Needs should be met by the people

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 3, 2022)

People see me say I don't want government doing something and often jump to the conclusion I don't want that thing done at all. Sometimes they are right, as in the case of legislation enforcement. More often they are wrong, as in the case of environmental protection, security, or justice.

Government is more likely to make a mess of it.

I love the natural environment, which is why I oppose letting government control it or set rules concerning it. I've seen what happens when government is put in charge of protecting the environment. So have you. The most obvious example being the devastating wildfires which result from a century or so of wildfire "prevention".

I've also seen state-controlled forests which looked beautiful from the car, but were a barren clearcut once you pulled over and ventured away from the road. Sure, private property owners also clear-cut, but this shows letting government "protect" something isn't better.

How about security? It would be terrible for America to be attacked or invaded. I believe an effective militia-- which, by the way, is all the people, not something government runs-- is the only real defense. Government's idea of "national security" is to wander the globe antagonizing other governments with its military to the point they start financing attacks on American soil. By making enemies of the people under those governments, you make them willing to die for a chance to strike back. You don't make America safer by invading, occupying, and destroying people's homes. That's how you recruit young people to join the fight against you; against the people in America you claim to be protecting. Great for military contractors, terrible for Americans.

It may even be worse to let government control justice. It has gotten so bad most people mistake punishment for justice. Those are not only not the same, but are closer to opposites. Government's courts don't deal in justice, despite the name they give themselves. It is a rare accident if any justice comes out of a court. The market could do better.

If something is needed or wanted, there is a way to get it without stealing from-- taxing-- the population; a way to provide it voluntarily, without government. Government only needs to step in to force us to accept things we don't want badly enough to pay for them. I believe all those things should be allowed to go away.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

I guess more people disagree

I would say, going by the total likes and shares on both posts, this didn't go the way the anti-gun bigot political criminal hoped.

Of course, then someone chimed in to reply to GhostGuns.com (and LP National, for some reason), saying "This is a stupid idea. Why have any laws ar [sic] all. Let's just get rid of them all and have anarchy. It [sic] that what your goal is? Gun laws keep guns out of the hands of violent offenders. Like all laws the dems take our freedom but we need some gun laws to keep us safe"

Their response was like government-supremacist anti-gun bigot bingo. Lies, lies, and more lies, seasoned with a bit of gov-school ignorance. "Liberty: it's a stupid idea" could be the universal DemoCRAPublican campaign slogan.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

The High Chancellor has dropped the veil

When reality mirrors fiction

High Chancellor Biden has jumped the shark. He nuked the fridge. He has shown his hand in a way he won't be able to take back.

High Chancellor Biden just went full fascist on national broadcast-- never go full fascist. (No wonder he hates semi-fascists; they are too lukewarm for his tastes). Yes, all political government is fascist. It's just how it is. But there are degrees, and he just stepped it up. 

When I first saw the photos I thought they were Photoshopped. No one could be stupid enough to... Oh. They're real... (I realize they are cropped, but it doesn't make it dishonest-- they showed what they intended to show.)

Was it a messaging error, or did he mean to cross that line-- to set things into motion? Is it real, or is he cosplaying? I guess we'll find out.

Or is he being martyred; sacrificed by those who pull the strings but find him inconvenient now? It would solve a few of the Deep State's problems with one stone.

Yes, the political xombies who idolize him (or his handlers' agenda, anyway) will do their best to sweep this under the rug, but the visuals are too strong. The message, too clear.

Not only did he copy fictional tyrants, but he seemed to be channeling some real, historical monsters, too. I mean, look at his posture and demeanor in the pictures of the event. 

Don't look at this as a problem. Don't let it frighten you. It's an opportunity and a warning. It's great he told us exactly who he is and where he stands. Maybe this will be fun. It's sure to be interesting.

He has clearly declared it time for V to show up. If only...

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Milestones

I'm late. I've started doing something I should have started years ago. But I have my (bad) reasons why I didn't until now.

My daughter is now 15 and I've started teaching her how to drive. I have given her the chance in the past, but I never really pushed the issue because she wasn't interested. Now she is interested and I discover I'm hesitant, and it's causing me secret pain to see her reach this milestone.

I'm pushing through anyway.

