Free speech in action

The above comment was posted on the newspaper's FB page in response to my most recent column. The comment was deleted, the commenter banned by the paper, and a screenshot (without the redactions) was forwarded to me.

I say the guy had the right to say what he said, and the newspaper had the right to delete the comment. The actions of neither seem out of line.

I would have been angry had FB chosen to intervene and remove the comment (of which they were not a party) since they supposedly invite the public to use the platform, but no individual has to leave anything that bothers them on their own page or a page they are responsible for. Had he waited to leave the comment on my post on my FB page, I would have left it. I do appreciate the paper's efforts at defending my honor, though. I realize they were also trying to protect their advertisers.

The comment didn't upset me. It was just too far off-base.

Just how far afield is the commenter? Well, I'm not "known", I don't worship (or believe in) anything supernatural, I don't rape or otherwise initiate force, I respect the rights of children just like I do anyone else, I don't have a basement (but I do have a cellar), and if I did have a basement I wouldn't invite a crowd of people into it to watch me do something I consider evil. And if someone did witness me doing such a thing they would have the right-- and the responsibility-- to shoot me in order to stop me.

If a comment were negative and too close for comfort it would probably be a different story. (Occasionally I've had people accuse me of being an anarchist! That just gets a "Yeah. So?" instead of the outrage or denial they had hoped for.)

Personally, I think the commenter was either trying to be funny or was trying to make a point. I was slightly amused by the comment. And, I can see a point to be made with such a comment. More than one, actually.

Yes, speech can offend people (as it did the newspaper) and it can cause harm. Perhaps he was trying to illustrate this point. No one ever said speech doesn't have consequences, nor that you get a free ride just by claiming "free speech". You are responsible for the consequences of what you say or write, whether your words are true or false. If you don't like that, you have the option to keep your thoughts to yourself.

Maybe he was testing my commitment to freedom of speech, even when it targets me. If so, bravo.

Anyway, it was just a little feedback to add to my information stack.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The creepy Obsession

I am against pedophiles. Especially pedophiles who act on it.

I am also against obsessive pedophile hunters and obsessive pedophile punishers.

They like to think of themselves as knights on a Holy Crusade. I see them as the spiritual descendants of Torquemada.

I've come to believe that most people who claim to be hunting or fighting pedophiles are simply hungry for someone it's socially OK to obsessively hate; someone they can safely post revenge porn about. It's their version of Nazi hunting. Most even misdefine "pedophile" and "child" so they'll have more targets available.

It's a witchhunt; one libertarians seem particularly prone to joining. Perhaps they hunger to behave like the statists they see around them-- with revenge and force-- so they've found a target that's socially acceptable to those who reject the initiation of force.

It's somewhat understandable; libertarians are all about defending people, especially those who aren't able to defend themselves. Children are vulnerable. People who prey on them are evil. But there's such a thing as jumping off the deep end and being drowned by your obsession. Yes, even in cases like this. In their zeal, libertarian pedophile obsessives become indistinguishable from the statists. This is wrong even when the cause is right.

And you're not "allowed" to question these self-anointed pedohunters in the slightest.

This makes me suspicious of their actual motives. I'm reminded of the loudly anti-homosexual televangelists. I'd be willing to bet some are more similar to those guys than they'd ever admit. No, not all of them, and probably not even most of them, but some.

Surely I'm not the only person who wonders about this, or who sees their obsession as a bit creepy. But even if I am the only one, I'm OK with that.

I realize that pointing this out will make them claim I'm defending pedophiles-- I'm not. If that's what they get from this they are hallucinating and imagining they can read my mind. They may even claim I am one-- I'm not. But it's their go-to reaction. I've seen it before, more than once.

All because someone dared question their untouchable obsession. To them that's unforgivable.

And this illustrates what I see as wrong with their crusade. It's not reasonable or rational. It's rabid and emotional, and anything is OK as soon as they accuse their target. In their minds, accusation equals guilt. No real proof is needed to convict and execute once the accusation has been leveled. The accusation settles it. "For the CHILDREN!"

I'm not saying there aren't sexual predators out there, because there are, and I know some of them target children. This is wrong. It is archation. No one molests kids by accident. If you do, you intended to. If you don't intend to, you don't do it. (You could still be falsely accused, though.)

When I encounter one of these obsessives, I just quietly back away. I don't support pedophiles, but I don't support their creepy doppelgängers, either. I'll probably regret ever saying anything, but it's been weighing on my mind and needed to be said.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Not everything is acceptable

I have been told I'm judgmental. Probably so.

And I've never met anyone who wasn't (but I'm not judging). It's not necessarily a bad thing, depending on what you're judging about someone.

I don't judge people for what they wear, the color of their skin, their favorite food, the length of their hair (as long as they aren't sporting a thug rug), their sex lives, their hobbies, or whatever, but I'm convinced it's OK to judge people for archating. In fact, it's probably essential.

If you won't judge those who are molesting others, it seems to me you have no principles at all. Where do you draw the line? Will you stand for anything?

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Gun safety essential to gun rights

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 11, 2018)

Gun rights, like all natural human rights, are a foundation of a functional society. And every right comes with an equally important responsibility. You must handle and use your gun so that you don't harm anyone who doesn't deserve to be harmed.

Gun safety is more than important; it is essential.

Contrary to what some people insist, gun accidents do happen. Once a tiny sliver of wood flaked off the inside of a black powder gun I was using and lodged in a bad spot. As soon as I pulled the hammer back and released it, the gun fired even though nothing was touching the trigger. Because I was following the rules of safe gun handling, the only casualty was my nerves.

However, most so-called gun "accidents" aren't accidents at all, but are negligence; someone not observing the rules of safe gun handling.

Colonel Jeff Cooper standardized and popularized the rules of gun safety, which I'll paraphrase as follows:
Rule 1: All guns are always loaded, even when you're sure they aren't.
Rule 2: Never let the gun point toward anything you're not willing to destroy.
Rule 3: Keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until the gun is aimed where you want the bullet to go.
Rule 4: Be sure of your target and what lies behind your target. Don't shoot on a hunch, and don't forget to look beyond the target.

It's also not a good idea to handle a gun when your mind is dulled.

People who hate or fear guns won't change their minds just because you are a safe and responsible gun owner. Those who are undecided about guns can be pushed off the fence onto the anti-gun side by the publicity surrounding tragedies. Don't be the one who gives them a push.

I prefer a universally armed society. Any rules which seek to keep guns out of the "wrong hands" will inevitably do more to keep them out of the right hands, because those "wrong hands" won't follow the rules anyway.

This doesn't mean I trust everyone to be armed. I don't. But I don't trust those who would decide who gets to be armed, and who doesn't, either. I'd rather there be armed bad guys than government employees rationing natural human rights. After all, the good guys vastly outnumber the bad guys, otherwise society would be impossible.

Be responsible. A negligent shot is precious ammunition for the anti-gun activists. Don't give them this coveted gift.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Nicer than the alternatives

Is it rude to shun someone? To exercise your right of association?

I shun cops and would probably shun politicians if I ever had the opportunity. Especially state-level politicians. I would probably be flexible on more local levels, depending on how enthusiastic a dirtbag they happen to be. I'm willing to chalk up some bad behavior (archation) on their part to ignorance and brainwashing.

But it seems people around me believe it's rude of me to shun cops.

I don't think I'm rude to them-- I simply ignore their existence in "social" situations. Isn't that better than puking at the sight of them? Or making faces? Isn't shunning more polite than flipping them off or shooting them?

It seems so to me. But I could be convinced otherwise.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Think of the CHILDREN!!"

Or the old, disabled, or ill! Those who might be considered, by some, as "unwhole" in some way.

I appreciate when people stand up for the "unwhole"; I'm less than impressed when someone imagines that being "unwhole" bestows or creates extra rights. I'm downright angry when someone insists my (or others') rights don't matter because they might somehow offend the "unwhole".

Certain people bring up the "unwhole" in discussions to try to find a reason to justify archation, such as "taxation" or "laws".

Recently one such winner objected to my dismissal of laws as either unnecessary or harmful because he didn't understand how the "unwhole" could defend themselves without "laws". I wonder how the "unwhole" can defend themselves from "laws".

I understand the desire to protect the "unwhole"; I don't like the tendency to throw everyone else (and their rights) under the bus on behalf of the "unwhole" due to their imagined extra rights.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Prep fluffing

I should probably be ashamed, but I'm feeling bothered because I haven't had a chance in a long time to actually need to use any of my preps. And I know that's a stupid "problem" to admit to having.

I guess I could sneak out and shut off the electricity and water, but knowing I did that would take the fun out of it.

Lately, I've been feeling really antsy about preps. Feeling I need to do more.

More water, in particular. There are zero surface sources of water around here, so emergency water must be stored -- although I do have filters, too. And I don't have nearly enough water stored (as if "enough" stored water would be possible).

But it's not just water. I've been fussing over all my preps as if I'm getting ready for something that's coming. And, no, I don't believe I'm psychic or anything, so I don't believe anything is imminent.

So I'll just keep doing what I'm doing, and doing more of it, too. Reminding myself that even if TS never HTF, preps are still a smart thing to do, and smooth over all sorts on non-emergencies in the meantime.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Giving me what I want

Imagine someone created a government agency with no other function but to hand out (for example) free AR-15s to anyone, just for the asking. I would really love to have an AR-15, but I can't afford one.

So, would I support the existence of this "wonderful" government agency?

Nope. I couldn't support a government agency; even one formed specifically to give me exactly what I want. Even if there were no strings attached, and no hidden agenda or unintended consequences to the recipients.

How can anyone? It's something I just can't wrap my head around.

Even if I believed a "border patrol" or "ICE" were necessary, I would oppose them because they are a government agency. They operate with stolen money-- money taken, at least in part, from people who don't want their "service" and don't want to fund them. That makes their existence unethical regardless of any other consideration. (And there are a lot of other considerations making them bad guys.)

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

I may not agree with what you say...

... but I'll fight for your right to say it. Because I'm not a loser or a coward.

I've never paid the slightest attention to Alex Jones or INFOWARS. I can't even say if the criticisms I've heard of him are accurate or if they are overblown. And, I don't care the tiniest bit.

I am still opposed to having him silenced-- or even to businesses doing what they have a right to do and kicking him off their platforms.

Yes, I have often said it's not always good or smart to do everything you have a right to do. This is one of those times.

The way this was put into action is a clear case of a real-world conspiracy. Not a "conspiracy theory", but a factual conspiracy. It makes me stand alongside someone I otherwise ignore.

Yet, I can also see how government policies and "laws" empower people to feel safe doing things of this sort, and give them a ready excuse.

With the State's thuggish kidnapping and persecution of Silk Road's supposed creator, Ross Ulbricht, and their recent threat to molest sites such as Craigslist and Backpage which allowed "sex ads", those who let Alex Jones use their sites could claim that they were forced to kick him off for their own safety.

If the State is allowed to kidnap, rob, and otherwise molest someone for running a website that has ads for things political bullies are opinionated against, why wouldn't they do the same to those who allow Alex Jones to use their sites?

I'm not saying it's an ethical justification for kicking him off, just that in this era of government supremacy, it's a reasonable one. Even if the site hosts don't actually believe it.

If your argument against someone's opinions is so weak you feel you have to silence them rather than lay out the facts which prove them wrong, then you are a loser and a coward. I'm looking at YOU, Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Google, and all the others who colluded against freedom of speech. Don't expect my support when your bootlicking fails to keep the wolves at bay and your number comes up.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

You and your "laws"

If you claim to honor the Constitution, and you want a law enforced that's not allowed by the Constitution (which is therefore not a real law even by your questionable standards) you are mixed up.

If the "law" you want people to be forced at gunpoint to obey is not explicitly allowed by the Constitution, or is prohibited by it, then it can't be a law. Not in America under the current government (regardless of how the humans working in that government feel about it).

That means if you are demanding people be forced to obey these "laws" you are the one promoting lawlessness. Not them.

And not the wholesome kind of lawlessness, either, but the toxic kind. The "forced at gunpoint" part is what gives it away.

If the "law" you want people to be forced at gunpoint to obey violates human rights or liberty in any way, even if specifically permitted by the Constitution, it is a counterfeit "law", and enforcing it is wrong. Even if you agree with it. Even if you like it. Even if you believe it is necessary. Even if you imagine ruin unless it is enforced.

If you have a double-standard, where you oppose counterfeit "laws" which go against what you want, but will happily impose counterfeit "laws" on others which violate them in the same way, you are not on the side of liberty. Or rights, ethics, or principles.

I have no respect for "laws" or for people who want to impose "laws" on others. It's a disgusting thing to see.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

In the wrong hands...

Could "Virtual Reality" be used to make people believe they are fighting in a game when they are actually killing people they wouldn't otherwise want to kill? Maybe even for tricking military employees into murdering friends and family?

I believe it could.

I'm not saying it's that hard to talk people into becoming murder machines now, just that I think this could make things worse-- getting those who wouldn't otherwise be tools of the murderous State to kill wantonly.

That's not an excuse to ban VR, but another good reason to keep it out of government hands. Just like government should never have been allowed to have drones. Or nukes. Or guns. Or pencils. Or oxygen.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Put independence back in the day

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 4, 2018)

What does Independence Day mean to you? To me, Independence Day has morphed into the most tragic of holidays. Its original meaning has been completely lost; turned on its head. The way it is most commonly celebrated now is like celebrating Christmas with hatred and theft. It has become a shadow of what it should be. Of what it may have been once upon a time.

Instead of being a celebration of American independence, it has been turned into a worship service for the U.S. government-- a government orders of magnitude more thieving and tyrannical than the government which was sent packing after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

How can this make sense to anyone?

I realize most people don't actually celebrate Independence Day. They enjoy the 4th of July, instead. They wave flags, have picnics and backyard cook-outs and go on vacation. They attend government-sponsored fireworks displays which are choreographed to the sounds of government hymns and other songs of propaganda, all calculated to distract from the real sights and sounds-- and spirit-- of independence. It is all done "legally" with safety, and independence has no place in it.

What does independence mean?

It means being above dependence. It means being responsible for yourself, not being a burden to others, and having the ability and the means to help others when they stumble. It means being prepared in case of emergency or natural disaster. It means governing yourself, as an individual, and leaving others alone to do the same.

Independence is not the same as freedom; freedom often includes irresponsibility and shortsightedness. Independence is liberty-- the freedom to do everything you have a right to do; everything which doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights. It has nothing to do with legality, but everything to do with doing the right thing.

Independence isn't selfishness.  It doesn't mean supporting the political oppression of those you fear or dislike. It doesn't mean "there oughta be a law". It has nothing to do with violating the life, liberty, or property of others for "the common good" or "national interests". It doesn't mean military aggression exported all across the globe. It certainly doesn't involve depending on government to save you or protect you from anything or anyone.

I invite you to think about independence and how you could live more independently in the year to come, and from now on. Make Independence Day mean something real again. Put some independence back into it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

I know you are, but what am I?

Yes, you are. Responsible, that is. Whether you like it or not. And so am I.

I'm struck by this fact whenever I see something chiding people to "Be responsible".

Maybe a better way it could be phrased is "accept that you are responsible", or "act like you realize you are responsible".

You are responsible. You can try to run from it, you can try to deny it, you can try to explain it away, but you are responsible for everything you do. Accept it and move forward.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

That time I robbed Billy the Kid

That .45 Long Colt cartridge pictured above is what I "taxed" from him.

Well, maybe I only borrowed it. If he comes and asks for it back I'll happily hand it over. With interest-- I'll toss in a second cartridge of his choice.

I wonder if he appreciates the gifts left for him by admirers. I'm kinda thinking no.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Don't be mental

Politics is a mental problem. By that I mean it doesn't exist outside the minds of those who believe in it, and it causes problems in the real world.

I think of politics as an attempt to live among people you don't like by forcing your will on them, using the "political method", where someone wins at the expense of someone else, instead of by using the "economic method", where everyone comes out ahead.

The political method is mental; the economic method is mindful.

Politics is done with "laws". There are only two kinds of "laws", the unnecessary and the harmful, and by using politics you are admitting you are willing to kill (usually by proxy) anyone who violates either type of "law". Because all "laws" are ultimately enforced with death.

If that's not evidence of a mental problem, I don't know what would be.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

False advertising

I saw a car sporting a bumper sticker that said "My son fights for our freedom".

But I'll bet if I asked I'd find out he doesn't really fight cops and politicians at all.
Probably actually works for them, instead; doing the opposite of what the sticker claims.
And does it in exchange for stolen money, to boot.

False advertising at its worst! Some would say there oughta be a law, or something!

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Just for fun- Quora

I answer questions on Quora, just for fun. I only answer the stuff that tickles my fancy (do I have a "fancy"? Sounds kinky...) and I don't really take it too seriously.

If you'd like to check out the answers I've written, here's my profile. At least until they ban me. 😇

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Hiding in shame?

I've seen statists try to hide behind so many labels-- patriot, Republican, Democrat, Christian, atheist, libertarian, anarchist... just about any label they can use to hide the truth of what they are at their heart. It doesn't even matter that, in the case of "libertarian" and "anarchist", the labels and their statism are at odds.

Now, these statists may also have other beliefs besides their devotion to statism, but those beliefs don't excuse their statism. Nor do they counteract it. Statism is still toxic.

If you believe governing others is a legitimate human endeavor you are a statist. If that's what you honestly believe, why hide it? Hiding it behind other labels, or objecting when someone points out that you are a statist, makes me think you know you're not on the right side. That's on you.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The most fundamental of flaws

I saw a quote that illustrates something. Something dishonest.

"People who resolve to undermine a nation’s sovereignty by breaking its most fundamental of laws are willing to do virtually anything else to fulfill their desires."

He's speaking-- I say with a sigh and an eye roll-- of "immigrants".

He has a few silly notions which lead him to fatally flawed conclusions.

First, nations can't have sovereignty, only individuals can. It's like pretending governments and nations can have rights, ignoring the fact that rights are only individual. Well, so is sovereignty. Sorry, government supremacists.

Second, what makes him believe anti-migration "laws" are the nation's "most fundamental of laws"? They aren't even constitutional-- if you give any weight to that. They are non-laws, not "fundamental" laws. I tried to find some way to believe he was speaking of other "laws", but he's not. He's speaking of illegal, unconstitutional, unAmerican, unethical, and counterfeit "laws" regulating "immigration" as America's "most fundamental of laws". Where do borderists come up with this stuff?

He goes on, in a part I didn't quote above, to call this "our country", which is right in a way, but not in the way he wishes. It's "ours" as far as we live here, but it's not "ours" in a way which gives us any "authority" to control other people's equal and identical rights. Your property rights end at your property line, and not at the government's political "borders", trampling and crushing all private property in the process. Believing otherwise is just communism wrapped in Holy Pole Quilt, which is all borderism is anyway.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Drug prohibition won't end abuse

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 27, 2018)

One of the latest excuses for more government interference in your life is the "opioid crisis".

Yes, people abuse drugs, including opioids. This is nothing new; they have done so for centuries.

Abusing drugs is a dumb vice, but drug prohibition is far worse-- it is wrong. Laws and punishment will never end drug abuse. The desire for the feeling drugs create is too much a part of being human. If it's not one drug, it will be another. Sadly, when use of the safer drugs is as illegal as use of the more dangerous ones-- the penalties being similar-- people choose the stronger, more dangerous drug. This is a natural consequence of Cannabis prohibition. Marijuana is not a "gateway drug"; people who are going to use drugs anyway usually also use marijuana, but most marijuana users never use anything stronger.

Those who support anti-drug laws are only looking at one side. They see the harm drugs can cause, but blind themselves to the harm caused by prohibition. The stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs destroys even more lives than the drugs.

Cancer patients and other sufferers of chronic pain are also victims of these policies. Does anyone believe their unnecessary suffering is a reasonable price to pay to protect other people from themselves? Any such belief is based on feelings, not reason. Government is not your doctor and shouldn't be influencing medical decisions. Get government out of medicine: demand a separation of medicine and state.

While it's sad to stand aside and watch someone harm themselves, with drugs or anything else, you've got to let people make their own mistakes. Otherwise you are enslaving them as surely as any addiction. Try to talk them out of it; help if they ask you to, but you have no right to force them to live as you believe they should. It's wrong to cause harm with fines or prison, even if you believe you are saving someone from harming themselves or others. It's the difference between seeing someone hit by a car, and intentionally running them down.

You also have the right to protect yourself from those who violate your life, liberty, or property, but this right doesn't include punishing people for things which might happen someday.

This misguided drug war has become an important welfare program for people who can't make it outside government jobs; it won't be allowed to end no matter how many lives it destroys. That's the real crisis.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium