No one has right to violate rights

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 7, 2022)

Governments don't respect rights.

Your rights don't change when you cross a line; not a state line or a national border. Rights are the same everywhere. Only the ways in which your rights are violated differ by location.

Rights don't change over time or due to majority opinion, either. If something is a violation of your rights today, it was a violation no matter how far back in history you go and it would remain a violation into the distant future. No matter what else changes.

Slavery always violated the rights of the slaves, even when it was enforced by law, and when most people thought it was the natural way to arrange society and get hard work done. No justification for slavery holds up-- it doesn't matter if you can't see any other way to harvest the cotton, if it's used as punishment for a crime or to fill military quotas through conscription.

People who want to convince you that "archaic" rights-- such as the basic human right to own and to carry weapons everywhere you go-- no longer apply are wanting to violate you. They don't want you able to effectively resist, so they'll try to convince you of how backward your values are.

I see them as trying to convince you how enlightened you would be if only you accepted slavery as natural again. It's a lie and I'll never accept their deception.

No one ever has a right to violate your rights-- the very idea is absurd if you think about it. Not based on who you are, where you are, or what year it is. I would also include not based on what you've done, since I don't see justice as violating anyone's rights, but most people prefer punishment over justice and don't like this idea. Restitution doesn't violate your rights since you created the debt by something you did, either through negligence or choice.

Rights can either be respected or violated; there is no middle ground. They can be violated more or they can be violated a little less, but violating rights is how you can identify evil. I don't accept any degree of evil. I've been told this makes me an extremist, as if being extreme about doing the right thing is bad.

If you don't believe in rights, or don't believe they should always be respected, imagine trying to have a functioning society without them and describe how that looks.

-

Please consider subscribing or donating.

I would greatly appreciate it!

I couldn't do this without your support.

Range Day Report

This past Sunday I went to the gun range with my son. For Christmas, he had given me a rifle accessory he was anxious to see me try out.

It's a 100-round double drum magazine for my AR-15. He also got himself a similar magazine for his AK-74. He wanted us to test them out.

My only hesitation was that he insisted I run a whole magazine of ammo through it to make sure it functioned well from first shot to last. It did, but OUCH. I took advantage, though, by taking my time and shooting 5 rounds at a time, checking my hits with my spyglass, then making any adjustments if needed. None were needed after the first 10 or 15 shots. The gun is dead-on and shoots way better than my eyes can see (or my skill level, probably).

I completely took out the center of the target at 25 yards, then did the same at 50, only opening up the pattern a little. Still, everything was within a "center-of-chest" circle. There was nothing left in the center to place Shoot-N-C patches on.

Yes, I need to practice at 100 yards, at least. Next time. I don't have a scope (just a red dot) and I doubt my eyes will see the target at that range, but I'll find out. I don't see myself claiming "defense" at that range, anyway, but it's good to know your (and your tool's) capabilities.

I also took some other guns, including my daily carry guns, to get some live-fire practice. That was also ammo-expensive, but that's the point of having the ammo. Right? I used up some .22 LR ammo that was older than I am. Probably by a fair amount.

We were shooting the pistolas at their 25-yard range. Usually, we shoot at the 15-yard range (and normally at 10 yards even then) for self-defense distances. But this time he wanted to see how we did farther out. The facility doesn't have any handgun range with a greater distance than 25 yards. Thank goodness!

I shot two 9mm pistols, a .38sp revolver, and a .22 revolver.

Again, most of the guns shot very well. I had no malfunctions other than two misfires from the antique .22 LR ammo, and those popped just fine after I rotated them. The .22 revolver with fixed sights seems to hit low, but it's not for defense anyway. I adjusted my sight picture and went from there.

We had to wait a fairly long time before they called a cold range and let us set up our targets. It's bad to compare myself to others, but I secretly felt really good about my shooting after watching all those others guys shoot while we waited. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be present if any of them tried to defend someone with their guns. I hope they were practicing to get better, and I hope they do. I stopped paying much attention to them after my target was set up.

One of the range officers asked where I got my spyglass. (Junk store in Grand Junction, Colorado.) He said I was "the talk of the range" because of it. I told him that I was using it because it is always on my belt and I never remember to bring my good binoculars with me.

We spent about four hours there. He managed to staple his finger, and I got a blood blister from getting a finger pinched in a gun case hinge.

It was a good day.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Here's the deal

As long as the US federal government-- which gets any imagined legitimacy for its existence from the US Constitution-- exists, there can be no real, binding law concerning arms (weapons), nor will I pretend there is.

For that matter, even after the US feral government is gone, there can be no real, binding law concerning weapons. No matter where humans or their descendants exist. It's a natural human right for a reason.

I was thinking about this while shooting with my son this past weekend. At least I had a nice range day before the bureaucratic failure of a doctor's appointment on Monday, which I may talk about later when I'm less angry. I hate bureaucracy in all its forms more than I can humanly express, which is one facet of why I hate political government so intensely.

Anyway, "Serenity now"... 

If anyone wants to donate to help me replenish what I sent down range or to help with the porch cats, it's always appreciated, but even more so in trying times.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

Would I use force to stop someone?

There are lots of things I think are bad— which I consider wrong— that as far as I can tell don't necessarily violate anyone's natural human rights. I would not personally use force to stop someone from doing these things, nor would I advocate legislation or support sending cops after anyone for doing them. Even if I consider them wrong.

Sometimes people don't understand the distinction. I'll say I believe something is wrong, maybe even evil, but they then assume I'm going to support legislation to punish those who engage in it. Nope. I don't advocate or support legislation, and I'm probably not going to personally use force against those doing it. Especially if I'm too far removed from the situation to know extra factors.

It might not be smart to test the limits on such things with people I care about, though. Because there is a line that could be crossed— even I'm not sure where it is in every case. If it impacts me or someone who matters to me-- or even some stranger in my sphere-- it might be different as far as me, personally, using force to defend them. In the heat of the moment, I could do things I consider wrong if it feels necessary. What is "necessary"?

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

If you're negotiating with a robber...

The guy who was advocating a "flat tax" by saying "Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good" justified this by saying this could be compared to negotiating with a robber.

I asked why anyone would negotiate with a robber.

I might pretend I am negotiating with a robber while buying time so I can escape or defend myself and my property from him, but it's going to be an act. In that case, I'm not really agreeing to anything. I'm going to lie to the robber and keep looking for a way to neutralize the threat he poses.

If you're negotiating with a robber you're doing it wrong.

-

Please consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

No patience for cowardly control-freaks

My patience is at its limit when it comes to people who want to control everyone else because of their own fear. Guns, Covid, spiders, snakes, birds, liberty, whatever. 

Even things I dislike intensely such as political government, bureaucrats, and cops-- there's no need to fear them. Fear gives them unwarranted power. Just avoid them when you can, never accept their existence as a given, and work to undermine any power they have over you.

I don't care how you justify it or how you try to convince others to be as scared as you are. Your data is worthless. Your statistics are pointless. Experts pushing the contrary are impotent. Liberty is the greatest good, over even life.

I recently encountered one of these people. She's so terrified of Covid that there's nothing she wouldn't advocate doing to you because of her fear. But, of course, nothing she wants imposed on you would make her fear go away-- it will still be there looking for more ways to violate you.

If you’re scared, you are free to hide. You have the right to hide, but you have no right to make everyone else live according to your fears. Don't keep trying to impose your fear on others through silly rules. Especially counterproductive rules that will have the opposite effect in the real world.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Tolerating evil isn't ever "good"

“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” is one of the nastiest, slimiest sayings imaginable. It's a warning to anyone with principles.

I’ve never seen anyone use it for anything other than to justify their tolerance of evil or excuse themselves for not doing the hard work. 

It's like insisting that slavery can be improved ("the good") to make it less horrible instead of calling for abolition ("the perfect") which they believe is unattainable in the current situation.

I saw a guy advocating a "flat tax" this way, and saying that the true statement (which he even agreed with) that taxation is theft and thus is never ethical gets in the way of incremental improvements.

It doesn't even hold up to scrutiny anyway: Nothing is perfect and the thing being justified is almost never good.

Usually, it is said in conjunction with being pragmatic or utilitarian-- another couple of things I tend to despise in this context, for the same reasons.

-

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

The Statism test

The world doesn’t need to be “run”, it doesn’t matter by who.
Society doesn’t need to be directed.
You don’t need to be governed. 

There don't need to be governing policies to guide the economy, or business, or to prevent "climate change". There don't need to be governing policies to control Covid or other diseases.

The question of who is in charge-- who makes the decisions-- has one correct answer: The individual. And each individual has the right to be in charge of his/her own life, and no one else's life.

You can tell who’s a statist by seeing who disagrees and thinks some government or government-adjacent institution should have control.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Getting shuffled

I'll bet you were expecting an Eastern New Mexico News column this morning. 

Well, as of this week the paper is moving my columns to the Sunday edition. The Sunday paper has a slightly larger circulation. This means more local (potential) readers with more leisure time to soak up the columns and love/hate me (according to the editor).

See you then.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Don't be political and things won't get political

I can refrain from talking about liberty. Really. And I've proved it.

It helps if those around me don't start pushing their Statism. There's only a certain amount of Statism I can tolerate before I speak up.

Over Christmas when we were playing Password (an edition that came out before I was born) and when someone gave the clue "criminal" I guessed "government". That wasn't the word they were looking for. The next clue was "savage" which still fit. But the word we were trying to guess was something else-- that I don't remember now.

Other than that, since no one openly pushed their religion of Statism over the holiday, I didn't feel the need to say anything. Someone even got a gun as a Christmas gift (not me, although I did get an awesome gun accessory) so it was a liberty-friendly holiday.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

From "no one" to "not this specific guy"?

Scott Adams is pushing hard against the critics of his claim that no one wants to reduce Earth's population. It's been his main focus for days now. But his claim has shifted with the criticisms.

Here is an illustration of how his claim has evolved:

He started off by making one claim-- which he has since admitted was unclear-- that there was no "group of elites or leftists or someone important" who wants to reduce Earth's population, and when it was challenged with examples he changed the claim slightly to "no one with power". Then, when that new claim was challenged, again with examples, he changed the claim to "no one elected".

Now, you might say he is simply clarifying what he meant all along. Maybe.

But, when he said no ruler wants to reduce the population and someone mentioned China's old "one child" policy, he claimed this was only designed to reduce the rate of population growth. This seems mathematically dubious. An enforced "one child" policy will reduce the population, not the rate of increase. 

In case you don't get the math, here's a graph to illustrate how this works:

As you see, a strictly enforced "one child" (per family) policy isn't just going to reduce the rate of increase in population. It will, over time, reduce the population. This is probably why it was changed. So instead of brushing it aside with flawed math as he did, he could have pointed out that it isn't a current policy by China's rulers. But he didn't.

When your brain is on government supremacism, or any amount of Statism, it doesn't function as well as it could; government supremacism interferes with clear, rational thinking every time. 

Everyone has blind spots. His appears to be the belief that you need to be governed, by someone, somehow.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Humans must mature past politics

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 30, 2022)

People are more alike than different. Even those who use politics against you want the same things you want. They want to live their lives the way they believe is best, and they usually believe their way would be best for you, too. The difference is they are pursuing a way you think is not going to work; for themselves or for others.

They may prioritize feeling safe over liberty. You may think what makes them feel safe is too dangerous.

 

Maybe they'd put green chilis on everything and you don't want them on anything.

You might be right or you could be wrong. It would be great if we found a way to let everyone try their own way.

There has to be a limit, though, and that limit has to be that you can't be allowed to force your way on others. Even if it means watching them self-destruct.

I would leave communists and theocrats alone to live as they see fit... if only they would give me the same respect; if they would keep their political hands off the lives of those who chose a different path. Sadly, because people have been raised to believe politics is normal, they won't.

There's a lesson to be learned from American churches. People go to whichever church fits their needs, or none at all. The different groups live among each other, but the rules of your church don't apply to those who don't attend it. Generally, outside of church events, no one worries too much about your religious beliefs or is afraid you'll force yours on them. Until politics gets involved.

I'm fine with those who hate guns not owning them. This isn't good enough for those who believe everyone else has to live the way they want.

Yes, other people's actions and choices affect you. This means you need to do what you can to put a wall of protection between those effects and yourself, but any wall of protection can't include controlling others or their choices. This is why so-called "gun control" is not an ethical choice.

