I keep getting questions about whether I support school vouchers. I do not. In my view it is a non-issue since there should be no "public money" in the equation. I don't support using stolen (tax) money for education at all. Government needs to get out of the business of indoctrinating our children into being good little "citizens" and factory cogs. It isn't much better to have government dictating how, where, and in what way the same money is to be used in "private schools" (which cease to be truly private as soon as they accept the money from government).
I believe all education should be private education, and that property taxation must be ended. Take the money that was previously stolen for the public schools and use it to fund your children's education, if that is what you wish to do. You will get more brains for your buck that way. Or, if you have the desire and the ability, educate your children in your own home. I would also suggest sharing the task with others in your neighborhood. Each teaching what they know best, and what they enjoy.
Teachers, the good ones, would make more money and be more appreciated in a free market system of education than they can even dream of now. They wouldn't need to waste their time, and the time of the students, by dealing with kids who don't want to be there but are held captive by the state's compulsory education laws. It isn't a good learning environment to be held prisoner.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Forge of the Elders
I'll take a little time here to try to help L. Neil Smith sell all of the copies of his book Forge of the Elders. I have just ordered my copy. He is willing to make a deal with his fans. Let's take him up on it.
Do the Right Thing
"Always do the right thing" ..... It seems an easy enough idea. There are times, though, that "the right thing" is a little more elusive. Especially when dealing with people who are scared of life. How can you free them, which is the right thing to do, when they hang on to their chains so tightly?
People, at least some of them, are frightened by "terrorists". They truly want someone else to take the responsibility to keep them safe. They do not realize that the risks have been greatly exaggerated by a government desperate to keep them frightened into submission. Some others think that without the government; federal, state or local; educating their children we will become a nation of imbeciles. Look around you and decide for yourself how effective state education has been. There is also a fear that without the safety net of welfare; call it Social Security or some other euphemism if you wish, we will all drown in a sea of poverty. How can it be wrong to control your own financial destiny instead of letting professional thieves do it?
I know that I would be better off if government were smaller and weaker, and I strongly suspect that you would be too. Yet there is so much uncertainty and fear. How do you do the right thing when so many are truly afraid of freedom? How can we reassure people that doom is not the result of getting government out of their lives, but the result of allowing it to control them?
People, at least some of them, are frightened by "terrorists". They truly want someone else to take the responsibility to keep them safe. They do not realize that the risks have been greatly exaggerated by a government desperate to keep them frightened into submission. Some others think that without the government; federal, state or local; educating their children we will become a nation of imbeciles. Look around you and decide for yourself how effective state education has been. There is also a fear that without the safety net of welfare; call it Social Security or some other euphemism if you wish, we will all drown in a sea of poverty. How can it be wrong to control your own financial destiny instead of letting professional thieves do it?
I know that I would be better off if government were smaller and weaker, and I strongly suspect that you would be too. Yet there is so much uncertainty and fear. How do you do the right thing when so many are truly afraid of freedom? How can we reassure people that doom is not the result of getting government out of their lives, but the result of allowing it to control them?
Labels:
Counterfeit Laws,
Crime,
economy,
education,
future,
libertarian,
liberty,
responsibility,
society,
terrorism
Monday, March 26, 2007
Hardyville
If you would like to read some good, freedom oriented fiction, head on over to Backwoods Home's website and read the Hardyville stories by Claire Wolfe. Also, if you have a business to promote (or if you want to buy a little ad for my campaign), this is a good place to advertise. Just tell them it is because of Claire.
Politics One Blog TalkRadio
I am scheduled to be on the Politics One Blog TalkRadio show today (Monday March 26, 2007) at 6:00PM Eastern Government Time. Tune in and listen to the show.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Politics One Poll
If anyone would be so kind, could you go to Politics One blog and vote for me in the Libertarian Party poll? It is on the right side; the seventh poll down. It is the bright yellow one. Thanks so much!
The Libertarian Enterprise
As I have done in the past, I will do again today. I ask you to go read today's issue of The Libertarian Enterprise. L. Neil Smith has a particulaly good article today on exposing the Victim Disarmament crowd for what they really are. There is also a good article on The Sunset Pledge. I also have an article in there. Just relax, read it, and have a nice day!
