Las Vegas concert "security"

Just look at the picture above and notice how safe those disarmed-by-law people seem to be. It must warm Nancy Pelosi's heart-like blood pump.

It has been reported that "security" was checking attendees for weapons as they entered the Las Vegas concert area.

Yeah, that worked. "Security". Theater. Magical thinking.

But the Mass Murderer Cheerleader Club is dancing in the blood of the dead and wounded, calling for more of what failed to save lives. As they always do. Anything these idiots propose would enable more evil losers to kill more people. It's the inevitable result of everything they cry out for.

Do I believe they have "good intentions"? Maybe. Some of them do. But others know enough to know exactly what they are advocating. They know where their path leads, and they don't care. They want it anyway.

Anti-gun "laws", rules, and policies NEVER make any innocent person safer, and sometimes make them less safe. Sometimes they lead directly to death.

In this case, the policies didn't make anyone safer, but didn't really contribute to the death and destruction, either. If you have a policy that doesn't help, but can hurt, you are stupid or evil-- maybe both-- to keep implementing it. You are definitely evil to advocate doing more of it, harder.

Yes, that's right: stricter "security" won't stop things like this, but will only make them easier to commit. "Security" could have made everyone strip and attend the concert naked after being probed, chemo-sniffed, and rape-scanned by TSA machines. It wouldn't have saved one life-- unless you count those who would refuse to be treated this way to attend a concert and went elsewhere.

Sometimes there's just nothing you can really do when some evil loser decides to kill people. But that's no excuse to keep doing the wrong things; things that never help and sometimes hurt.

Anti-gun bigotry is wrong. It is evil. It kills innocent people. Don't enable the bad guys by trying to restrict guns; fight back by refusing to be unarmed.

I know, pointing this out isn't nice. Sorry, but I'd rather be good than nice.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Any subscriptions or donations are greatly appreciated!

Follow me on Steemit

Las Vegas mass murders- random evil

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
A few donations and subscriptions would sure be helpful!

Follow me on Steemit

Your responsibility to not archate

"Conservatives" are lukewarm about rights. They love the ones they love, and mock the ones they don't.

They get very excited about (your) responsibilities, but manage to gloss over or ignore one of the biggest responsibilities there is: the responsibility to not archate.

That is, the responsibility to not violate the rights-- the life, liberty, and property-- of others, even those rights you don't like.

Yes, that is a human responsibility that can't be eliminated, no matter how unhappy it makes you.

This trips them up every time. It's a good way to distinguish between libertarians and the "conservatives" who like to make liberty noises as long as things are going their way.

There are other responsibilities, of course. Some of which I don't particularly enjoy. But really, if you gloss over the responsibility to respect the rights of other people, you're not going to be a good person even if you live up to every other responsibility you have.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Government can't protect you from disaster

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 30, 2017)

Each time there's some potential calamity on the horizon, I hope people will have learned this truth from history: government can't protect you. I am usually disappointed. 

Whether it's a hurricane, blizzard, disease epidemic, economic collapse, or the aquifer running dry, your safety is not government's responsibility; it's yours. In most cases they couldn't solve the problem if they tried. All they can do is spend money which isn't theirs to spend, hold meetings so they'll appear to be doing something, and issue orders you're expected to obey.

Sometimes those orders are smart; other times, not so much. Occasionally, following their orders brings disaster.

With hurricanes, for example, be smart enough to evacuate if that's what you need to do. Be prepared in case you can't get out. Realize every decision has consequences.

Governments can't distinguish between clueless people too stupid to know when they should evacuate, and people who know what to expect and who have prepared by doing what they needed to do to be able to ride out the storm.

Granted, there are more of the former than of the latter. But sometimes the prepared are driven from their homes-- at gun point-- along with the foolish, and put in situations more dangerous than those they are forced to leave behind. All because someone believes they know what's best, and is willing to force their beliefs on others. One size fits all in the eyes of the State.

This is wrong, even if it's "for your own good".

