Revenge

I was reading an old post on Liberty For All about a case where a woman named Clara Harris murdered her husband because he had an affair. The murderer has gotten a lot of public and media sympathy.

Even the prosecutor in the murder trial, Mia Magness, expressed her disgust, saying that Clara, instead of killing David by her own hand, should have '[done] like every other woman … get his house, car, kids - make him wish he were dead."

I made the comment "Murder is wrong, but so is “get his house, car, kids - make him wish he were dead.” This kind of vengeance is often encouraged in America. It can lead, ultimately, to the vengeance of murder. Let men or women think they are justified in destroying the life of another and it doesn’t take much to make them feel they have a “right” to get ultimate revenge. "

A later commenter, infojunkie, called me a "woman hater" for my comment. I can't see anything in my comment that singles out women. I believe I was pointing out that revenge is evil. Since I didn't make myself clear, I posted another comment (twice, accidentally) which I reproduce here to clarify my position.

infojunkie - Unless the contract stipulated that "revenge" is the proper course of action if the contract were broken, then taking everything and making the other person wish they were dead is wrong. It doesn't matter if the vengeful party is male or female. Gender has nothing to do with it and is merely used as a false flag. I am absolutely not a "woman hater", but I do hate "revenge". I have never seen a marriage contract that laid out the terms that would be followed in case of "cheating" and mentioned that "taking it all and destruction of the guilty party's life" was mandated. The assumed terms are that the property will be divided equally, and care of any children will be shared. Going further than that is "revenge" and it is wrong; libertarian or not. Once you step into the territory of revenge, where do you draw the line?

I am confronted everyday by the acceptance of revenge as a legitimate tool of the "hurt" or "cheated". This is a mafia mindset. Every slight is not justification for revenge. Revenge gets wars started and murders committed. Revenge fuels the capital punishment industry. I firmly believe that in the long run, revenge hurts the hateful revenge seeker as much as it hurts the target. Hungering for revenge certainly cheapens your life and corrodes your personality. You become a prisoner of your hate. Revenge has no place in a liberty-lover's life.

Please reject revenge

I am not a supporter of revenge. Not at all.

However, I have been guilty of it in the past- once (years ago) I was even quite creative plotting and setting up a revenge situation, although I have no way of knowing what ever came of it. And I realize now it was wrong of me.

Actually, I knew it was wrong when I did it, too, but I did it anyway and felt quite pleased with myself. I am not perfect, but I try to do better all the time. I wouldn't feel good about myself if I did something like that now.

So, I don't advocate revenge, but I can certainly understand it.

In the same way, there are people who do things so bad that I can't help but feel a bit of pleasure when someone else gets revenge on them.

I realize I am probably wrong to feel satisfaction when a bad guy "gets his". Even when it is someone who, from personal experience, I feel "deserves" whatever he gets.

The problem with revenge is that it is an initiation of force. It doesn't matter if it is called "punishment" or "justice"- if you are not in immediate danger of being violated, you become the aggressor if you attack.

But, I will say this: in a case where the history of the victim of revenge makes me sympathize with the person who got revenge on him, he shouldn't come to me seeking my help in arbitration, because I would be biased. I know that is probably also wrong of me.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.


(Steemit link)

Courts have institutionalized revenge

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 20, 2019)

I'll never understand how the output of the government's court system passes for "justice". If you ever find justice in a courtroom it will be a fluke; an accident.

Justice doesn't require government, or even laws. Those only obstruct justice.

Justice is the attempt to return a victim to their pre-violation condition. Justice is made unnecessary by self-defense, which nips crime in the bud. Justice is mainly restitution, if self-defense fails.

The state is never the victim, and is never owed compensation from a wrongdoer; only the individual human victim or their survivors are owed.

The right to defend yourself against bad guys does not come from laws. Laws are not what creates a debt from an act of aggression or properly violation, and they don't create your right to restitution. You have those rights whether or not laws agree.

Punishment isn't justice. I understand the desire to see a person suffer when their actions have hurt you. I've been there. But that's not justice, it's revenge; justice's polar opposite. Government courts-- the misnamed "justice system"-- are founded on ritualized revenge.

Maybe you believe revenge is justified, and if so, remember this if you're ever on the other side. I don't believe revenge is justifiable, even though I have personally wanted revenge a few times in my life. I was wrong. If you embrace revenge through government courts, you are also wrong.

This doesn't mean people "just get away with it". Could you continue to treat someone like a good person, knowing they did wrong and never tried to make it right? Justice is your job. You can't pawn it off on anyone else.

You have the right to shun unrepentant violators. If not for government's laws you would be free to shun them to death-- to refuse to sell them food, housing, energy, clothing, or any other necessity-- and to convince others to join you. Those who intentionally harm people but won't take full responsibility aren't worthy of your consideration or help. Leave them to the wolves. You would be well within your rights, and their cold, lonely death would be an acceptable substitute for justice.

If, however, you choose to shun someone who made a tragic mistake, admitted it and tried to make things right, I would probably not join you. Mistakes are human. Without the intent to cause harm they can't be crimes and shouldn't be treated as crimes, even though they can hurt just as much.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

The killing of Gadhafi- self defense or revenge?

I can't join the majority in the celebration over the killing of Gadhafi.

Yes, he was a very, very bad guy. Almost everyone who seeks political power is. Any one of his victims would have been fully justified in killing him in self defense. But... the old monster was not a credible threat any more- he was no longer the ruler and was not engaged in an initiation of force at the time he was killed. He was killed in revenge, not in self defense. I also don't see any justice in it.

I think revenge is wrong. Understandable, but wrong. I'm not saying I would never again do anything in revenge, myself, but if I did I would be wrong. I have done a few things in revenge in the past. I was wrong.

When I smeared poison ivy all over the toilet seat, and my wife's vibrator, before I abandoned my house to her and her new boyfriend, I was wrong. If I had it to do over again I hope I would make the right decision this time. I have the benefit of years of libertarianism to guide my actions now.

The rebels, who are now falling all over themselves in the rush to set up another State to abuse them and violate their liberty, were wrong for killing Gadhafi. And they are wrong for allowing a new government to be established. Actions have consequences. Watch what happens next.

.

Theft, defense, revenge, justice

People have tried, for years, to make the argument that if it were my kid robbing someone, I would want no one to fight back and hurt or kill him. I would want them to cooperate and let the police handle it later.

No. They don't get it.

If one of my relatives tried to rob a group of people and was killed by a defender, I would be ashamed and angered by what my relative did. I would never defend his actions or seek "restitution" [sic] from the defender who killed him. To do so would make me just as bad, in my own way, as the thief. In fact, I would probably praise the actions of the defender as heroic (if I spoke up at all) even in my pain and shame.

If one of my relatives shot and killed a robber, I would be proud that he helped victims, both current and potential future victims of this robber.

If both robber and defender were relatives of mine, I would side with the defender. No matter which one I was closer to before the event. Choosing to steal, and especially to violently rob people, is a deal-breaker.

I think theft is one of the worst acts a human can commit-- right on the level of rape, murder, kidnapping, etc. I have no issue at all with thieves being killed in the act, and even less so if they are robbing people under threat of harm or death; at gunpoint or knifepoint, for example. Even if it's a toy gun or a rubber knife, unless they are willing to hand it over for you to examine so you can make sure it's real, you'd better assume it's real and act as though it is.

If someone steals your property they are stealing the hours of your life you traded for that property. Parts of your life you can never get back. They don't care. They've made their choice. Sure, some would argue they aren't taking your whole life, and you aren't taking the robber's whole life either, just whatever amount they would have had left after they tried to rob you. It might have even been far less than they were trying to take from you (judging by their poor choices). They might have walked in front of a speeding bus, overdosed on something they bought with your stolen property, or "died suddenly" from clots ten minutes later. That's unknowable. 

Once someone has shown you they don't value their own life as much as they value taking your stuff (which can include your life, and since you can't read their mind you don't know their intent) why would you value their life, in this case, more than they value their own?

This doesn't mean I think you should track the thief down the week after the attack and shoot them as they sleep in their bed. That would be revenge, and I oppose revenge (while understanding the hunger for it). 

Self-defense at the scene of the attack, in the heat of the moment, isn't something I'll second guess. 

But what about justice? Self-defense is not exactly justice; it eliminates the need for justice. Revenge, when the event is history-- including legal punishment through the government-- isn't justice. Restitution is justice. Let peaceful arbitration, and restitution, sort it out at a later date if there is anything to sort out.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

I oppose human sacrifice

It needs to be repeated.

The ONLY ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack by the intended victim or a bystander. I'd be thrilled if this were the outcome every single time.

Killing the killer later is revenge- it's even in the name: "capital punishment". Punishment is revenge, the opposite of justice. It's a capitulation to feelings, not rationality.

Restitution isn't possible in such a case, which feels unsatisfying to people who want revenge, but it's true.

It doesn't stop future murderers from murdering. They never think they'll get caught, or they act in the heat of the moment where conscious thought doesn't figure in. There is no preventative effect.

If you "execute" for the state, you are part of a conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. You are ethically identical to the person you murder. The threat has already been neutralized: they are in a cage. Murdering them won't bring their victim back. Legalistic word games like claiming "you can't murder a murderer" don't change the reality. (Try that line if you get caught doing it on your own and see how well it works.) Working for the state doesn't erase the individual responsibility.

