When should you shoot a Muslim?

I would say... never. With caveats.

First, let me explain about the word "should", because it's important. "Should", to me, indicates an obligation to do the thing in question. I believe "should" begins and ends with "you should respect the life, liberty, and property of others". Beyond that, you have to figure out the best way to do that. I don't necessarily see you as having an obligation to defend yourself or others-- particularly not by specifically shooting an archator. But I hope you would choose to do so when the alternative has a good chance of being worse for the life, liberty, and property of innocent people. And, yes, there's always a chance you could be wrong, and in that case you might owe restitution (which you may not be able to pay). Acting carries greater responsibility than does failing to act-- except in your own conscience.

But, supposing you do have such an obligation, when should you shoot a Muslim? Anytime you should shoot a cop*, a Christian, a shoe-shine boy, or your daughter: when they are initiating force in such a way that you believe innocent life is in danger-- or they are making a credible threat to do so-- and shooting them has the best chance of stopping them while protecting the life, liberty, and property of their intended victims.

It isn't the beliefs in a person's head that make it OK to shoot them, because there's no way to ever know their thoughts for certain, it is the actions they are committing-- or the actions they let you know (by words or preparatory steps) they intend to commit. If you act too soon, or through misunderstanding their intentions, YOU become the bad guy. Act too late, and you allowed something to happen that you will probably regret for the rest of your life (which may be only seconds).

This is why I think it is probably not a violation of the Zero Aggression Principle to shoot a person when they scream (yes, scream, not calmly utter) "Allahu Akbar!" in public. The question is, is such a person making a credible threat to initiate force? Maybe not always, every time, in every place. But, in places without a significant Muslim community? Here in my local area? It would be a good bet, if it ever happened. You would need to evaluate the situation, but the screaming would be a signal to amp up your situational awareness, to go into "Condition Orange" or even "Condition Red", if you had been slacking.

But, just having a right to do something doesn't mean it's necessarily the best thing to do under the circumstances (on either side of this debate). I have a right to carry a full-auto rifle, openly, down the streets of New York City. And, I can almost guarantee you I would die at the hands of members of the Blue Line Gang for doing so. I would be right, and I would be dead. You have a right to go into the courthouse and start screaming about Allah (or Jesus) and you would probably get shot for it. Out on the streets here, twitchy cops around or not, you'd be safer screaming about Jesus, but I still wouldn't be too confident of your long-term survival. If you're going to go around screaming about your deity, you should probably make sure to make no other moves that could be seen as unusual or suspicious to add to your risks. It may not be "fair", but it's reality.

So, yes, you have the right to go into the mall and scream "Allahu Akbar!", but you may not like the chain of events you set in motion by doing so. In the current social climate, many people, probably including myself, would consider you to be making a credible threat to murder innocent people. They might feel an obligation to act to prevent whatever you seem to be announcing an intention to do.

"But... freedom of speech!" The right of free speech doesn't mean there won't be consequences. You also have a right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and there will be consequences for doing so-- don't do it if you aren't prepared to pay the price.

-

*I mentioned this upcoming blog subject to my son, and before I even hinted at my answer, he offered "Same time you should shoot anyone!" Smart guy, if I do say so myself!

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Amazing competence

I love being around people who radiate competence. It's part of the reason I love watching blacksmiths work-- everything they do looks like massive levels of competence to me. People making something with their hands, while using good tools, are a pleasure to watch. And useful things are as beautiful to me as any work of art.

But blacksmiths, though among my favorites, aren't the only ones. I love watching skilled leatherworkers, and cabinetmakers, and glassblowers, and just anyone who makes something. I love watching an optician measuring for glasses, and then fitting them to the person. And cake decorators, jewelry makers, primitive survival practitioners, and... There are just so many examples; the longer I think, the more I can come up with.

Beyond the physical, people who can think clearly and explain their thinking, and even make me see it through their eyes, have the same effect on me. I am awed.

I am impressed by competence. I really enjoy exposure to people who are truly competent in something good and useful. I know I am in the presence of greatness, no matter what they may think of themselves.