I'm not suggesting people stay put, then call 911 as soon as they realize they've bitten off more than they can chew, expecting to be rescued. No one has the right to put others at risk simply because they're stubborn, or because they made a choice which didn't turn out like they expected. "Never before" doesn't mean it never will.

Life isn't simple. You have to do the work. Even if someone volunteers to do it for you, no one values your life as much as you. It's your job to live it and defend it. No one can be paid enough to care as much as you do. No one knows your situation better than you do. It's up to you, and if you are hoping someone else will save you from the dangers of the world, or from your own poor decisions, you may have an unpleasant shock in store. Plan ahead. Don't be caught off guard.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Some things are constant

It's good to be open-minded and remember that you might be wrong.

However, it's not really necessary to constantly re-evaluate whether you have the right to archate.

I mean, if it makes you happy to keep ruminating on it, go ahead.

But, just like you don't need to wake up each morning and test to see whether a dropped egg will still fall, you don't need to wonder if it's still not within your rights to walk around shooting random people or walking into their houses and taking what you want.

Some mental exercises are probably a waste of time. (Yes, I know that's a shocking statement, coming from me.)

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Live and let live... but...

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Buy Barbuda?

Nationalists, flags, and "leftist commies"

I see that the Sportsballer/Holy Pole Quilt flap is quickly separating the liberty respecting individualists from the collectivist State apologists. And it's not pretty.

Yes, your boss can probably force you to worship an idol while you are on the clock, but no decent boss would ever do that. And no self-respecting person should feel obligated to accept such a "job" offer. (Of course, thinking this way is why I am perpetually broke, so feel free to disregard my opinion.)

Declining to participate in a government extremist ritual isn't much of a "protest" if you ask me. Especially since kneeling instead of standing and repeating the chant is still participating. It doesn't even approach what I would consider a protest. But nationalists are easily triggered.

I also realize that the sportsballers have no clue. They don't understand what they think they are protesting, in most cases. Maybe a few do, but for most it's still just a form of going with the crowd.

But, if you are going to start ranting about how the "protesters" are "commies" or something to that effect, then you are aligning with the State, in the worst way possible.
Against liberty.
Against everything the country you believe you are standing with supposedly stood for.
You are choosing collectivism over liberty.
You are siding with Rulers.
You are the one acting like a commie, regardless of your projection and angry words to the contrary.

If you choose statist rituals over liberty, you are not on the right side, even if some of those you rant against are also wrong.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Police corruption" is meaningless

Are police corrupt?
Is the mafia corrupt?
Would the old Chicago mob have been OK if Al Capone* had just cracked down on the corruption in his gang? Or, was the problem more systemic than that? Was the mob functioning exactly as it was intended to?

If your purpose, or at least the real-world manifestation of your "purpose", is evil, how can the word "corrupt" even have any meaning to your situation?

What would a non-corrupt street gang look like? If you eliminate the evil deeds, nothing is left. It is no longer a gang, but is just a non-archating social club.

For police to not be "corrupt" they would have to be funded voluntarily (no "tax" funding at all).
They would have to stop enforcing almost all "laws" and only spend their "on-the-job" time protecting life, liberty, and property.
They would stop enforcing any "law" that forbids you from doing something they are allowed to do (carrying a gun into a post office or school, for example). Yes, this is related to the previous point, but important enough to separate out.
They would have to come down hard on any cop who violated life, liberty, or property, and not form a "blue wall of silence" around him.
They would be accountable for any violations, and would accept the restitution they owe-- personally and individually, not paid to the victims by the "taxpayers".
They wouldn't "patrol", but would only come when invited.

In other words, they wouldn't be cops.

-

*Yeah, I realize his mob was less corrupt than today's police, but ignore that for now.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Government needs you (to lie)

Government is empowered by lies. Its own, of course, but those aren't the most vital lies.

It needs your lies in order to survive. Truth kills government, but telling the truth has a heavy cost.

Expressing support for cops is either lying, or is actively supporting evil.
Denying that "taxation" is theft is lying.
Insisting government can be good is a lie.

Lies lies lies.

Those who want you to lie will look for ways to hurt you if you tell the truth about their gang. And they have a lot of power at their disposal. In the long run, lying in support of government is still more destructive and harmful. This isn't an exercise you'll survive-- but neither will they. No one gets out alive.

Lying for government brings temporary comfort, at a price.

Supporting government is an exercise in denial. It is denying the truth in favor of lies. It is support for the worst humans can do to each other. Why not just bite the bullet and be honest, instead?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

How to waste your time

Arguing for the "legitimacy" of the State (or government) with an anarchist-- using legal definitions and statist concepts-- is as pointless as threatening atheists with Hell for not believing.

It's just not going to work.

You are speaking gibberish while trying to defend the indefensible to someone who doesn't believe in the things you put your faith in.

And even bothering to respond, as an anarchist, to the statist making the "argument" is probably a waste of time.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Child sacrifice- "everyone does it"

"Public school"- or, more honestly: kinderprison.

Does it magically stop being child abuse just because "everyone does it"?

How does that work, exactly?

Would it not be child abuse to sacrifice your children to Moloch if that was the expected thing to do in your society?

Kinderprison is child sacrifice to the god of The State. Even if their bodies survive, their minds are less likely to. Almost no one escapes without at least some mind damage after going through "public school".

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Why not just ignore monuments?

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 23, 2017- running a bit late.)

If I were to give advice to the Leftist protesters across the country, it would include this: ignore the monuments of your enemies.

I have no love for those who built and strengthened the government. Any government. I consider it ridiculous to memorialize such people in bronze. But their statues can serve as reminders of past mistakes. Plus, they are useful pigeon roosts.

When you remove statues and monuments, you haven't erased bad events of the past. You've hidden their reminders. You've swept those events under a rug. It's like covering evidence of historic crimes. Leave them on display to remind yourself "Never again!"

There are also those who practically worship those symbols; they might as well be idols. Some people get part of their identity from them; some of their self-worth. Tearing down those statues is only going to cause more trouble. It's going to fragment society even further. This is not the time for that.

I'm not in favor of paying a solitary cent to ever again create another statue to honor a politician or member of the government's military. But, of those which are already there and were funded with tax money, the money is long gone; it will never be returned to its rightful owner. Those paid for with voluntary donations, while they shouldn't be on "public land", are otherwise none of my business.

So why not simply ignore the symbols you find repulsive?

I see courthouses, police stations, public schools, and city halls as symbols of oppression and tyranny. They aren't just reminders of a terrible past, but are monuments to contemporary slavery-- a concrete burden on individuals, and thus on civilization, today. Yet I don't generally advocate for them to be demolished.

As long as the underlying beliefs which prop up those structures remain, you and I would be forced to pay for their replacements. It's those archaic ideas and beliefs which need to be abolished; the physical structures are only a symptom.

Could you find tolerance for the symbols you despise so you'll have the moral high ground when someone starts calling for the demolition of the historic symbols you value?

If you make it socially permissible to destroy monuments to things you hate, you make it acceptable for your enemies to tear down monuments to things you love, too. Do you really want to go down this path and see where it leads? This is what comes of politics-- consider yourself warned.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Discriminate in the lessons you learn

Everyone can be your teacher. But be careful of what you learn.

You can learn something from anyone. If you ever run across someone you can't learn from, you have learned that there are people you can't learn from, and that would mean you learned something from them after all.

But... be very careful listening to people who believe in governing others, or who believe it's OK to archate.

When someone starts from a position that far off-base, you will need to be extra cautious in analyzing everything else they say.

So, even if Abraham Lincoln said some things you can learn from, he started from a position of superstition and ignorance. If you pay attention to things he said, without discriminating the good from the nonsense, you'll pay for it. Remember that at all times.

The same goes for anyone who believes governing others can be a positive thing. Whether they are military, a politician, a journalist, a bureaucrat, or whatever. If they are wrong about something so fundamental, you know the chances are high that they are wrong about other things-- even if things they say sound good.

So, weigh their words. Keep the gold, toss out the junk, and keep learning.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Government is a violation of the social contract

Of course government violates the "social contract". Any legitimate social contract isn't going to be what statists claim it is. It's going to be completely voluntary and opting out will always be an option. And you won't have to move away if you refuse to sign, either.

