Archator vs archator

I really can't get too concerned when an archator targets archators with some freelance archation.

Whether those bad guys on either side were connected with DemoCRAPublican Party A or DemoCRAPublican Party 1 is a distraction. As is the fact that a privileged armed archator stopped the archation. This was a case of a lone archator targeting members of an archation gang and being stopped by their gang's enforcer. No good guys involved anywhere in this deal.

If they are looking for sympathy, they'll have to look elsewhere. My thought is, if you can't handle it you should reconsider dishing it out.

Archator advocating for more theft

-

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

(Steemit link)

Abusing "Amber Alerts"

Years ago I signed up for Amber Alerts on my cellphone. It seemed like a small, crowd-sourced step I could take to help watch out for the safety of others. But, things have changed.

I can't take Amber Alerts seriously anymore, and it's because 99% of them (I'm guesstimating) are issued for custody disputes rather than actual abductions.

I feel this is a case of the alerts crying "Wolf!" to the point they have become meaningless. At least, to me. I have heard others say the same thing, so I know I'm not the only one.

Yeah, I know-- Amber Alerts are probably a statist program anyway; I'm not interested enough to really look into it. I can see a place for something similar in a free society, just like I can see a place for libraries, roads, and spaceships. If a kid goes missing, I think it's good to have as many as possible keeping an eye out to find them, even if I'm not willing to rob you to pay for the service.

But the way it is currently being implemented isn't going to keep working.

"Custody" is a result of government meddling in the first place, and isn't something I put any stock in.

I can understand when the parent who has gone to the State, and asked to be given possession of a child, finds out that the other parent has ignored the dictates of the State and taken off with the kid, and gets panicky. Just to think that someone would ignore the dictates of The Court!

I'm not even saying that a parent could never be a danger to a kid. For goodness sake, many of those parents probably work for the State-- some might even be cops! And some might be bad guys in other, completely unrelated ways. So, yeah, they could pose an actual risk to the kid. But, if alerts are going to be issued for custody disputes, there probably ought to be a different category of "alert" for those cases. That's all I'm saying.

In a free society, I'll bet there would be.

And until there is, I will be paying less and less attention to Amber Alerts. I find that tragic and preventable.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Stop poisoning yourself first

If you are taking a medicine that is poisoning you-- killing you, the smart thing to do is to stop taking it. Now!

There is nothing else you could do that will help you as much as this one simple act. No antidote, no alternative, nothing. Just stop ingesting the poison.

Don't wait until you find another medicine to replace it with. You can deal with that later, after you've stopped killing yourself. If you actually need something else. You may well discover you don't. You may find your problems stem from the poison you thought was supposed to help.

Well, the State is also a deadly poison, administered into your life through statism-- mostly of your own doing. You shouldn't wait until you find a replacement to stop ingesting more of it. Just stop. Now.

And, yet, so many demand a replacement be perfected before they'll even consider stopping the poisoning of themselves and their loved ones.

Do they even realize how totally insane this is?

Only addicts fail to realize it, and act on it. How addicted are the statists you know?

Of course, it will be labeled "Miracle Cure. 100% Safe!"

-

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

(Steemit link)

Government shouldn't be in medicine

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 10, 2017)

It's 2017, ObamaCare has morphed into TrumpCare, and it's still not about "care". Instead, it's about government controlling a huge segment of the economy, taking away choice, and robbing people to pay for things they may not want. Government has no business meddling in medicine.

People are also still arguing over whether health care is a right. All rights concern what others have no right to do to you, not what others owe you. For example: no one has a right to forbid you to own and carry a gun-- to "keep and bear arms"-- but you have no right to demand someone give you a gun to "keep and bear".

Health care is also a human right. You have a right to do whatever you feel you need to in order to stay healthy, or to get healthy again if you are sick or injured. You have the right to use, grow, manufacture, or buy any and all drugs, services, or practices you believe will help your health, or help you deal with physical or emotional pain.

No one has the right to interfere-- not in the name of preventing drug abuse or anything else. No politician's opinion (often mistakenly referred to as a "law") can change your rights into crimes. The DEA, and its War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, is wrong even if you approve of their crusade against Americans.  If your choices cause worse problems, you are back at square one and no one is obligated to rescue you.

Although health care is a right, you have no right to force anyone else to provide your health care; to force doctors, nurses, or hospitals to give you their services. You have no right to force pharmacists to give you medicine you need to survive. You have no right to force others to pay for your health care, not with their money nor their time and labor. To pretend otherwise is to promote slavery.

Socialized medicine-- any government involvement in health care whatsoever-- is unhealthy, whether it comes from Barack Obama or Donald Trump. To quibble over details is to ignore the real issue: you have the right to any kind of health care you can buy or negotiate for yourself, no one can ever have the right to meddle in your choices, but you have no right to demand anyone be enslaved on your behalf. Insist on a separation of medicine and state.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Run all you want

Telling kids "Don't run!" is a waste of breath, and causes frustration for everyone.

I understand the reasons for it, but I also see that it is completely pointless, and probably counter-productive.

Running is how kids naturally and normally move from place to place. It just is. You aren't going to change that with rules. Nor should you.

Instead, let them run. In the process, maybe they'll learn to watch where they are going and how to not fall. Or learn how to fall well, and bounce back up. There will be bumps and bruises, and maybe knocked-out teeth and concussions. The alternative is probably worse in the long run.

It's the same with adults. Let them take risks, make mistakes, and fail. How else will they ever learn? The State and all it's "laws"-- imposing someone's ideas about "safety"-- are making people pitiful, delicate, and inept. It's going to hurt when that bandaid gets ripped off... and it WILL get ripped off sooner or later. The longer the delay, the more it will hurt, and the more who will not survive.

Yet, this is someone's idea of "safety"? You aren't protecting. You aren't helping.

Might as well say "No breathing"

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Truthishness"

Some things seem as though they might be true... until you actually think about them. Like the cartoon above.

If you believe you can get food, housing, clothing, or anything else you require for survival without working for them at all, try it. Even thieving is work.

People also need things to trade for the things they can't grow, make, or build for themselves. Money, of whatever sort, is the best way to have a widely accepted trade good. But, you don't need for there to be money for the cartoon to be wrong.

Also, "taxation" isn't specifically about stealing money-- it's about stealing any sort of property. Do these people believe government would hesitate before stealing a percentage of their crops or livestock? Or enslaving a firstborn child or wife for "the common good"?

Most ideas are based on fantasy. The idea expressed by the rose-holding ball is a good example. And, if AnCap Ball doesn't see the false premise behind Rose Ball's flawed claim, he'll be falling for a lie soon. Either this one, or the next pleasant-sounding one that comes along.

Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Terminal Stockholm Syndrome- is there hope?

"Our government"
"Our Constitution"
"Our president"
"My congressman"
"Our flag"
"Our troops"
"Our military"
"Our police"
"My taxes"
The above phrases are symptoms of a terminal case of Stockholm Syndrome. They indicate a person so deep into the brainwashing they may never dig their way out, and will willingly sacrifice others-- or even themselves-- for those beliefs. Beliefs which are nothing but a silly, yet dangerous, superstition.

There is a cure, but it seems too scary for most of the sufferers to consider.

The E Plebnista beats and whips you for your own good

-

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

(Steemit link)

At someone else's expense

I have mentioned the book Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, at least once before.  Here is another point he makes that really struck me.

He says if we could see people's innermost private thoughts and motivations, we would see that their wishes and hopes are almost invariably at someone else's expense. 

For most people, operating under the most common systems of belief, that's probably true.
But, there's a big exception.

The principled stance of libertarianism (particularly, once all contradictions and inconsistencies are stripped away) doesn't come at anyone else's expense. It doesn't cost anyone else.

You can't seriously make the point that stopping theft or an attack on the innocent costs the archator. He might wish you believed that so he could guilt you into staying out of his way, but it's simply not reality. Stopping someone from violating you doesn't burden them.

I know from experience they'll whine that it does.

Twice I have caught someone trying to cheat me in very expensive business deals, and both times, when I backed out as soon as the dishonesty was discovered, I was said to be the bad guy.

In one case the person had her lawyer husband call and threaten me unless I went through with the deal-- he couldn't even dispute the facts I had discovered. He simply said I had no choice but to go through with the deal. I didn't.

Years later, another person who was trying to scam me told everyone in town I had cheated her and broken a contract-- and even years later her husband tracked me down on MySpace to tell me what a "piece of ____" I am. I feel sorry for him, because apparently he wasn't aware of what she had done (he was a good guy; his wife was a crook).

Even apart from business and money, I've been told that not allowing someone to control me is the same thing as controlling the would-be controller. That not allowing someone to force their will on me is the same as forcing my will on them. What? Twisted "logic", to be sure.

So, while most people cost others, those who stick to voluntary associations and mutual consent don't. Even though those who want to violate you will pretend it does. Statism-- it's not caused by rational thought or consistency.

DemoCRAPublicans and other socialistic parasites

-

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

(Steemit link)

Late Night Horror Movie of your own making

Dilbert's Scott Adams says everyone sees the world as a sort of "movie" playing on a screen in their mind. Different people see the same events differently, depending on the specific "movie" they are watching.

Mostly, he's been using this observation to explain how different people can disagree so strongly over things Trump does. I believe it also explains how people see "immigration".

For example...

Movie 1:
America is being invaded and destroyed by lazy, filthy greedy foreigners who will v*te for the Democrats (who promise to hand them America's wealth and culture) only to waste their opportunity and turn America into the same kind of craphole the foreigners left. Only Big Government can save America-- with a border wall, deportations, arrests, checkpoints, national IDs, etc.

Movie 2:
America is being destroyed from within by Nazi politicians and the deplorably ignorant v*ters who support them. It can only be saved by Big Government bringing in new blood-- the helpless victims of the US's wars of aggression (but don't end those wars!) so they can make a new start, keeping their old lives, cultures, and values, free from restraint. You can't ask them to change anything about the way they live- that would be racist and bigoted. And, obviously, they need handouts (financed by "taxation") to give them a fair shot.

Movie 3:
Everything government does ends badly; everything it touches turns to crap. Growing or empowering government, for any reason, is suicidal.
This is the movie I am watching. I believe it is the most accurate, and is verified accurate daily. Your opinions may differ (in other words, you might be wrong 😉).

-

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

(Steemit link)

Temporary is still worthwhile

The statist excuse for rejecting anarchy is that it would only be temporary. Some evil moron will always try to set himself up as Ruler, and idiot followers will let him. Until he comes along, those idiots will keep looking for someone to push them around. "It's human nature", the statists say.

So what if it is?

Do you not bother with anything "temporary"?

Well, everything is temporary.

Each individual life is always temporary.

Life will always end in death, so does that mean living isn't worthwhile?

Anarchy is life.

Even if anarchy is always temporary, replaced by the next dumb idea until that idea inevitably fails and anarchy happens again, does that mean it's wrong? That it was pointless? Never!

Establishing a State is always the wrong thing to do. It's always stupid and will always lead to bad things. And it will always fail. When it does, don't beg for a new State. Enjoy the liberty until the short-sighted idiots around you set up their next failure-to-come. Temporary liberty is still better than never getting a taste.

-

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

(Steemit link)

City-run range would be misfire

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 3, 2017)

I love libraries, parks, and zoos. However, I'm not selfish enough to believe other people should subsidize things I enjoy. For me to force someone to hand over their hard-earned money to pay for something they don't want and won't use would be wrong. Every dollar I take is a dollar someone can't use for things such as food, the electric bill, toys for their child, or medicine. My wishes don't change theft into something moral.

To have government do the taking on my behalf, through taxation, doesn't magically change wrong into good.

Government should never do anything which could be done privately and funded voluntarily. I believe this covers everything which should be done at all. If something isn't popular enough to be funded voluntarily it should go away. If people miss it, they can bring it back and pay for it.

I mention this because there's apparently still talk of establishing a city-run shooting range. While I love to shoot, it would be a mistake to let the city use tax money this way, and to let the city be in charge of such a facility. Government employees and guns are a bad mix.

Noise is also a problem. If you move near a shooting range you have no right to expect them to stop shooting just because the noise bothers you. However, if someone starts a new shooting range near your house, they are responsible for accommodating you. If they go ahead with their plans, they owe restitution for the harm they cause you by their presence.

Unfortunately, when the offender is government, the offender makes and interprets the rules, employs those who enforce the rules, and choose winners and losers. When government is the bad guy, innocent people are usually out of luck. Even if restitution is paid to the victim, it doesn't cost the offender, but is stolen from the injured party and his neighbors through the fraud of taxation. The bad guys can't lose.

Of course, I've been around long enough to know once some government gets a notion, the idea never truly dies. Not even when you believe it's defeated. Government ideas are real-life zombies. Kill one and It keeps crawling from the grave again and again, with the knowledge that eventually no one will be paying attention and the program can be imposed on the reluctant population. They do it because they get away with it, and it works.

You have the power to foil their schemes. Use it.

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Only government can..."

What worthwhile thing can "only" government (by which I mean, The State) provide?

Nothing.

I can imagine many voluntary ways to provide anything needed and wanted. But, a free society wouldn't be limited by what I can imagine, so someone would undoubtedly come up with better solutions than I can possibly imagine.

Liberty is the Mother of Innovation.

In fact, we manage to find many of these solutions in spite of government trying to stand in the way every step of the way. Just imagine where we would be without that huge, costly roadblock.

So, keeping government around, because you believe it is necessary, is very silly.

No doubt this will result in roads being built

-

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

(Steemit link for those who are on Steemit,
where you can get these blog posts the evening before.)

"Respect" women?

I'm somewhat ambivalent about abortion. I always have been, to the chagrin to those fighting on both sides of the argument.

However, when I saw a local billboard proclaiming "Respect New Mexico women", and listing "Our bodies, our families, our decisions" as the aspects of women I am to respect, I knew it was all, and only, about abortion, and instantly rolled my eyes at the hypocrisy.

But, then I realized I should give them the benefit of the doubt, so I went to their website, and yep, that's all the organization is concerned with. It's one of those times I didn't want to be right.

So, that's all "respecting women" means to them? Of course it is-- to certain political people.

Funny, but I have better ways to respect women, such as committing myself to not archate against them. The exact same way I respect men, or anyone who doesn't feel they fall into either of those categories. A level of true respect no "law" can ever approach.

-

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

(Steemit link)

It doesn't win you any friends

Speaking truth, that is.

And, this fact has been known for millennia.

Long ago it was said "veritas odium parit"; truth breeds hatred. Which leads to "shoot the messenger".

After scolding Fred Reed for his, frankly, insane support for cops nearly a year ago, yesterday I found myself squirming on his behalf when he wrote some very honest things about "The Troops", which everyone is supposed to love so unconditionally.

The truth about cops makes copsuckers hate you.
The truth about the government's military will make "patriots" hate (and "unfriend") you.
Truth hurts those who support evil people.

That's not to say that lies about people won't have the same effect, but lies are more easily countered with truth. If someone says something untrue about your beloved gang, just set the record straight, and that's that.

When it's the truth which makes people unhappy, they have no recourse but to fall back on hatred. Well, they can lie, but lies won't get them far when people know the truth, or can figure it out for themselves.

Speaking truth is worth the hatred you'll get. Or, I believe it is. You'll have to decide for yourself.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Loot, if not bling

I updated my CafePress stuff, just in case you're interested in promoting my writing in particular, and liberty in general.

No, I don't actually make any money from this, but CafePress does, which is fine with me, and it could get me some new exposure, while making you look better and more refined.

The credibility of statists

I'm finding that the opinions of statists (of any degree) are becoming less and less important to me.

I'll still hear them out, but if they advocate a government "solution" to anything, I'm likely to simply chalk it up to ignorance and give their opinion no further consideration. Anything else is being disrespectful to my brain, principles, and ethics.

It's like taking science advice from a person who has been convinced (or, who's decided to "believe") that the Earth is flat. It makes no sense to pretend they are credible in this particular arena.

Well, if a person believes that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery (the political means) are possibly better ways to live among their fellow humans than self ownership, individual responsibility, and voluntary association (the economic means), they've lost all credibility with me on that subject.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Questions, no answers

I wish I knew why.

I keep losing subscribers, and I don't know if it is because my writing is getting worse (or more offensive), or if it is just that the economy is getting worse.

If it's due to my "content", I want to know so I can try to do better. If subscribers are the canary in the mineshaft, I need to be paying attention to them. I do know I have angered a lot of people with my honest assessment of armed government bullies of every sort-- I've seen those comments about me crop up on other blogs around the internet from time to time.

If it's due to the economy, I'm not sure what I could do other than to inspire people through my words to the point they feel compelled to subscribe in spite of the economic problems. And that just goes back to questioning whether my writing is declining in quality or relevance.

It may also be that most people interested in liberty are usually broke-- which does seem to be the case, in general.

Anyway, if you are a former subscriber who would like to weigh in, please email me privately. I promise I won't criticize your reasons for ending the subscription, whatever they may be, nor will I beg you to resubscribe. I simply want some data here.

-

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

(Steemit link)

A diamond buried in manure

You never know where you're going to dig up a diamond.

This show-- the part about space travel and space exploration, anyway-- is simply dripping with statist elitism, but there is one bombshell hidden therein, uttered by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

"Legislation should be based on objective truths, not on some belief system you happen to have for yourself that others are in conflict with." 

He was referring to the danger of people who believe the Earth is flat writing "laws" to impose on everyone else. As if anyone else is somehow more "qualified" to make up "laws"...

Of course, I know "legislation" is counterfeit "law". If it has to be written down in order to exist, it isn't real law-- real law is discovered, fake "law" is written.

Yet, his statement cuts to the heart of all "legislation".

The objective truth is that if you take property that belongs to someone else, against the owner's will, you have committed theft. Calling your act of theft "taxation" based upon your belief system, which is in direct conflict with others, and with objective truth, doesn't change it.

The same goes for every other harmful piece of "legislation" which violates life, liberty, or property. All government, and the "laws" that go with it, are based on a subjective belief system, a superstition, which can be shown-- objectively-- to be false and harmful. No "legislation" should ever come from people who believe in that nonsense.

Thanks for your support, Mr. Tyson.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Memorial to what?

A very contemplative Dead Stormtrooper Day to all you supporters of The Empire.

This is how liberty died- to your flag waving, allegiance pledging, and stormtrooper supporting. The blood is on your hands. Own it.

States and Islamic losers

I've not hidden the fact that I am not a fan of Islam. I don't like any religions, but I'm particularly disgusted by Islam at this point in my life (even though Christianity actually has more of a negative impact on my day-to-day existence- but that's another issue).

This is simply my emotional reaction to it. I know all the reasons I shouldn't feel that way. All the explanations why this feeling is misguided and wrong. Emotions-- "feelings"-- have nothing to do with facts. Yes, it seems that-- unfortunately-- I am human in spite of my best efforts.

However, my personal "feelings" don't mean I want "laws" created to "deal with" Islam. I most certainly don't. States and their "laws" are worse than Islam.

How is that? you may ask. Well, Islam doesn't guarantee the commission of evil; States do by their very nature. Very few individual Muslims actually use their religion to excuse the initiation of force- but every single person involved in the Cult of State commits daily (perhaps hourly, or more often) acts of archation simply by keeping that "job". Every. Single. One. Every. Single. Day.

So, every time an act of terrorism is committed by an Islamic loser, I feel my hatred for Islam burn... but I also remember that the State is more evil, more destructive, and at the core of all terrorism. Islamic terrorist losers aren't the only losers out there. They are outnumbered by multitudes closer to home.

Terroristic losers

-

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

(Steemit link)