"Basic" human competence. (Which may be less "basic" and more rare than it ought to be.)

You people amaze me when you are really good at something- and I love it. Keep it up.

I hope I am competent in something, or that I eventually get there. I'll keep working at it, and I hope I never stop, no matter what.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Litter

I hate litter. Always have. There's just no excuse for it that holds up for me. I have never intentionally or knowingly littered. And I have picked up hundreds (maybe thousands) of pounds of litter over the course of my life- just because, if I won't do it, who will? As an anarchist, I accept the responsibility willingly.

When I see someone litter, I think the worst of them immediately. Sometimes bordering on hatred. I see them as lazy, irresponsible, self-centered cretins. I have even muttered rather nasty things about them, possibly where they could hear. It may not be reasonable, but that's how it is. I never claimed to be perfect.

However...
I don't support "laws" against littering, nor "fines" imposed on those caught littering. I suspect some amount of littering is actually just to thumb a nose at those attempts to manipulate people by making it "illegal". Is it less than the littering that is prevented by those "laws" and "fines"? I have no way to know, and it doesn't matter.

If someone's litter isn't trespassing on your private property, it is not within your rights to do anything to the litterer. If someone's litter keeps ending up on your property, due to the wind, then you may have to work that out with the litterer. They may owe you restitution; they owe government nothing.

It is possible to oppose something- even hate it- and not want government to intervene.

Statists ought to try it sometime.

Just a couple minutes' effort

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Is it a trap? Or defense?

A few weeks ago, it was all the rage among some libertarians to yap about throat-punching Nazis for their vile beliefs, or tossing commies out of helicopters because... well, because they are commies.

Principled people pointed out that this behavior would violate the Zero Aggression Principle. Yes, it might be satisfying- I won't deny that- but still wrong, unless the person in question were violating person or property, or making a credible threat to do so.

However, that placed another scenario in my head.

Say you are out in public, in a crowd, and someone started screaming "Allahu Akbar!" Is it right to shoot that individual in that situation? Probably. I would say he is announcing his intention to harm the innocent, and by doing so has become a credible threat. Shooting him would be defensive even if he hasn't yet triggered his suicide bomb, shot, or beheaded anyone. The ZAP isn't about sacrificing the innocent to thugs.

It's possible I am wrong. For example, what if it were some mentally lacking person hoping to cause a scene by screaming "Admiral Ackbar!" in a crowd? Shooting him might be an ethical mistake (but would probably still improve the gene pool).

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Join stupid gangs, win stupid prizes

I don't want to be a jerk, but... when you work for the bad guy, and die due to your "job", I can't feel too sorry for you or the family you foolishly sold up the river.

 You took a "job" violating people-- you try to call it "protecting freedom", haha-- in exchange for stolen money, doing sometimes dangerous/foolish things. Then you want everyone to pretend it's a tragedy when the chickens come home to roost? Sorry.

 Cannon Air Force Base is a tyrant to the area. I have written about it before.

The air base personnel feel unwanted here, and are mostly bitter about being stationed here in this "Godforsaken" boring and unappealing region which lacks bright lights, culture, and night life, but this area bends over backward to worship those welfare junkies, and gives the base whatever it demands. I never see anything less than fawning worship from anyone or any local business ("military discounts, military appreciation!), but it's never enough for them. I may be the only local who actually dares to admit that the air base is bad for the area, besides being wrong and a net negative for American liberty.

 A few years ago, the base "officials" decided that some county road was a security problem and "asked" the county commissioners to close it. Never mind that local farmers used and needed the road. Nope, the US military was scared of Americans using a road, and claimed it couldn't protect the air base unless the road was closed (Wow, aren't they powerful! LOL)- and made veiled threats that if the community didn't give in to the demands, they might close the base to punish the community. They are bullies.

They dictate the height of windmills and wind generators because they want to fly low while they trespass over farms and ranches. They claim they only "advise" the local puppeticians on the height of structures, but knowing how they manage to get their way... Bullies and tyrants.

 So, no, I will NOT be joining in any candlelight vigil.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

ZAPped by Second-hand smoke?

I recently saw someone making the claim that "second-hand smoke" violates the Zero Aggression Principle.

If someone doesn't want you to smoke on their property, and you do anyway, you are violating their property rights. Your smoke leaves your personal bubble to intrude on the property of the property owner. That may or may not be "aggression", but it is archation, and as such would violate my expanded understanding of the ZAP (Zero Archation Principle). You would be doing something you have no right to do.

Otherwise, on someone else's property or out "in public", the person who feels violated by the smoke is free to walk away. Just like- as someone else pointed out- they are free to flee a nasty fart. They are free to request the smoker stop, wait, or move-- but if the smoker doesn't, it is up to the complainer to get away from the smoke.

If you try to pass "laws" forbidding smoking on someone else's property when that property owner would rather allow it, you are violating their property rights. If you are not on your own property and try to use force (including "laws") to stop someone from smoking, you are violating the ZAP.

I don't enjoy being around cigarette smoke, but sometimes it is worth it to be in places or around people I want to be around. And it's my choice, and I can choose to avoid those people and places if I decide it isn't worth it. I can even make "hard choices" about difficult trade-offs and potential penalties if it is that important to avoid smoke. I can't understand militant anti-smokers. Yes, I know smoke makes some people sick. I understand it's not healthy. Being a smoke-nazi is not healthy, either.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Only one ethical course of action

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 15, 2017- Never posted on their website.)

Imagine you land a job with the world's most respected and beloved baby food producer. You sign an oath of confidentiality-- promising to never disclose their recipes or other business secrets.

Before long, however, you discover the CEO is having glass shards placed in jars the company delivers to a few families he has a grudge against. Maybe his grudge is perfectly legitimate, even if a few of the contaminated jars get lost; mixed in with shipments delivered elsewhere.

The other employees who know what is going on cover for the CEO, and keep their oath, saying loyalty is what matters. Maybe they even take pride in what they are doing to those people-- after all, "they deserve it".

You have a choice. It would be easy to go along to get along. The pay is good, and you don't want to be blacklisted with future employers. You know how popular the company is. You know how people feel about snitches. You took an oath! Still, there is only one ethical course of action.

It doesn't mean you love those targeted by the CEO. It doesn't make you a bad person. Standing up for what's right, in spite of personal costs-- knowing you will be fired and hated-- makes you a hero.

What if a friend asks you to keep all his secrets, and you agree, never suspecting you'll find out he's a serial rapist? Are you wrong to report him when you discover this particular secret? Should you be punished for breaking your promise? Should his crimes be excused because you broke a promise you made? Only in a world where justice is meaningless.

As soon as you discover wrongdoing, any oath of secrecy becomes ethically and morally null and void. Keeping such a secret would be wrong.

To punish the person who reports any real crime is never the right thing to do. Not ever. Circumstances can't change that.

This is why Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning are heroes. This is why those who want to see them punished are choosing to side with the bad guy, against justice. Against what is right. To allow Manning to be punished is to discourage others from doing the right thing. To call for Snowden to be handed over to the organization whose crimes he exposed is to take a stand against anyone brave enough to do the right thing in the face of enormous personal risk. There is only one ethical course of action.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Strange, hollow "love"

If you hold a government "job", especially one that requires you to archate and therefore be subject to legitimate self defensive violence from your victims, you must not love your family very much.

I think of that every time I hear of cops, "troops", and IRS employees being killed on the "job".

Other people seem so concerned about the family left behind, but what about the bad choices made by the deceased? He or she made a conscious decision to archate for money on behalf of the worst gang on the planet. And sometimes choices have consequences. Sometimes those consequences are fatal. And sometimes that death is well-earned and deserved.

I really can't see the person making the choice to be an aggressive thug or a thief as someone very concerned about the welfare of those who love them. If you'd violate others for money, where would you draw the line? Any line you'd draw would be highly suspect.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Such a sad life

Imagine a person comes at you with this:

"You see backwards time travel as impossible, and believe gravity can't be reversed? I choose to see time travel to the past, and changing history, as something that happens all the time-- and I believe in anti-gravity fields! 

What a sad life you must live to see things the way you do! 

Why are you so against time travel? What evil things have you done in the past that you don't want discovered or changed? You must not have met good time travelers-- Maybe you've had bad experiences. American time travelers must be worse than those in the rest of the world. You need to get to know some good ones. You just need to get out of where you are and experience other places where we see things the way we want to see them. America must be a truly awful place, filled with miserable people, if you see things that way!"

So, yeah, that was pretty must the gist of a recent exchange with a statist. Of course, it didn't actually involve time travel and anti-gravity, but the nature of government, cops, and "taxation".

Now, having spoken to people in other parts of the world, I realize US cops are worse than most. I have heard of places in Europe where cops aren't ubiquitous, and the ones who are present aren't intrusive, arrogant, and entitled jerks who expect instant, unquestioning obedience from the "mundanes". There may even be a few in the US who are this way, but the reality of the job, even if the cops are "nice" in your location, and even if you believe they are necessary, is that they live on theft and impose the worthless opinions of politicians. No good person would ever do that for money.

Is it really a sad thing to accept the nature of reality and ethical behavior? To understand that theft and aggression are wrong, even if you don't feel they actually harm you? Even if you deny the acts in question are theft and aggression?

I certainly don't think so.

In fact, it would make me sad to believe these things are necessary and to make excuses for them. To justify imposing them on others against their will-- even more than dealing with them myself would make me sad. I know others who are hurt by them much worse than I am-- should I ignore that because I like parks and libraries? What if I were a pathetic coward who felt safer because there are cops? Does this feeling make it OK to force people to finance police departments against their will? Does it require that I ignore that cops violate human rights by their very existence in order to be a happy and contented person?

Should refusing to support the violation of other people be seen as "sad"? Ridiculous!

But, apparently, this is how some people see it: to see reality and apply ethical principles to it is a "sad" thing. Don't believe me? Then check out the comments under this post on Steemit, if you can.

I accept reality, but I am not a generally sad or angry person. The things that make me saddest have nothing to do with government, and I don't even dwell in that dark place very often.

The statists I know are much more likely to be sad, bitter, and angry people. And to take it out on people who aren't the cause of their sadness, bitterness, and anger. Just because.

Yet, silly statists want to claim that because I don't want to have you violated on my behalf, I am somehow a pitiable character. If I were as weak as a statist, that might make me angry.

It's true, because you want it bad enough

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Popularity secrets

I know I could be a lot more popular as a writer. Particularly locally.

All it would take is for me to lie.

I would have to spout Patriotically Correct (the other "PC") things, such as military worship, respect for cops, and unabashed love for "public" schools, while also gushing over the region's most popular supernatural religion.

I could criticize these beloved things as long as I never questioned their basic goodness and necessity; only quibbling over tiny details that most people around here could agree with me on. I could question "how" it is done, not whether doing it is unnecessary or wrong.

If I did this I would have countless people patting me on the back, praising me to my relatives, and possibly even subscribing in greater numbers. I might even get job offers!

It wouldn't take any increase in writing skill or better grammar or anything else. I could do it from where I am now. In fact, I could probably relax a great deal and still get away with it, if I said "the right things".

It's not worth it, of course, but I will admit there are times it almost seems like it would be. It gets tiresome being the pariah.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Familial pride

You should be more proud* of your daughter if she's a hooker than if she's a "public" school teacher.

You should be more proud of the cousin who's a meth manufacturer than the one who's a cop.

As long as neither of them commit theft, aggression, or fraud.

The hooker and meth cooker don't automatically violate anyone's life, liberty, or property the way the kinderprison teacher and the cop do. There's nothing in those first two careers that necessitates it, while there is when you choose the life of tax junkie and archator.

Yeah, I know, it's a painful truth to face, but it's still the truth.

*Some are thinking I said you shouldn't love someone who commits the unethical act of being a government school teacher or a cop. I said no such thing. You can love someone and not be proud of the bad choices they make.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Collective punishment"

I find the practice of "collective punishment" to be disgusting. It's the lazy bully's way. The coward's way.

For that matter, I'm not a fan of punishment at all, much preferring justice, but collective punishment is all about punishing the innocent along with the guilty. It's "collateral damage".

If the kinderprison teacher doesn't know who is guilty of some offense (real or imagined) he'll just punish the whole class. This is an extremely common practice in government schools and similar places. I think the lesson this teaches is different than the one authoritarians might imagine.

Just because some people use guns while they archate, all gun owners will be punished (higher prices, government fees, red tape, prohibitions, etc.). Which, in the long run, gives the bad guys an advantage.

Just because some drug users harm people, all drugs must be regulated, and anyone using them outside the State's limits will be punished, regardless of harm done.

Almost all Statism has collective punishment at its foundation.

The weaker someone's position and less legitimate someone's power is, the more they rely on collective punishment.

If you can't let go of punishment, at least stop supporting collective punishment of any sort. Collective punishment is never right.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Everyone deserves freedom to speak

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 8, 2017- posted days later to the paper's website.)

On many college campuses, the students and faculty are so opposed to hearing anything other than leftist, "social justice" speakers, that they'll threaten violence to keep other speakers away. While the freedom to speak doesn't obligate anyone to listen, nor to provide a platform, you have no right to prevent others from listening to ideas you hate. An echo chamber is a poor substitute for education.

Sure, as long as a school doesn't accept one cent of tax money, it is private property and has the right to forbid access to anyone for any reason, but why would an institution tasked with expanding minds do this?

If you can't handle allowing the other side to have their say, it may be a sign your own views are too weak to withstand competition.

When any speaker is prevented from speaking at a university, those who stand in his way are on the wrong side. The mature thing to do when exposed to views you disagree with is to try to attract an audience and make your own case. If you lose in the marketplace of ideas, reexamine your views and how you present them, and try again.

And don't whine about being offended. There is no such thing as a right to not be offended.

As a libertarian, I find about half the views of both the right and the left to be downright horrifying; I am opposed to slavery, theft, and aggression in any form. Yet, it doesn't hurt me to hear speakers promoting these acts. In fact, letting the other side make their case strengthens my own by giving me the opportunity to expose their flawed reasoning. I don't fear them.

Those who speak out in favor of racism, sexism, taxation, laws, war, and other degenerate notions must be free to express themselves. Free speech is worthless without the freedom to express vile viewpoints. No one needs to stand up for those saying things everyone agrees with-- what would be the point? Give offensive speakers all the rope they want, then watch as they tangle it around their own necks.

My views changed toward uncompromising love of liberty over the course of my life because I heard ideas I initially disagreed with. I am grateful no one was able to silence those whose words influenced me, nor able to prevent me from hearing them. My life would be immeasurably diminished otherwise.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

The fight is inevitable- the enemy is your choice

You will have to fight for your rights, and otherwise defend yourself and your property from archators, unless you simply choose to give up. It's just reality.

If you aren't the giving up sort, who would you rather fight? The State or bad "immigrants" who respect your rights about as much as the State does?

I think this may be where the disagreement lies between those who support the State's border control policies and me.

If pushed, I would much rather defend myself and my property from freelance archators than from the much larger, and more organized "official" archators of the State. The State is better armed and more numerous, and comes at you with a fervent religious belief in its own legitimacy which is shared by its supporters.

Even if you believe "immigrants" will strengthen the State, side with the State, add to the State, and prop up the State, the State is still the root problem, and the true enemy.