So, why is it that the superstitious beliefs called "the social contract" by statists are always the opposite?

They are coercive, imposed systems you can't opt out of. Yet, somehow they believe government-- the one they claim you are obligated to obey and support-- is a manifestation of a glorious "social contract", and this adds to the reasons (in their minds) you should obey and support this government.

It's crazytalk.

A true voluntary social contract, which you consented to with your eyes open and without signing away your right to back out if it becomes harmful to your life, liberty, or property, is only damaged by government. It is the opposite of what a real social contract would be.

Government is anti-social, and isn't even close to being a valid contract. Sign up with it if that's what you want. It's not for me.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Liberty out the Yinyang!

Several years ago, my online friend Kevin Wilmeth brought Taoism to my attention and sent me a copy of the Tao Te Ching. It turns out Taoism is an early libertarian philosophy, and is pretty interesting. (You probably knew that long before I did.)

Anyway, recently I saw a video that once again brought it to mind. This was a video on the Taoist symbol, the Yin and Yang, by Jordan B. Peterson.

In it he basically points out that too much chaos will kill you, but so will too much order. You need to be balanced between the two extremes to have a good, meaningful life. Relating that back to Yin & Yang, this balanced life follows the narrow curving line down the middle between Yin and Yang; between chaos and order. You need one foot in each domain.

I find this interesting because that narrow winding path has a name: libertarianism.

Liberty strikes the balance perfectly because of its self-limiting nature.

Added:
Another thought I had about this...
I've noticed that there are those pairs where both are good in their own way (chaos-order, masculine-feminine, day-night, etc.) and those where both are equally bad (authoritarian-decadence, fascism-nihilism). There don't seem to be any pairs where one is bad and the other is good (or neutral). Or, at least I haven't come up with any.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The State-- societal cancer

A lot of liberty lovers aren't very fond of society. I'm not one of them.

Society can be good or bad. Just like some cultures are better than others (depending on their level of acceptance of archation), so are some societies better.

The State is a cancer on the good society. A parasite, draining the life out of the society, replacing it with rot and death. Replacing the social benefits of the economic means with the destruction of the political means. Choosing theft and aggression over voluntary interactions.

If a society develops cancer, maybe it means the society was already a bit sick; cancer isn't going to cure the sickness. Unless you consider death a "cure".

Maybe if you are suffering in a bad society, having cancer killing it off isn't all bad. But the chance of the State being worse than the society is too high-- societies can be good or bad, but there is no such thing as a "good State". Those odds are not in your favor.

Be grateful for the good things around you. Recognize the bad things-- and reject them.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Trolled!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Sorry to break it to you...

...but there are freelance bad people out there.

If you believe everything is a "false flag" you're as gullible as those who believe everything the mass media reports.

If everything's a false flag, then nothing ever occurs outside of government control. And that's obviously absurd. There probably are some false flags, but there are real, terrible events perpetrated by non-governmental thugs, too.

I don't blame people who suspect the possibility of a false flag with any event. But once credible people who have first-hand knowledge of the surrounding situation have counter evidence, let it go. Move onto the next possible false flag. Don't dig in your heels and call people nasty names just because they don't buy into your hysteria.

After the shootings at the library here, a guy on Facebook told me it was obviously a false flag. I didn't even say anything negative in response, other than to post a link to a previous post I had written about the "false flag" subject. So he said "Wow" and unfriended me.

I feel bad for people like him. This belief seems defeatist. If anything like this ever happens to him, how will his brain wrap around it? Will he still believe it's a false flag to pin on a conspiratorial government operation beyond his ability to fight? If he has concrete evidence to the contrary, will he think this is the one exception? Will he then get upset at those like himself who claim it's "just" another false flag?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The opposite of a polite society

An armed society is a polite society.
An unarmed "society" isn't a real society at all.

It's a feed lot.
A slaughter house.
A prison.

The people in it are too helpless to be of any use to anyone but those who control the arms.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit