SAA copy-- not the same one Baldwin was using, though. His was apparently a Pietta; mine is an EMF New Dakota Model made by Armi San Marcos. So I tested to see if I could get the hammer to fall while thumbing it back. 

I could.

If I thumbed the hammer back, but let it slip before it caught the first notch, it would drop back into place-- the firing pin would have contacted the cartridge primer. Since this is a very short fall, I'm not sure it would have hit hard enough to actually fire the round, but maybe. I guess it depends on spring strength and primer sensitivity.

My own accidental discharge with the black powder rifle makes me also wonder whether debris could have gotten into the sear of his gun, causing a malfunction similar to the one I experienced. 

So, yes, as much as I don't want to believe Alec Baldwin, I think it is possible for his gun to have fired without him touching the trigger, even if I think it's more likely that his finger was on the trigger after all.

None of this excuses him for sweeping people with the muzzle, for not checking for himself whether or not the gun was loaded, and for being an anti-gun bigot.

Update: I finally saw the part of the interview where Baldwin was talking about the shooting, and he talked about having the hammer cocked, but "letting it down" without pulling the trigger. That can't be done. On a SAA you have to pull the trigger to lower the hammer from a cocked position. It's the only way to do it. So, he's either lying or doesn't realize what he was doing when he shot her. Either way, it's still his fault entirely.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

The unwise celebration of anti-science

I have loved science-- and "doing science"-- most of my life. In school, some people referred to me as the mad scientist. That wasn't too far off.

My family got used to bright electric arc flashes coming from under my door, as well as the smell of burning components and air. And other smells. Yes, I did wear safety goggles that I built myself to save my eyesight from the UV exposure. Once, I nearly burned down a friend's shed doing some electrical experiments I thought too dangerous for in the house. 

Then there were the biology experiments of various types, some chemistry experiments, and quite a few physics experiments (probably my favorites). I was curious.

I didn't enjoy doing things that I knew what the results were "supposed" to be; things that countless others before me had already done (the kind of "experiments" done in school), so I tried stuff that I couldn't find a record of others already doing, but that I was curious about. I learned a lot that way.

I even experiment and test things that don't necessarily seem like subjects for scientific inquiry. I have never found that to be the wrong way to learn something useful. 

Did I always come to the right conclusions? Probably not. But I tried to stay aware of my limitations and biases.

That's why the recent bastardization of science gets me so riled up. Anti-science is being sold as science to people who aren't educated in the difference.

Pope Fauci is NOT science personified. He's a cult leader. 

Consensus is NOT science. 

Politics is anti-science because it is dictated. Science requires liberty in order to thrive. "Authority" kills it.

Falsebook, Twutter, and Gugle/YourTub are NOT supporting science with their censorship and fact-blocking. They are hiding useful political lies from proper scrutiny. It bothers me, and nothing they say can excuse them in my eyes. I hate all these anti-science bullies.

Science is a process, not a proclamation, a cult, or a person. Treating any of those as "science" is anti-science.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

I'm still having fun playing with Quora, and they invited me to their program where they say I can earn money by answering questions (rather than just by asking them, as was the case before). I've since answered probably hundreds of questions asked of me, and my earnings are... zero. Well, it was worth a try.

Responsibility can be a heavy ... blessing

Sometimes I think it would be nice to give up on responsibility. To be just as irresponsible and statist as the neighbors and family members you see every day who are bumbling their way through the world, leaving a carefree path of destruction in their wake.

This past summer I had saved up over half the money I needed for something I wanted. Notice I said "wanted", not "needed"-- just a fun purchase. But then I found the sick kitten. Then another of the family cats got sick and needed vet care.

Although the GoFundMe donations mostly took care of Whiskers' needs, I also had to empty my fun fund. Its balance still stands at zero. But that's OK. I knew what I was getting into when I took on the responsibility of saving Whiskers (and caring for the other cats) and it was worth it. I was also telling my daughter just this morning that I would have a lot more money if I didn't feed the feral cats who live on my porch. But this is another responsibility I took on of my own free will.

Sure, most people would probably see those as trivial "responsibilities"; nothing compared to the responsibility I have to my daughter. It's also trivial compared to my human responsibility to not archate against any other individual I encounter. And those who see these other responsibilities as trivial are probably right. But they are all responsibilities I consciously accepted. To ignore one responsibility would make it easier to ignore others.

Still, sometimes it's tempting to just behave like others do. Toss responsibility to the wind. Do what I want at the moment and don't worry about the consequences. 

But I can't.

Whether it's the responsibility to take care of the animals who depend on me for their lives, the responsibility to my daughter (and even my adult son), or the responsibility to not archate-- I take them seriously, even if I sometimes fall short.

It's popular among the intelligentsia to make fun of the "red pill", but responsibility is included in that "pill" and once you've taken it, I don't think you can go backward and accept being like those who made the other choice. Whatever your responsibilities are, you're not going to feel good unless you meet them to the best of your ability. Even if it sometimes feels like responsibility is wearing you down.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.