As most of you probably know, my older daughter was killed in a car wreck 7 years ago this coming November. So I haven't been terribly excited to see my youngest start driving. (I even get stressed out when I know my son is driving somewhere.) 

It's something I've been told I need to "deal with"... as if I can just switch it off. I try. I'm never going to just "get over it" like some think I should. This is bringing it up again, fresh and painful.

I do think driving is an important skill; one that enhances liberty. It is a right, regardless of what government would have you believe. I just wasn't ready for her to start wanting this yet. I'd probably never really be ready, though, and I have no right to hold her back because of my issues.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

...and throw away the key

Found here

The all-American political sport seems to be suggesting that your political enemies, especially their rulers/"leaders", be thrown in prison.

I've applauded and promoted the joke myself.

"Joke"!?

I don't believe in imprisonment. No exceptions.

I can still enjoy calls to imprison political criminals anyway-- especially the ones I personally dislike the most. Just because it enrages the government-supremacists who support them.

I'm not going to joke about the average DemoCRAPublican being tossed in prison (If I've ever suggested such a thing, I repudiate it now) because I think they are what they are out of ignorance and because others have been lying to them their whole lives. They are victims, but often victims with Stockholm Syndrome who advocate victimizing others. Yes, they still owe restitution even if they don't mean to harm others, but punishment or imprisonment isn't that.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Doing bad things "for the right reasons"

If any part of your "job" includes governing other people, you are not doing it "for the right reasons".

George Washington didn't become president "for the right reasons" any more than any modern president becomes president "for the right reasons". He was an evil tyrant just like his modern counterparts-- remember how he dealt with the Whiskey Rebellion.

You can't do bad things "for the right reasons", and ruling or taxing others is something no one has a right to do.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Pressing the "Do Not Press" button

I've discovered that many-- if not most-- people have one issue or topic that if you don't exactly match their views on that topic, you have crossed a line-- you're dead to them. You're blocked, hated, and shunned.

I'm not talking about anything like saying you believe it's OK to rape and murder children. Nothing of that magnitude where right and wrong are obvious to any who aren't trying to cover for something. Just things that seem to be differences of opinion where reasonable people could take either side.

I'm constantly crossing those lines. It's not intentional; it's a consequence of saying what I honestly think.

To me, that kind of standard seems odd. There's no topic or issue that will make me reject everything else a person says or does over disagreement on it. Opinions differ and people are even free to be wrong on a few issues. If they are right on everything else what value is there in rejecting the whole enchilada? Does every single topic or issue have to be potential poison?

Example: I hate cops. I don't hate or block people who don't hate cops-- not even people who believe there can be "good cops". I wouldn't block a cop I was connected with on social media, unless it was to protect myself (which I doubt would work if they were out to get me).

As I say, it just seems to be a very strange standard to have one issue that everyone in your circle is absolutely required to agree on 100% or else. Or am I missing out on something by not having such an issue?

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Hoping future has more liberty wins

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 27, 2022)

It feels like the future is being pulled in two directions at once. Things are getting better, while things also feel like they are getting worse. Both are probably true.

I'm not so naive as to believe this is something new. Looking back at history I see how every era of the past had opposing forces pulling in different directions, fighting to shape the future. Two steps forward and one step back, as one or the other got the upper hand for a time.

I do believe the long-term trend-- with notable exceptions-- has been toward a better future. And to me, better always means greater liberty.

We may be the generation to see humans walk on Mars. Maybe even to begin emigrating off this planet. If, that is, the control freaks among us don't succeed in forcing us to live medieval lives of serfdom to advance their agenda.

Both futures seem equally possible today, depending on whose vision wins. Depending on who has the power to prevail.

In the governmental realm, liberty has been shielded from some tyrannical government overreach, while at the same time being violated by these same governments. Sometimes even over the same issues.

Just after the Supreme Court admitted the Second Amendment mostly means what it says, some backward states began desperately trying to find ways to avoid respecting the natural human right of their residents to own and to carry weapons. This should embarrass them after "Constitutional carry" of firearms proved its value against an evil loser in an Indiana mall recently.

Yet, at the same time, Congress debates a new ban on "assault weapons"-- a made-up political term for something which doesn't exist outside their imaginations. A ban they already know is unconstitutional and unethical, and which will harm more people than it would help until it inevitably gets thrown out. Opposing forces pulling toward a better future and a worse one.

This isn't the only demonstration of this effect. Marijuana legalization seems assured nationwide at this point. Taking away government's power to punish people for having or consuming a plant is better for liberty. On the other hand, if you can be punished by government for refusing to use wrong pronouns when speaking, you are not free.

I hope the better future wins. I'm not a fan of tyranny and slavery, no matter how "safe" the political criminals say this will make us.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Which evil should you support?

Which is dumber: supporting the police or supporting the military?
Is supporting a political criminal (a redundant term which means "politician") even worse than either of those?

I can't answer that for sure. 

Some days I have different opinions on the matter, depending on what I see happening at the moment. This probably means it's too close to call, 

Supporting any of them is supporting the evil act of politically governing others, so it's probably best not to support any of them.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

The Fringe

In the entertainment media, anyone who is anti-government is portrayed as "fringe"-- except in a few (extremely popular) franchises, anyway (even then, they may still be fringe, but on the right side).

That seems strange to me... until I remember that the media is a necessary tool to prop up the failed idea of political government. 

Without the propaganda being hammered into our heads from every direction, not many people would continue to believe that something they know is wrong can be "right" if you have government do it. So the idea that doing wrong is still wrong no matter who you have do it for you must be portrayed as "fringe" to scare the population into rejecting the idea automatically.

It seems to work fairly well, if you ignore the cracks in the plan.

That's not to say that there aren't some crazies or evil ideas on other parts of the fringe-- it's a big category and covers a lot of ideas.

-

Look at that face...
Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

How I was wrong about Covid

I didn't expect this "novel coronavirus" to mutate so quickly, therefore when I told people not to worry, they would only get it once, I was wrong.

Yes, you will only get each new variant once (probably), but this Matryoshka Doll of the virus world (if it's real, etc.) just keeps releasing new version after new version for the population to get-- each seemingly weaker than the predecessors, but still annoying to the people who catch them. The last time I got it, though, I wouldn't have even noticed if someone else hadn't had it first, so "annoying" is in the eye of the beholder.

As soon as I heard the first reports of this new coronavirus spreading around the world I looked into what, exactly, a "coronavirus" was, and what I found caused me to instantly shrug it off as no real threat to me. I've wondered whether the online information has since been altered to make the topic scarier, but I've not cared enough to check.

Personally, I'm glad I never got the shots. I'm not scared of the shots, nor am I scared of the virus. I don't like needles, but they don't scare me. They just hurt and I avoid pain unless the payoff is-- in my mind-- worth it. In this case, it wasn't. Not even close. 

If I had gotten the shots and had a bad reaction I would have felt dumber than if I had a bad reaction from the virus after refusing the shots. And if I had the shots and got the virus anyway and then had a bad reaction from either one, I would have felt totally stupid. 

But you do you-- it doesn't bother me if your choice is different than mine. Maybe you enjoy needles-- maybe you get really sick when you catch a cold (I know those who do)-- maybe your job threatened you. Whatever. It's your business what you do-- I don't feel violated either way, even if you shed spike proteins or something. I'm past caring.

But it is interesting to me how many still care. Deeply. I see people on both sides still trying to insist that their way was the right way, and the opposite way was wrong (and based in fear). To me, it looks like people arguing over whether a blade of grass under a tree on the other side of the valley, viewed through binoculars, is bluish-green or greenish blue-- even after a gopher ate it and it's gone.

I was wrong about my biggest statement about the virus... and it probably made no difference then, makes no difference now, and will not make a difference in the future. That's about as inconsequential as anything can get. Probably even more inconsequential than worrying about which political criminal wins political office next election, and whether "your v*te" would make a difference.

The "official" response to the virus was much worse than anything about the virus, and that's one thing I wasn't wrong about. It's a safe prediction in any situation. We are still suffering the consequences and probably will be for decades to come. Thanks, Authoritarian Idiots.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Government shouldn't control your doctor

I believe that in Europe, government has gotten too involved in medicine/health care. 

I believe the same is also the case in America.