I wish people could find a way to live how they feel is best while not imposing their personal choice on anyone else; without making it political. The human species will have to mature a lot before this happens, but I think it must happen if we are going to survive.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Happy New Year, and an iguana story

For the "New" Year I thought I'd just tell you a true story.

Many years ago a friend from work had an iguana. The iguana lived on a tabletop, with his basking lamp, heat rock, water bowl, and food. He never roamed far from those amenities. I had admired his set-up during visits and he seemed content.

But during the Christmas season one year, he disappeared. She and her husband looked for him everywhere. For many weeks. Eventually, she gave up and decided he was gone for good. 

Then, sometime in February she excitedly told me she'd found him, and he was healthy.

My first question was, where was he all this time?

She explained that she was tossing out her Christmas tree and after it was lying in the yard, he came crawling out of the branches,

What? She still had her tree up in February? Well, yes. She said she just hadn't gotten around to taking it down.

Obviously, she didn't have cats!

Happy New Year, and remember, others are probably procrastinating more than you are... on something.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

"Winning" by changing the topic

So many times I see someone start off by making (or responding to) a claim and then changing the topic midstream so that it looks like they won if you're not paying close attention.

I pick on Scott Adams a lot and I'll do it again. I see him do this sleight of hand very frequently. He did it again a couple of days ago. As I've said before, when he's right he's right. When he's wrong it's generally because he's a government supremacist. Providing cover for political criminals in various ways. Like this latest example.

He posted a poll asking "How many of you believe some group of elites or leftists or someone important wants to reduce the population of Earth?"

In his livestream, he later claimed the right answer is "That's nuts".

Of course, it depends on how you define "elites", what you consider to be their "groups", who you think is "important", and what you mean by "wants", etc. It requires a lot of assumptions. I mean, you could consider the Georgia Guidestones to have been a clear piece of evidence; a confession. But I bet he'd brush that away with claims it wasn't the "wants" of a group of important elites or something, since it doesn't conform to his beliefs.

I was not on the "Yes" side, but had chosen the third path (which he claimed was the wrongest answer)...until I heard his explanation as to why "No" (or, as he framed it: "That's nuts") is the "right" answer. His explanation was flawed and he changed the topic so he could "win" which made me realize he was wrong. I change my answer to "Yes" ("I believe it").

What he did, midstream, was to change it from a question strictly about reducing the population to a question of economics. He said the elites understand that for economies to work, the population has to grow. They want more and more people to rob ("tax"), sell to, and, employ. This is a tangent to his original question. I saw the sleight of hand, though.

Many of the "elites" are communists (or commie-lite), thus showing they are economically illiterate. Plus, the economy isn't their motivation; "saving the planet" is. 

Yes, smart people know a good economy and advanced technology are a net good for the environment, but all my life I've seen people argue the opposite: that everyone needs to live a primitive life, without "unnatural" technology, for the good of the planet.

I love primal and primitive things. I'm not so ignorant as to believe it's better for the planet. I know how it would be a disaster.

He's not the only one who does this trick. It happens a lot. I've probably done it (unintentionally) myself. A claim is made, and instead of addressing that claim, someone comes in and makes a counter-claim that is off-topic, but looks relevant if you weren't paying close attention, then claims a "win" based on this irrelevant point. Sometimes it's so predictable you can almost see it coming-- in fact, I've pre-written responses, just to have them ready when someone inevitably does it.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

"Here, let me do it for you"

Nothing is so enticing as watching someone making an obvious mistake over and over again. The temptation to take over is just about overwhelming.

On my phone I've seen ads for puzzle games where the ad shows someone attempting, and failing, to solve puzzles that look simple. I'll bet the ads are effective-- I find myself aching to show them how it's done. I'm not going to download their game, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of people do, just to solve it "the right way" and end the frustration of watching someone fail over and over.

I've experienced the same effect in real life. If I see a person fumbling with (what I believe is) a simple task, it takes all my willpower to not intervene and do it for them. Maybe they'd even appreciate my help. But until or unless they ask, as long as it's not a life-and-death situation, I've realized it's probably not my place. No one learns if someone else always does it for them-- so you're not really doing them a favor in the long run.

The same goes for people making really bad arguments online. Maybe that's really the best they can do with what they believe to be true. Or, maybe they are just trying to bait you into an argument-- sometimes you have to assume they can't actually believe what they are saying. Stop and think before diving in. If you want to come to someone's defense-- and it seems they'd appreciate your help-- go ahead. You're not going to convince the person making the bad argument, though. If that's your motivation you'd be better off scrolling past.

Don't become a victim of your own helpful instincts by "helping" where you're not really helping.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

An improvement or a failure?

One thing I did less of in the past year was posting things I thought, but that I knew would create problems if I said them. Is this an improvement or a failure on my part? You should have seen how many things I started writing, but then deleted.

I didn't do it perfectly-- I still posted some thoughts I probably should have kept to myself. At least, judging by the responses.

On the other hand, I'm not really sure that was an improvement. 

I hate the idea that there are thoughts people keep to themselves to avoid conflict, but I get it. Sometimes I don't feel like dealing with angry responses. Is this how evil ideas are allowed to spread and become something "everyone knows"; people don't feel like speaking out against them because of the response from those who want to push the ideas? 

Does this make me complicit, just to make things easier for myself? Is this something I should continue to strive to do more of or something I should try to stop doing? I don't know.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

A good holiday

Just checking in to say I've had a good Christmas. Lots of time with the extended family, delicious food (and lots of it), games, gifts, and laughs. The tree is already down because...cats.

I hope yours has been good, too. I'll be back tomorrow with my latest ENMN column. Til then...

.

US caught up in 'cold civil war'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 23, 2022)

After World War II the American and Soviet governments entangled themselves in what became known as "the Cold War". They lied about each other (and told some uncomfortable truths), used dirty tricks, and even killed each other's people in ways that didn't quite reach the level to trigger a declaration of war. It wasn't a good situation and only ended-- if it ended-- when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Now I think America is in a cold civil war.

The conflict historically called "the Civil War" wasn't a civil war. Civil war occurs when two factions within a country fight to control the country's government. This wasn't what happened in the 1860s. Instead, a country broke up over irreconcilable differences, with separate governments from that point on. The government of one country decided the other wasn't free to leave and govern itself. Like if Russia declared that Ukraine must be part of Russia again. No one in the Confederate States of America was trying to take over the government of the United States of America. Calling it a civil war is incorrect.

This cold civil war fits the definition better. There are two factions inside America fighting to control one government. The fighting hasn't quite reached the level of open warfare, and I don't think it will.

The anger and distrust on both sides are probably strong enough to trigger war, but the factions are geographically mixed. I'd let big cities secede from the rest of the country so they could finally achieve their democratic socialist Utopia, but there is no Mason-Dixon line which can be drawn on a map.

Elections may be slightly less destructive than open warfare. If you're determined to have a war, I suppose it's the preferable way. The problem is, I don't see a way for this war to be resolved. If either side finally gets a decisive victory, the real violence would probably begin. Is gridlock and endless fighting the only alternative?

Why can't people stop lusting to govern others? You have a right to govern-- to control-- yourself, but there is no such thing as a "right" to govern any other person. Not as an individual, a majority, or by electing politicians to do it on your behalf.

This Thanksgiving I'm thankful the war hasn't "gone hot", but is this cold civil war, driving Americans apart over who gets to control whom, the best we can do?

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Merry Christmas!

May your holiday be as satisfying as a warm fireplace on a cold day.

The FBI lies (as usual)

The FBI is, and always has been, a criminal gang. That's not a conspiracy theory, and the unfortunate thing is that their gang hasn't yet been abolished.

They commit actual ethical violations by their very existence-- including with their firearms purchase background checks. Their gang isn't even allowed to exist under the Constitution (if you care about that).

No one needs to discredit them. Their actions have already done that completely, which is why they are known as "the Feral Baby Incinerators". 

If this screenshot is a real quote from the FBI, it just heaps more shame upon them. Giving the public a teaser of the evil routinely committed by the FBI is not "misinformation". This is just another FBI lie.

-

Please consider subscribing or donating. Now on Venmo, too!

I would appreciate it!