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Calling All NRA Members and Gun Owners
I have been sticking my neck out for you. Now I am asking for a favor in return. I am asking all gun owners and NRA members to ask the NRA to endorse or acknowledge my candidacy. At least for a while. It would be a show of good faith toward gun owners on their part, and they would still have time to switch their endorsement to the Republican candidate later.
Look at my position on gun rights. You will not find a candidate in any party who is willing to go out on a limb for gun owners as far as I have. I do not falter on gun rights. It is an issue I am passionate about; unlike the lukewarm positions the candidates they have historically endorsed have held. I would welcome the support of the NRA and would view it as a sign that they are finally willing to accept a true pro-gun candidate. How about the rest of you gun owners?
Look at my position on gun rights. You will not find a candidate in any party who is willing to go out on a limb for gun owners as far as I have. I do not falter on gun rights. It is an issue I am passionate about; unlike the lukewarm positions the candidates they have historically endorsed have held. I would welcome the support of the NRA and would view it as a sign that they are finally willing to accept a true pro-gun candidate. How about the rest of you gun owners?
Friday, March 23, 2007
"Cleared of Wrongdoing"
I don't know about you, but I am ready to see some criminal cops get punished for their crimes. Here is a video showing one such Bad(ge) Guy using pepper spray on a girl who he thinks shortchanged him. I have said before that badges and guns are a deadly combination. I'll expand that. Cops have shown repeatedly that they can't be trusted with tasers. I guess these vermin can't be trusted with pepper spray either. Or hands or teeth. If you or I did what this cop does on video, we would go to jail. But this assailant is "cleared of any wrongdoing". Of course he is. They can't have one of us commoners defying the lords and masters, can they? What it comes down to is this: don't speak to cops, ever. Don't do business with them. Record them on video whenever you can. Shine a light on their crimes. Until they turn from their oppressive ways they should be shunned. Resist the occupying forces in any way you can. They are the criminals here; never forget that.
Labels:
articles/links,
cops,
Crime,
guns,
militarized cops,
murder by cop,
police state,
Rights,
society
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Updated Blog "Labels"
I have gone through all of my old blog posts and added "labels" to everything. I hope this makes it easier for you to find information that you may be looking for. I also fixed a few links, and corrected a few typographical errors. I didn't change any content or anything else; I am still the anarcho-libertarian Presidential candidate. Just trying to be helpful.
Government
Government. It was a bad idea from the start. Maybe it sounded good at first to someone. Statists have had 5 or 6 thousand years to try to find a way to make their precious idea work. They've had their fun; enslaving, killing, raping, taxing, controlling; and all the while telling everyone how lucky we are to have them "protecting" us from ourselves. Telling us how much worse it would be without them and their kind holding back the wolves of "anarchy". Guess what... we ain't buyin' it no more. Time's up. It failed. It's over. Let it go. Get over it and move on. Get out of the way of those of us who want to progress away from dictators, tyrants, and bureaucrats. Let someone else have a try at something better this time. Set up your own little dictatorship in the privacy of your own home if you can't live without controlling someone. After all, we understand that what you do in private isn't any of our business unless you hurt someone. If you do hurt someone and they fight back, we won't punish them for daring to have and use tools of defense against you. No, we will congratulate them and thank them for ridding the world of a dangerous parasite.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Take Action - Do Something!
Is "doing something" so important that it doesn't matter if what you are doing is wrong? I think a lot of America's (and the rest of the world's) current mess of law pollution comes from the mistaken idea that it is always important to "do something", even if the situation isn't fully understood. Something bad happens and then the cry rises to do something so that the same thing won't happen again. So legislators pass a new law in response. It doesn't matter that most new laws cause more problems than they solve, or that they are invariably counterfeit "laws" to begin with. No, what matters to the masses of humanity is that something was done. So now we are smothering under hundreds of years of laws passed in order to be seen as taking action in a crisis (imagined or real).
It is time to take action again. This time, though, we have had time to consider what we are doing. It is time to sweep away the counterfeit "laws" that threaten our liberty and our country. It is time to take action to make certain that any laws that are allowed to stand have a basis in punishing initiated force or fraud only. It is time to remove from positions of power or influence those who seek to control our lives. The time has come to take action.
It is time to take action again. This time, though, we have had time to consider what we are doing. It is time to sweep away the counterfeit "laws" that threaten our liberty and our country. It is time to take action to make certain that any laws that are allowed to stand have a basis in punishing initiated force or fraud only. It is time to remove from positions of power or influence those who seek to control our lives. The time has come to take action.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The Tale of the Thief
A father, let's call him Steve, needs money to feed his children. He won't ask for help, because he believes no one would help him anyway. He won't go earn money because he needs the money today. He only wants to get money for food. That is a noble cause, right? He goes to sit in the park to think about his problems. As Steve sits there thinking, a person we'll call Ernie walks past, stuffing his wallet back into his pocket, an ATM receipt in his hand. Steve gets an idea. He walks up behind the stranger and taps him on the shoulder.
Steve: "Excuse me sir."
Ernie: "Yes?"
S: "You must give me some of your money"
E: "I don't think so"
S: "Yes, you are required to. I wrote a essay about it", he lies. "Besides, I am not asking for ALL of your money."
E: "Go get a job, you bum". He turns to leave.
S: "If you don't give me some of your money, my friends out there behind the bushes will shoot you. Then we will look through your wallet and find out where you live and go to your house to get the rest of what you owe us."
E (looking nervously around): "Um. Okay. Here". Hands over some money.
S: "Thank you for voluntarily complying. See you tomorrow"
Steve the father, emboldened by his success, goes up to stranger after stranger and starts the same routine, this time adding "Of course I have the authority to do this. I don't need to show you the whole essay I wrote, or explain it to you. You wouldn't accept it anyway. I can prove I have the authority to do this because I have a history of success when confronted about my actions. Pay or I will be forced to make an example of you so that fewer will resist me. If you try to avoid paying by hiding money in your shoe or by burying it somewhere I will destroy you so completely that no one will dare question my methods again."
Steve becomes a wealthy man. Few dare to stand up to him, because, true to his word in this regard, anyone who resists is destroyed as an example to the rest of us.
Steve: "Excuse me sir."
Ernie: "Yes?"
S: "You must give me some of your money"
E: "I don't think so"
S: "Yes, you are required to. I wrote a essay about it", he lies. "Besides, I am not asking for ALL of your money."
E: "Go get a job, you bum". He turns to leave.
S: "If you don't give me some of your money, my friends out there behind the bushes will shoot you. Then we will look through your wallet and find out where you live and go to your house to get the rest of what you owe us."
E (looking nervously around): "Um. Okay. Here". Hands over some money.
S: "Thank you for voluntarily complying. See you tomorrow"
Steve the father, emboldened by his success, goes up to stranger after stranger and starts the same routine, this time adding "Of course I have the authority to do this. I don't need to show you the whole essay I wrote, or explain it to you. You wouldn't accept it anyway. I can prove I have the authority to do this because I have a history of success when confronted about my actions. Pay or I will be forced to make an example of you so that fewer will resist me. If you try to avoid paying by hiding money in your shoe or by burying it somewhere I will destroy you so completely that no one will dare question my methods again."
Steve becomes a wealthy man. Few dare to stand up to him, because, true to his word in this regard, anyone who resists is destroyed as an example to the rest of us.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Hostile Legal Landscape
Following up on my thoughts on "laws", I will say I believe there is a huge distinction between "legal" and "right". I am not a lawyer so I do not pretend to have any expertise in legal matters. What some may call "simplistic", I think of as "cutting through the crap". I also believe that the "law" has lost most of its relevance to "right and wrong" precisely because it has become so convoluted and self-contradictory that it requires legal scholars to decipher.
In my view, laws should be easily understood by the average person in a particular culture. "Average" means that person would probably seem rather dull-witted to most people who concern themselves with "legal matters". If a law requires panels of judges or law-firms to interpret and rule upon, then it is too complicated to be useful in day-to-day life. I have had lawyers admit to me that they have very little understanding of laws outside of their direct area of expertise. How then could a government expect you and I to understand the laws which they expect us to obey to the letter? I don't think that most of these "laws" were put in place in order to destroy our lives; most were probably proposed with good intentions, but I do think that has been the unintended consequence that has come out of it. Plus, in the case of "laws" which attempt to regulate something other than actual initiation of force or fraud, they have no ethical standing to begin with. They are "counterfeit" just as surely as if I were to run dollar bills off my home printer. Having the appearance of legitimacy does not make something legitimate. "Legalese" does not make a "law" legitimate.
Someone made the comment to me that my simplistic views on "laws" can't work in today's society because we no longer live in the 13 original colonies, but in 50 states with a multitude of jurisdictions. Perhaps. I believe that the more people you try to apply the "law" to, the less specific it must be. This could be called the "simplest common denominator" legal theory. You can't declare that all people must be 5'6" tall and weight 200 pounds. Human variances make such declarations absurd. You must accept that people are different, and have different values. As long as they do not aggress against others or defraud them in any way, you must leave them alone to live their lives as they see fit. Doctors have a principal precept which states "First, do no harm". If it is your intention to write, pass, or enforce laws, you should make the exact same pledge: "First, do no harm".
As I have said many times in the past, I don't care if you pass laws from sun up to sun down "legalizing" some criminal action such as taxation or "no-knock raids". A "law" will never make those things right. The claim that I am incorrect for thinking this way is a symptom of how far from free our society has fallen.
In my view, laws should be easily understood by the average person in a particular culture. "Average" means that person would probably seem rather dull-witted to most people who concern themselves with "legal matters". If a law requires panels of judges or law-firms to interpret and rule upon, then it is too complicated to be useful in day-to-day life. I have had lawyers admit to me that they have very little understanding of laws outside of their direct area of expertise. How then could a government expect you and I to understand the laws which they expect us to obey to the letter? I don't think that most of these "laws" were put in place in order to destroy our lives; most were probably proposed with good intentions, but I do think that has been the unintended consequence that has come out of it. Plus, in the case of "laws" which attempt to regulate something other than actual initiation of force or fraud, they have no ethical standing to begin with. They are "counterfeit" just as surely as if I were to run dollar bills off my home printer. Having the appearance of legitimacy does not make something legitimate. "Legalese" does not make a "law" legitimate.
Someone made the comment to me that my simplistic views on "laws" can't work in today's society because we no longer live in the 13 original colonies, but in 50 states with a multitude of jurisdictions. Perhaps. I believe that the more people you try to apply the "law" to, the less specific it must be. This could be called the "simplest common denominator" legal theory. You can't declare that all people must be 5'6" tall and weight 200 pounds. Human variances make such declarations absurd. You must accept that people are different, and have different values. As long as they do not aggress against others or defraud them in any way, you must leave them alone to live their lives as they see fit. Doctors have a principal precept which states "First, do no harm". If it is your intention to write, pass, or enforce laws, you should make the exact same pledge: "First, do no harm".
As I have said many times in the past, I don't care if you pass laws from sun up to sun down "legalizing" some criminal action such as taxation or "no-knock raids". A "law" will never make those things right. The claim that I am incorrect for thinking this way is a symptom of how far from free our society has fallen.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Do Laws Solve Anything?
Do laws solve problems? Do they cause more problems? I am not being facetious here, but I am truly looking for any instance of a law being passed that actually solved a problem. Not a problem caused by a previous law, (like "shall issue" concealed carry laws reducing crime rates), nor an authorization to punish someone for a crime. A case (or cases) where there was a real problem, and then a law was passed, and the problem was gone. Any ideas?
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Drop Your Crutches and Walk!
Government has become a sort of crutch for some people. They have gotten dependent on leaning on it and now believe that they can't stand on their own two feet. But they can. When a problem crops up, the first reaction of many seems to be to reach out to government for assistance. Do you really wish to sell yourself and your family into slavery that cheaply? Do you want to sell your future and the future of your children? You are worth more than that. Don't let the government blind you to your abilities and your real value. You are not crippled; the state-worshippers are. You can stand on your own if you will only drop the crutch that government has hypnotized you into believing that you need. Drop it and stand on your own feet. Then take a step forward, away from the negative goons of the state. While you are at it, tell those goons to take a hike.
Friday, March 16, 2007
The Invading Army in America
We were warned. The local police have become the standing army that was so despised by the founders of America. They stand and watch, and even spy on, Americans, whom they consider criminals who just haven't been caught yet. They swagger through our towns with the knowledge that they are immune from following most of society's courtesies. They sit in their cars (bought with our stolen money) and wait for one of us to make an innocent mistake so that they can swoop down and tear us apart, and make us pay their extortion money for the honor. It has become normal procedure for them to tazer any person who does not immediately bow down to these badged reavers and give them total defeated compliance. These cretins regularly use weapons which are forbidden to the rest of us against us. Raiding our homes to kidnap or kill us in our sleep. We are supposed to pity them if they can't afford bullet-proof armor, while they enforce laws that prohibit us from wearing the same (in some locations). Then they whine that they don't get enough respect. How much respect do violent criminals deserve?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
"A Nation of Laws"
When I hear the phrase "America is a nation of laws" I understand that the speaker has no moral compass at all. Every nation, by definition, is "a nation of laws". Germany was in the 1930s, the Soviet Union was during all of its existence, and America is today. Big deal. The problem arises when most, or even any, of those "laws" are counterfeit. It is easy to shrug and say "enforce the laws we have instead of passing more". That is the normal "conservative" cop-out. The real patriot will say to stop enforcing the "laws" that are aimed at regulating something other than actual force or fraud. Then the amoral state worshipper will whine: "If you don't enforce one law, where does it stop? Which law will you stop enforcing tomorrow?" How about all the ones which are counterfeit? Who, other than a control-freak, could have a problem with that?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Perspectives
Is it just me, or does it seem that presidential candidates are delusional? Republicans believe that they are "upholding the Constitution" while they use it for personal hygiene purposes. They think they are saving America by waging war on everything and everyone. Democrats think they are saving society by treating everyone like a somewhat stupid child. They act as though just by passing the right laws, every problem will go away. Then the third parties each seem to think, as I do, that our issues are THE defining issues of our time. I was highly amused listening to the Prohibition Party candidate on the Politics One Blogtalk Radio show. He is positively convinced that most Americans want alcohol outlawed. He views American history through this kaleidoscope, and bases his entire worldview on this misperception. He thinks that by passing more laws and punishing the violators, prison overcrowding will end. From what I see, he is not the only delusional one. In my case, I firmly believe that if government were held within its Constitutionally mandated limits (or eliminated altogether) we as individuals would benefit and therefore society as a whole would benefit. Liberty is not a malfunction; Statism is. So, am I crazy?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Kent's Campaign Finance Reform
People, especially voters, are truly bizarre creatures. For most of my life I have heard people complain about money influencing politicians. They cheered a "campaign finance reform" law (it had nothing to do with reforming anything, but that is another issue) which was touted as "cleaning up politics". When I decided to run for President, I thought the cleanest, most honest way to run was to refuse any donations whatsoever; asking people to instead spend their own money to promote my campaign however they saw fit. No donations = no corruption.
Instead of rallying behind this novel idea, I find people making the excuse that I "can't be taken seriously" because I don't accept donations! It makes me want to utter "colorful metaphors" (thanks, Mr. Spock).
As I have said before, if I am not the type of candidate you want to support, that is your business. We can go our separate ways with no hard feelings. My different approach is a result of me being fundamentally different from any of the other candidates who have ever run. Instead of laughing or calling me a "moonbat" or a "hippy anarchist" do something to make America and the world better. Otherwise you are just announcing to the world that you like things just the way they are; on a fast train to tyranny.
Instead of rallying behind this novel idea, I find people making the excuse that I "can't be taken seriously" because I don't accept donations! It makes me want to utter "colorful metaphors" (thanks, Mr. Spock).
As I have said before, if I am not the type of candidate you want to support, that is your business. We can go our separate ways with no hard feelings. My different approach is a result of me being fundamentally different from any of the other candidates who have ever run. Instead of laughing or calling me a "moonbat" or a "hippy anarchist" do something to make America and the world better. Otherwise you are just announcing to the world that you like things just the way they are; on a fast train to tyranny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)