Anything gets worse when mixed with politics or when government gets involved (and this includes government-mandated or manipulated "insurance"). The medical profession is not immune to the effect. 

This is a shame because health care could have been so much better (and less expensive) by now, and you and I will pay the price of government meddling in it. Probably with (at least a part of) our lives.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Rigging elections because Trump is unusually dangerous

I was listening to Scott Adams' podcast recently and he was talking about the Sam Harris admission-- that he approved of the media hiding (and lying about) the Hunter Biden laptop because of his belief that Trump was so dangerous that it was "self-defense" to do anything to keep him from being re-elected. Agree or not, this is advocating for rigging the election.

I've seen this belief expressed many times over the years. That Trump was/is unusually "dangerous".

But, in all the cries of how "dangerous" Trump was/is-- far above and beyond anyone else who might hold the office-- the one thing glaringly lacking is a clear explanation of exactly how he is unusually dangerous. I'm just supposed to take them at their word that he is.

Is it really Trump or is it his rabid followers who are dangerous? Are they really more dangerous than the rabid followers of any other political criminal? I mean, there are still rabid Biden followers out there who pretend he's not an obvious dementia patient.

I think it's the political office that is extraordinarily dangerous, not the specific puppet occupying the office. No one should be allowed to have the kind of power that the presidency, a congressional seat, or a federal judgeship (Supreme or otherwise) gives a person. Politics is bad; there is no way to make it OK.

Trump did plenty of things I hate. Bump stock bans, borderism/nationalism, etc. Plus giving government supremacists on his side an excuse to continue to "believe in" Statism and pretend it isn't pure evil. But I see nothing particularly unusual about anything he did. It was just more of the same, other than the outsized hysterical response from the Professional Adversaries of the "other side".

I am unconvinced, but open to being shown why I'm wrong.

On that same podcast, Adams asked his audience if they would break the rules to rig an election, if it meant saving the world from an existential threat. A great many said "no". Rule fetishists are weird critters. Imagine being so dedicated to rules that you'd let everyone die to avoid breaking bad rules.

I don't believe elections are, or can ever be, legitimate. I would break a "rule" to rig an election to advance liberty so fast it would make you swoon. The problem is, how could I know for sure whatever I do wouldn't have the opposite effect? It's why elections can't be legitimate.

Trump was horrible; Biden is no better (but his mental condition makes him funny). I wouldn't rig an election in favor of either of them.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Don't you want to be represented?

I saw someone lecturing another person about why they shouldn't be libertarian. Why it's a loser's strategy. 

They said it's because by being a principled libertarian you'll never be properly represented in government.

What?

I guess they are under hypnosis or something because that makes no sense whatsoever. Imagine twisting your mind enough that you can hallucinate that someone is adequately representing you.

No one can ever really represent a single other person, and to imagine that one person can represent millions of others-- who have mutually exclusive, opposing values-- is totally nuts. 

I don't consent to be governed by anyone else. No one can represent me, no matter how much I give up my principles or compromise with monsters. If anyone uses the political means against anyone else-- even against my enemy-- they can't be representing me. Quite the opposite.

You aren't being represented even if you believe you are. So you might as well stay principled.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Libertarians aren't on right or left

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 20, 2022)

No one really understands anyone else, so it's no surprise that non-libertarians don't understand libertarians.

When I first started writing on the topic of libertarianism, I ran across a blog post written by a self-proclaimed "progressive" who explained why all libertarians were racists and should be hated and mocked. I commented, pointing out a host of reasons this wasn't true. He seemed to imagine everyone he didn't like could be clumped under the term "libertarian". Most of the beliefs he attributed to libertarians were not libertarian beliefs at all. I told him so and provided evidence. He replied with the nastiest name-calling he could manage. Then he blocked me from responding and later his entire blog was taken down.

Other times people who identified themselves as "conservatives" made assumptions about things I would support because they imagined libertarians were something they aren't. Sometimes they thought I'd support harsher enforcement of some law, or a "fair tax". Why I would support something I don't believe is legitimate, and which is not compatible with libertarianism, is beyond me.

The best definition of libertarianism I've run across is "someone who rejects the use of force against anyone who isn't currently violating the life, liberty, or property of another".

Cue the disagreements among libertarians over what counts as "force" or a violation. It keeps things interesting.

Some libertarians are fans of the U.S. Constitution. Others only use it to show how off-course the U.S. government has gone in the years since it was ratified.

Many libertarians believe a fetus is a human being with rights, while many others believe a fetus could eventually become a human being with rights, but a woman is a human being with rights now, which includes the right to end her pregnancy.

Some libertarians believe you can have a limited government-- a "night watchman state"-- while others think a little cancer is still too much.

Libertarians can be slightly "statist", believing that governing others can be a legitimate human endeavor-- as long as it is done gently, or they can be anarchists; not believing political government is ever justified. Or anything in between.

What libertarians are not is politically Right or Left. Even if our personal views could be categorized by those labels, we can't condone the use of force-- including legislation-- to impose our personal views on people who aren't harming anyone. It's a matter of principle.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Religion in schools

I see on the "news" that some recent Texas legislation allows government schools in the state to put up signs saying "In God we trust" if a private group donates the sign to the school district.

Even though I'm not a believer, this bothers me much less than the active promotion of the religion of Statism that occurs in those institutions-- paid for with money stolen from the population rather than voluntarily donated for the purpose.

Government schools have always promoted religion. Sometimes more than one. 

When my daughter was in the local school they pushed Statism and Christianity equally hard. Never mind that these two religions are adversarial (even though some will fight hard to claim that this isn't true). The teachers pushed Christianity and encouraged the students to pressure any kid who was hesitant-- to the point of bullying. 

So, really, this legislation is more of the same rather than anything particularly new.

Abolish government schools and let everyone teach whatever is important to them. Paid for voluntarily. Attended without compulsion. 

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Random thoughts

• I don't like "Second Amendment rights". The phrase, I mean. It's misleading. The right to own and to carry weapons doesn't come from the Second Amendment, but pre-exists it. The right will still exist even if the Second Amendment is abolished or ignored. 

• I really hope Joe Biden-- or his rigid corpse-- runs for president again. It would be hilarious. It's not as if any other candidate would actually be good for liberty, so you might as well go with the funniest one.
  
  
• Just because you support someone doesn't mean they are on your side. It may mean they have you fooled and are working against you while you fawn over them.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Close the "sensitive place" loophole

People are still celebrating the recent Bruen Decision by the Supreme Courtjesters. It has its good points, but Justice Thomas left a Trojan horse in it. One thing he should have never let stand: he pretended there are "sensitive places" where government must be allowed to continue to (illegally) prohibit firearms.

He was wrong.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, there's no such thing as a "sensitive place" where it's OK for government to prohibit firearms. None. 

And "government property" [sic] is the one place where any sort of gun prohibition is specifically prohibited by the Second Amendment. To whom does the Constitution apply? Government. Not to you or me. The Bill of Rights tells government which things it is not allowed to do. Making up anti-gun rules being specifically laid out as a prohibited action.

Look how the evil anti-gun bigots around the country-- particularly the political criminals of New York and California-- are misusing that imaginary "sensitive place" loophole now. They are essentially declaring their entire states to be "sensitive places" where guns can't be carried (except by their own armed gangsters, of course). 

Close the "sensitive place" loophole. Don't leave the authoritarian monsters any place to hide.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

The useful thief?

If I'm a thief who mugs everyone in town at gunpoint and who breaks into homes to steal money and weapons, but once in a while I use the stolen money and weapons to rescue a hostage, am I a good guy or a bad guy?

Does it change anything if I call myself "the military" or "the police"?

Is there no way to do the good without doing the bad?
I believe there is; government supremacists believe there isn't.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Good people in bad organizations?

Good people don't willingly join evil organizations. This includes, but is not limited to, working for the FBI, local police, the IRS, the BATFE, the DEA, etc.

Even if you joined them out of ignorance, if you continue to work for them you are no longer a good person.

I make exceptions for moles who are actively working to destroy those organizations from within. In that case, you have to be having an actual effect, not just doing all the evil things expected of you, but maybe not going quite as hard on an individual here and there. You get no pass for your heart being "in the right place" while you violate individual rights.

Good people quit gov. Good people don't encourage others to get-- or remain in-- government "jobs".

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.