I know, let's all be equal!

Socialism doesn't lift every one up equally; what it does is it attempts to shove everyone down equally.

But it even fails at that.

There are always some elites doing the pushing who will lift themselves up at the expense of everyone they are pushing down. Socialism still results in a "1%" who own the vast majority of everything, while the majority of the people have almost nothing.

Much worse, in practice, than the economic "systems" socialists love to hate.

The only equality in the world is that everyone-- and I mean every single individual everywhere on the planet (in the future, off-world, too)-- has the exact same rights as every other individual. No difference at all.

That's it. That's the equality you get. Beyond that, nothing is "fair".

You may work really hard, and live right, and get totally screwed over. It happens. It's nice when other people try to make you believe the world is "fair" by helping you overcome problems, but that's what people can do for each other; it's not what the Universe does.

And it's not what socialism brings.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Jealous of cops?

Some of my detractors are right: I'm jealous of cops. Yes, I am. I admit it.

I'm jealous of the wide-spread, unearned respect they get.
I'm jealous they get to ignore all anti-gun "laws", without being murdered (by cops) for doing so.
I'm jealous they make as much money as they do, and wish I could, too. Although I'd rather get money honestly.
I'm jealous because I can lose friends over words I have written, while cops don't seem to lose friends when they actually murder and rape. In fact, they seem to gain even more supporters in the face of accusations.

However, if you believe my dislike of cops is because of this jealousy, you would be wrong.

There are people I am jealous of, but whom I still like.
There are also people I don't like, but whom I am not jealous of in any way.
So, being jealous of someone and liking or not liking them are completely unrelated.

I have no desire to use violence against people who aren't archating, but there is still something thrilling about the thought that you could murder just about anyone and get away with it just because of your "job".

I wish that didn't seem exciting, but I do have personality flaws.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Complaints and poor choices

I drew this on the school playground's basketball court several years ago

People who make the choice to be involved in government stuff, and then sit around complaining about it, seem to me like someone who sticks their foot in an ant bed and keeps complaining about being stung.

One example is those who choose to send their kids to kinderprison and then constantly complain about bad teachers, homework, bullying, and all the other things that would cease being a problem if you'd rescue your kids from that gulag. You know what that place is all about, so what else do you expect?

But that's not the only example. There are also those who complain about government corruption as if government could be honest. You may as well complain that snow is cold and expect it to change to suit your wishes.

If you're going to legitimize theft, aggression, and "authority" with your choices, you look silly complaining about the inevitable results.

Now, if you are an unwilling victim, then complain as much as you want. Or, better yet, defend yourself.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Clovis, NM library murders- I understand the appeal of REVENGE

I don't believe revenge is right.

At this moment, I would do something I believe is wrong if I could get my hands on a particular murderous little loser. I don't care if he decided to murder random people because he has been bullied. Right now, I want blood. It's a good thing I know I'll calm down.

Today was my daughter Emily's 10th birthday. We had a pretty good day.

This afternoon we went to the mall so she could spend some of her birthday money. While there I got the report of an active shooter at the library. My daughter overheard, and was immediately concerned. Her first thought was for the safety of "Miss Krissie", the children's librarian.

She told me if Miss Krissie got shot, it would be the worst birthday ever.

This evening, although there hasn't been any confirmation, it looks like Miss Krissie, Kristina Carter, was one of the fatalities.

My daughter is devastated.

We started going to Toddler Story Time at the library when Emily was tiny. Emily kept going after she was too old to go, and not really interested in the toddler stories anymore, just because she loved Miss Krissie. She was so proud when she showed Miss Krissie that she had learned to write her name and could fill out her own name tag-- and Miss Krissie gushed over the accomplishment. 

Even after we stopped going to story time, we would always stop by to see Miss Krissie. Emily posed for several pics with her over the years, and we gave her copies. She always acted like those pictures were the most precious things she had ever received. When we'd run into her around town, she always remembered Emily's name and made her feel important.

I love libraries, and wish they were freed from government control. And, in a voluntaryist library, they couldn't do any better than hiring someone as caring as Miss Krissie. R.I.P.

(The other woman who was murdered was also very sweet to Emily. She was more of a grandmotherly type. Always behind the counter. Always cheerful, and getting my daughter to tell her about the book she was getting, or other small talk. Always acting like Emily was a VIP. The senselessness has left me hurt and angry. Very angry.)

--

(This was also the subject of an extra, Sunday edition, of my newspaper column.)

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

What's wrong with ideology?

What is "ideology", why is it always assumed to be negative, and do I have one?

Well, let's go to the dictionary:

1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

I don't see anything particularly negative in that, other than the gratuitous mention of "fascism" in #2.

Picking apart #1-- You had better have some beliefs to guide you, if you don't want to end up where you don't want to be. It is better to have true beliefs than ones based on lies, but if you start going in bad directions, that should be a sign that your beliefs are wrong and need to be replaced.

And, in regard to #2, if you have beliefs which are guiding you, and you want to actually accomplish something, I think it would be best to have a plan and a way to follow that plan. (Unless your beliefs are fascist/socialist/statist, then I'd prefer you have no plan and just wing it 'til you fail,)

Another definition says:

a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Again, no problem. Unless you violate others due to your "ideas and ideals". And, of course, politics in the real world is always a violation of others.

So, really, I see no problem in and of itself with having an ideology.
And yes, I have at least one ideology.

So why does "ideology" get such a bad reputation?

Because so many people start forming ideologies without the foundation of Zero Archation. If you start wrong, it's going to get worse. If you are guided by a doctrine, myth, belief, or whatever that doesn't inform you that you have no right to archate, then anything is permissible as you strive toward your goal. You'll end up eating babies and thinking nothing of it. Don't be like that.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Is sacrifice of freedom worth it?

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 26, 2017)

The belief that good things can come through government is based in the superstitious belief that the wrong thing can be done in just the right way.

It's a Utopian dream.

Make no mistake, everything governments do is built upon a rotted foundation.

I'm not Utopian. I know people aren't angels, but I also know they aren't as bad as believers in government make them out to be. People usually do what they believe is in their best interest.

Belief in government makes stealing and attacking appear to be in a person's best interest, and of little risk, as long as they are done in the name of "the law".

If you steal just the right amount-- calling it "taxation"-- the stolen money may help people. Ignore the people harmed by having their money taken. Ignore those who can no longer afford things they need; pretend the common good outweighs the harm and put the victims on welfare.

Most harm caused by taxation is invisible. You can't know how much money will never be available to help those in need, or to start a business to meet needs and grow the economy-- all because you took money from its rightful owner.

Theft is only the tip of the iceberg.

Some people living among us are here without government permission, so believers in government support rounding them up, caging them like animals, and shipping them off. So what if it makes things cost more, or causes a business or two to fail, destroying jobs for "legal Americans"? Ignore the devastating domino effect on the local economy; laws are more important and must be enforced at any cost. It's a cost government supporters are willing for you to bear.

Government believers also crave safety. Their belief is that because tragedies happen, someone needs to make more rules to prevent tragedies. Ignore the fact that new rules always have unintended consequences guaranteeing other tragedies. Again, this cost is hidden because you can't map the path never taken.

Perhaps if you violate people just enough, they'll be better people; not hurting others as much. Free people sometimes make bad choices; government can destroy freedom to reduce the risks. Destroying freedom is the only thing government does well. Unfortunately, to truly help others in meaningful ways also requires freedom. Government's arbitrary rules only get in the way. Is it worth it?

In this incremental way civilization's future is sacrificed, one individual at a time, on the altar of government.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Nice monsters

People really get confused over "nice" and "good".

"Nice" is just social adeptness. A way to act around people so they don't hate you automatically as you go about your daily routine. It includes politeness and generosity.

Most serial killers are probably very nice. It's how they gain the trust of their intended victims; getting them to let their guard down. If they weren't nice, they would find it hard to get close enough to kill their victims up close and personal.

But if you are being nice in order to facilitate violating people, you aren't good. No matter how many people like you for your niceness.

This explains why, no matter how nice some of the cops you know may be, none of them are good. They are like the sociopathic serial killer-- nice, with an agenda of violation.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Consent of the governed"?

Using statists' own reasoning, I doubt there can be any such thing as "consent of the governed".

What is the "age of consent" for being governed? Why wouldn't the statists insist on such with something as important as giving someone else total control over your body/life, liberty, and property? Governing someone has much more potential for grievous harm than mere sexual activity. Yet, they impose their own idea of an "age of consent" for that, and neglect making one up for being governed. They even insist on governing infants! What perverts they are!

Age and the ability to legitimately consent may have a loose correlation, but age doesn't magically mean someone is or is not able to give consent. For anything.

Rather than the number of years a person has lived, consent rests on the ability to understand what you are considering consenting to, and the emotional maturity to handle its consequences.

If there were going to be such a thing as "age of consent" where being governed is concerned, it would need to be about 150 years old. Governing anyone under that age would be Statutory Tyranny.

In fact, I would argue that consenting to be governed it is a sign you lack the understanding or emotional maturity to actually consent. It is self-disproving.

Of course, some people go out of their way begging to be governed. This shows they are mentally or emotionally too frail to consent to be governed. They are mental or emotional invalids, to be pitied and not trusted with important things.

I don't consent to be governed.

Statists might imagine that since I don't kill everyone who tries to govern me, this implies consent.

That's silly, and just how silly it is can be shown by imagining another non-consensual situation.

Unless you kill the rapist who is raping you, you obviously consent. Right? Or, you could choose an alternate rapist if you don't want to be raped by the one who is currently violating you. That you don't do either one implies consent. At least, when applied to governing.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Gang members attract groupies

One day recently, at an event at the park, I was watching people gathering around a cop. Several seemed to be jostling for his attention. I couldn't help but wonder what the attraction is.

Then I remembered someone I know who idolizes the Mafia, and it clicked: Gang members attract groupies. Suddenly I started thinking of other examples of the same phenomenon.

Many people are attracted to those they see as "dangerous". Some of these groupies are "harmless" people (perhaps cowards) who hunger for an association with someone who has more of an edge. Someone who can help them feel less harmless by association.

Others are in denial that they idolize bad guys, and they want plausible deniability, so they gather around those who are dangerous, but are seen as somehow "legitimate", too. Someone who can kill with impunity, but only "those who deserve it". Anyone cops murder is generally considered, by the cop groupies at least, to have deserved it somehow. Cops are their natural aphrodisiac.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Feel "protected"?

Living near an air farce base, I see a lot of military aircraft flying overhead. Usually big old prop-driven dinosaurs, but recently a couple of fighter jets zipped over the house.

It made me wonder if there's anyone still gullible enough to feel "protected" by this sight.

Probably the same people who breathe a sigh of relief when a cop pulls onto the highway behind them-- knowing they can now relax, since the cop will be selflessly watching out for their safety.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Hire a professional, or not?

You and I are constantly told we should "leave it to the professionals". We are presumed too incompetent to do it ourselves, and are told we need to pay someone to do it for us, so we don't get hurt.

Except... there is one profession that if we choose to hire a professional practitioner, we could be "arrested". In this case, we are told we must only use amateurs and shouldn't hire a professional.

Where can you find this inconsistent government position? Prostitution.

And don't say it has to do with protecting "family values". Compulsory government schooling is as anti-family values as you can get, and they have no problem promoting this.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Partial solar eclipse August 21, 2017

Crescent sun reflected on my shed.

Crescent sun reflected on the house.

Crescent sun reflected on a stop sign.

Peeking through a hole in the clouds.

Crescent sunbeams coming through leaves onto my patio.

Crescent sunbeams through holes in a canna leaf.

Crescent sunbeams through a colander.

I eclipsed the eclipse with my fingertip, trying to show how odd the clouds looked- probably due to the strange shadow effects of a partial eclipse..
It didn't work that well.

The videos were made by recording the eclipse's reflection in a puddle in my yard. Yes, there are actual puddles of water in my yard! That's almost as rare as an eclipse!








I spent more time just observing it in every way I could think of. Pics and videos were almost afterthoughts. I do enjoy this sort of thing.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Police lead to police states

You can't have a police state without police. And, if you allow government to have police, you're probably going to find yourself in a police state sooner or later.

Unless you can find a real way to directly, and tightly, control (and "police") the police. (No one has ever managed to find that unicorn yet.)

Now, I suppose if you're a coward and you want to live in a police state, you're fine with that.

But if you don't want to live in a police state, but you still want cops around, for some incomprehensible reason, you are going to be disappointed. Eventually, if not sooner.

It's a path you are either choosing, or your family, friends, and neighbors are choosing for you. At least speak up in opposition.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Get your own house in order first

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 19, 2017. This one apparently never made it to the website, so here's your first chance to read it.)

Before making a big deal of someone else's actions, it's a good idea to look in the mirror. You might be surprised by what you see.

The national media is currently obsessed with trying to prove the Russian government meddled in the most recent US presidential election. This after using every resource at their disposal to influence the election by mocking, ridiculing, and painting one of the candidates as a clown, before labeling him the next Hitler.

The media elites didn't hide their preference. Theirs was such a heavy-handed effort to manipulate the voters that it likely caused blow-back, resulting in the defeat of their darling. It's almost as if they now realize their clumsy attempt to steer the election drove American voters away from the anointed candidate, and they're desperate to shift the blame. The national media, including the entertainment industry, are more responsible for the election results than the Russian government could ever dream of being. Unless...

To find evidence of Russian meddling, I suggest investigating whether the Russian government tricked national media outlets into making fools of themselves in the lead-up to the election, and laughingstocks ever since.

If it's wrong for someone else to do something, you shouldn't do it either, whether you are an individual, an industry, or a government.

The media might care about electoral honesty, but why would politicians? The US government spends much time, effort, and your money trying to direct foreign governments to be obedient outposts of the US. If they can't get the results they want by influencing elections, they can exercise the option to send in their military. They'll free the foreign population from the troublesome ruler they have, and install a ruler more agreeable to the US government's agenda. Always in the name of democracy and human decency, of course, no matter how many innocent lives must be sacrificed in the process. Meddling in elections is almost honorable by comparison.

The hypocrisy isn't limited to elections. The US government constantly threatens other governments who try to develop nuclear weapons, while stockpiling planet-scouring numbers of the things for themselves. I wonder who is more dangerous; the government wanting what other governments have, or the only government to have actually used nuclear weapons against the civilian population of another country. Twice.

Wrong is wrong, no matter who you are or what excuses you make. Be honest, get your own house in order, then notice whether you do the same thing you're criticizing others for doing.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com. 
I could SURE use a few donations and new subscribers!

(Steemit link)

Instant or nothing?

I know a free society isn't going to be instant.
"Taxation" isn't going to be abolished today.
All anti-gun "laws" aren't going to be eliminated today.
Violations of life, liberty, and property, committed by organized gangs of archators who call themselves "government" will continue.

But that realization is no reason to do things in support of these violations. It's not "pragmatic"; it's back-stabbing.

I really don't understand those willing to act as though these acts of statism are "legitimate" just because they aren't going away today. Cancer won't be cured today, either, but that's no reason to pretend it's good or necessary.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Fellow travelers taking detours

A lot of people will never care about liberty. At all. They'll never value it. Forget them. They are like rocks and trees on the landscape. They are scenery. Learn to navigate around them. Don't go out of your way to kick them. That will only end up hurting you.

And some people once cared, but lost their way.

I know people who used to consider me (and those like me) to be fellow travelers on the path toward Rightful Liberty, but no longer do. I have some in mind, but I won't embarrass them by naming names.

It's not because my position changed in any meaningful way-- it's because they moved to the political "right" when it became "pragmatic" to do so.

In many cases they enthusiastically embraced the Borderist anti-property rights position, and in other cases they embraced other aspects of Trumpism. A few just went completely off the deep end into "alt-right" craziness-- those are thankfully rare. But all this is a matter of degree, not a difference of kind. (Others jumped into the Left end of the statism pool, but that's a different subject for another time.)

I could be sad about this. In fact, I often am.
Or I can hope this soon passes and they'll get back on course after it does. Being hopeful is what I choose to do.

I'll still be here when they get over it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

OK. I'll bite

Fred asks a couple of questions about cops and violence, saying they won't be answered by folks of my sort, because they'll trigger cognitive dissonance.

Well, let's see...

The Police:  A cop sees a man strike a woman in the head with a piece of pipe and grab her purse. He tries to arrest the perp, who resists. The criminal is 19, muscular, and  weighs 220. What should the cop do?

Answer: He should do the same thing anyone else should do. He should defend the victim and himself. If necessary, he should fatally shoot the aggressor. "Arrest" (under the statist misunderstanding of the word) shouldn't be a goal, but that's a different subject.

Next...

Second question: The perp is big, stoked on PCP, has a length of pipe, and does not want to go to jail. He attacks the cop. What should the cop do when attacked with a deadly weapon?

Well, unless the guy was archating-- which if he's referring to the guy in the first question, he was-- the cop should have minded his own business and the pipe vs. cop attack wouldn't have happened. Being on drugs, having some pipe, and not wanting to be caged are not mala in se acts (wrong in and of themselves).

However, if he is referring to the guy in the first question (as I believe he is), the answer is the same as the answer to the first question: he should defend the victim and himself.

The right thing to do doesn't change depending on what your "job" is-- and that's the fatal error cop supporters always make. This really isn't that complicated, folks!

The rest of Fred's questions are either not directed toward me (being asked of archators of various sorts) and are thus irrelevant for this blog, or they are outside the scope of this blog. The answer to his religious question would make some of my readers mad, and the "question" has nothing to do with the proper way to live among other people. I'd rather unite people than divide them, so I won't answer that one here.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Statists are crybabies

How many times have you been minding your own business, just talking to other liberty lovers, when some statist troll pops up and says: "Show me how your imaginary anarchist society will work!" or some other version of "It can't work!"

It happens to me all the time.

But, when I direct them to this blog, to my books, to my Dispatches from Libertopia blog, and to my website, they whine that they don't want to read all that stuff. They won't even bother to watch simple videos! It's "too much" or not what they wanted to hear.

They don't want links that would require them to lift a finger. Clicking is hard! And they might have to think!

Nope, they want to be spoonfed. They want everything to be written anew, just for them. And, of course, they won't listen anyway, because they really just want to whine.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

Pull down their statues?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)

About those "bad apples"

Let's pretend that the problem with cops really is "just a few bad apples" like cop supporters continually insist.

What does an apple seller do with any bad apples he discovers in a barrel of apples?
Does the apple salesman make excuses for the bad apple and leave it in the barrel?
Does he remove it for a couple of weeks, then sneak it back in when no one is looking?
If he does toss it out, do other apple sellers enthusiastically come get it and put it in their barrel?
Do the other apples crowd around to protect the bad apple from being disposed of?
What happens if you leave bad apples in the barrel with the good apples?
Will the bad apples be made good again by exposure to the good apples, or will the bad apples ruin the whole barrel?

What are police departments doing with all the bad apples that keep turning up?
Are police departments disposing of the bad apples that expose themselves?

But, you might point out: people aren't fruit.
You're right. People aren't rotten fruit to be thrown in the compost heap. So why do cop supporters keep insisting on making that comparison?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

(Steemit link)