I'm sorry if you disagree. There will be a fight- who do you believe you have the better chance beating? I know which gang I would rather be shooting at, because I know which gang would be easiest to beat with the lowest risk to my life, liberty, and property- except that the State criminalizes self defense... which once again makes the State the root of the problem. Strike the root, not the branches.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Most "criminals" are better than those who oppose them

From time to time I browse the local sheriff report in the paper. I go down the list repeating "fake- fake- fake- maybe real- fake..." as I read the "charges" brought against those victims of the local badge-scum molestations.

Almost all the "laws" enforced by the local Blue Line Gang are "crimes" in the same way it was a crime to be a run-away slave.

Or to be a Jew in Nazi Germany. 

Or to possess a Bible in the Soviet Union (assuming the stories I heard in church were true).

They are "crimes" in the same way it is a "crime" to shoot someone in the act of raping your daughter in a location which criminalizes self defense or the proper tools with which to carry it out.
Or, to plant a garden in your front yard.
Or to feed the homeless.
Or to cross an imaginary line onto property which has no owner, seeking a better life.
Or to grow, sell, or use Cannabis.

If your only "victim" is the State or society, you have committed no crime.

If you commit acts of enforcement against people whose acts had no individual victim, YOU are the bad guy.

Violating prohibition, with plants, chemicals, or objects, isn't wrong. Refusing to allow yourself to be molested by a bully isn't wrong. Failing to carry "papers" so that the bully gang can identify you is not wrong.

But thugs will kill you if you do things you have every right to do, but which they believe they have "authority" to forbid. Or if you refuse to do what they demand. They are the worst of the bad guys. Bar none.

Most "laws" these days are imposing one form of prohibition or another.

Good people don't support or enforce prohibition. But slimy scum does- enthusiastically.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Lethal force"

What would someone have to do for you to feel justified using force against them that might result in their death?

I'm not asking what would they have to do for the use of lethal force to be justified by arbitrators or a government "court system", but only inside your own head.

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to people who say they felt they had no choice but to use lethal force-- unless they wear a badge (for a very specific reason). I don't usually second-guess those who use lethal force against an archator- even if others scream "But, proportionality!!" I am not a strong believer in "proportionality"- at least, not as strong as many others seem to be. If you don't want to be killed in the act of archating, don't archate! Don't sit around trying to decide if someone would be justified in killing you, just don't commit the violation. Simple. And, if you are killed in the act of violating someone's life, liberty, or property, don't expect any grief from me, nor any sympathy to your loved ones. Regardless of the excuses for your behavior you dreamed up inside your own head. You made a bad choice and paid a price you might think was too high. Tough luck.

However, the bar for my own use of lethal force is much higher than that, even if I don't demand others follow my lead. I'm probably going to hope it doesn't come down to killing the bad guy.

Even though I do think it is often justified, I'm probably not going to use lethal force for a "minor" property violation, unless I suspect that's just the foot in the door (literally or figuratively). But, don't scare me into forgetting my self-imposed limits, because then all bets are off.

I may well use lethal force for a liberty violation. Especially if you are violating someone I feel protective toward. I take enslavement seriously. If I believe there will be a less bloody way to resolve the trouble later- without risking the innocent life- you may be lucky. It's smarter not to chance it.

And, if I suspect you are about to violate an innocent life-- you may as well kill yourself now and save everyone the paperwork. Good riddance to bad trash.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

You... philosopher, you!

I've been called a philosopher. I think, maybe once, it wasn't even meant as an insult.

I do like thinking. I love to speculate about the nature of the cosmos, time, and gravity and all that. But I know I don't have the ability to do anything with those thoughts much beyond speculating. If any of my ideas are discovered to be correct, it won't be due to anything I've done. I may never know either way.

A few years ago, maybe even before extra-solar planets were being discovered so regularly, I suggested that planet formation is probably just as much a natural consequence of star formation as a splash pattern is a consequence of dropping a stone in soupy mud. I suspect the stars which have no planets-- if any are ever discovered without planets-- are those which will need to be explained, rather than the other way around. And it sure seems more and more the case with each passing year. I'll probably never know for certain, though.

But, philosophizing is different.

I can think and work out the reasons why Rightful Liberty and the Zero Aggression Principle are the only ethical, sensible ways to live among other humans, and then I can actually put that knowledge into immediate practice. I can see how it holds up to reality, in every day life, here and now. The results are real and encouraging. I'd suggest you give it a try, but since you are reading this I suspect you already are.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Kicking people with "laws" when they are down

Government makes things worse.

I have a carport that was damaged when a tree blew over on it a few years ago. It got "repaired", but the roofing was damaged and I haven't been able to afford getting it fixed. The strong winds this past week have been stripping shingles off it like crazy. Yay.

There is no way I can afford to repair the roof right now. Or probably, ever. My finances are BAD. I have considered just tearing the whole thing down, but there's a problem.

The town bullies hate carports. Others have also had problems. There is an ordinance that insists that carports can only be put behind or to the side of houses. Mine is slightly in front, in an "illegal" place.

It has been "grandfathered in", and if I choose to repair the carport, I suppose they would sell me permission to do so, but if I tear it down I won't be allowed to ever put one back in the same place- and there's no other place I can fit one (I have very little space between the back of the house and the property line, not enough for a carport, even assuming I could drive into a carport behind the house). And, in this area, you need shelter for your vehicle.

So, basically government rules have made a bad situation worse and more stressful than it would otherwise be. Thanks, statists.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Anti-drug hypocrites

Nothing is as hypocritical as a cop smoking tobacco by the front door of the police station.
Unless it's a smoker or drinker who isn't a cop yet still supports the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.

Drugs are drugs. The opinions of ethical cripples as to whether they are to be permitted or not changes nothing about their nature.

If you are a cop who enforces anti-drug "laws", you need to stop using drugs-- including aspirin-- unless you aren't bothered by your hypocrisy. If you support anti-drug "laws" and the "arrest"  of those violating them, you need to give up all your prescriptions-- even if it means you die. Otherwise, you are nothing but a hypocrite.

Or, you could do the right thing and stop enforcing or supporting the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Drugs can be harmful, but the "Drug War" is worse .

Your move.

Drug abusers

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Building border wall won't end well

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 1, 2017- this one wasn't posted to their website until several days after publication. So I saved it for now, in its entirety.)

Whatever else it might accomplish, President Trump's border wall has already divided America. I oppose the wall, believing it's a bad idea, but mine isn't a popular opinion-- even among libertarians.

Some wall supporters make the analogy of fencing your property, saying fences make good neighbors. I agree, but it doesn't apply. The US government doesn't own all the land within the borders drawn on the map, even if it believes it does.

If I decide to fence off my own property to keep out people I don't like, but I build my fence around your property, too, without your consent, have I done the right thing? What if I force you to pay for the fence even after you've told me you don't want it? Am I being a good neighbor?

What if I also control who is allowed onto your property and who you trade with?

There are simple fixes for every issue the wall is supposed to address. Don't like immigrants using welfare? End welfare for everyone. It's wrong to redistribute other people's money to anyone for any reason.

I share your concerns about crime. The difference is, I am concerned with real crime; not most of the things called "crime" today. I am willing to fight that crime by removing all laws regulating defense of life, liberty, and property-- and the proper tools with which to carry it out. Self defense solves crime.

If you don't like the crime the drug trade brings, end the government's ill-conceived War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Prohibition breeds theft and violence; a lesson which should have been learned decades ago.

No matter how the wall is paid for, you and I will end up carrying the entire burden through higher prices and reduced real earnings. It's basic economics.

I can't afford to pay for this wall though higher prices caused by the law of supply and demand, after the supply has been limited.

When this wall backfires and causes another great depression, don't expect those responsible to own it. They'll undoubtedly blame everything and everyone but themselves, and will be as surprised as ever when government plans ruin things. It's just the way it works.

I'll never support the wall, but I'd keep my objections quiet if it's paid for by abolishing the BATFE, DEA, EPA, Department of Education, the FBI, and every other unconstitutional agency, job, or position. Anything less will make government bigger, more powerful, and more corrupt. This can't end well.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)