I understand the lust for revenge- for punishment- because I've felt it myself. But I can't support it being institutionalized and made into a quasi-religious cleansing ritual of human sacrifice. Not on my behalf!

I don't trust government with the power to murder people. Unlike a lot of statists. Unlike some "libertarians".

I'm so serious about this that I don't even support this fate for politicians/police.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Becoming what you fight

I have expressed my opposition to government-imposed "death penalties" before.  But maybe I haven't expressed the thing I find most horrifying.  Besides the abominable error rate in convictions, that is.

It's not that I oppose the death penalty out of misplaced sympathy for murderers- I don't- it's that I hate it because of what it does to those who carry it out and those who salivate to see it done.  It turns them into murderers and revenge whores.

Death at the hands of an intended victim or a rescuer is justice- or better. It prevents the violation from being carried to conclusion- it nips it in the bud.  And it prevents the attacker from victimizing anyone else, ever again.  There is also almost no room for error, as long as no innocent bystander gets harmed in the process.  You don't get attacked by a rapist, and then in self defense kill an innocent guy who just happens to look a little like him, but was miles away at the time.  Not when the attack is in progress.  Afterwards....?

Death years later at the hands of some hired killer- paid with stolen money, no less- is murder motivated by revenge.

So, no.  I don't hate the "death penalty" because of what it does to murderers.  Death is appropriate for many of them.

But for those who kill them for The State?  It turns them into worse than those they kill. That's right- "capital punishment" is worse than almost all free lance murders- done without warning, in the heat of the moment, and without any illusion of legitimacy.

It is premeditated; clinical; ritualistic; almost religious. Barbaric in the extreme.  In large part because of the reverential way it is viewed by its fans.  Just imagine a freelance murderer going through the motions of killing his victims in the same way- the same ritual- as the State murderers do it.  You can't approve of that behavior, no matter who is doing it, and not be damaged by your approval.

It is not justice, it is the worst form of revenge. It's symbolic- cleansing society of a diseased individual. When in reality it accomplishes nothing of the sort. The "diseased individual" is already removed from society when caged.  And the ritual only creates more diseased individuals.

No "government" anywhere has employees who are perfect enough or wise enough to be trusted with the power of life and death.

There is no perfect solution.  Some innocent people will always die, and some really bad guys will always escape justice.  But that's no excuse to stick with a "solution" that is better suited to a barbaric past.  The past where "The State" also belongs.

.

Can anything be "made right" with a wrong?

I am not a "believer" in The State. Period.

No matter what someone has done, or to whom, The State is never a good "solution" (if it can be considered a "solution" at all) and I don't support any response which involves the State or any of its tentacles.

I don't believe in imprisonment. No justice can ever come by this path.

I don't believe in revenge or punishment. Once again, these are anti-justice. I also understand that most people are enthusiastic fans of both, so this puts me at odds with seemingly everyone.

I am a big fan of death at the hands of the intended victim or a rescuer at the scene of the attack- but anything later is revenge or an attempt to "punish". I can understand the desire for punishment, and have even been guilty of committing it myself in the past, but it is still wrong.

Some things can never be "made right"- but with the knowledge of that fact seems to come a desire to toss everything aside and become a salivating revenge junkie, a crazed punishment pusher, or a situational statist.

And, that's all I have to say on that matter.

.

Department of... what?

I was recently looking at a sign in front of a prison. The sign declared that the facility was a part of the "Texas Department of Justice".

That almost made me laugh. There is no justice in imprisonment.

So, I thought to myself that the sign should be changed to "Texas Department of Punishment" if truth in advertising were a real thing where The State is concerned.

Then I realized even that wasn't sufficient. For the sign to be really truthful it would need to say "Texas Department of Revenge". That's what we are really talking about here. And I am opposed to revenge- even though I have been guilty of vengeance a few times in the past.

I'd take it upon myself to change their misleading sign, but I don't feel like being made the focus of revenge by the authority-bloated bad guys who believe they own the facility built and maintained with stolen money.

.

From the Extraordinary Claims Department

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim, not with those who scoff at the claim..

Such as the claim that government employees should be allowed to kill people as long as it is called "capital punishment" or "war".

It doesn't matter that governments have been doing both-- and getting away with it-- for thousands of years and few have stood up to say it's wrong. It is still an extraordinary claim.

I can't accept this claim without extraordinary evidence in its favor. And I have yet to see any evidence, extraordinary or not. Lots of claims and emotions and name-calling; religious and statist claims, but nothing more. That won't cut it for me.

My thought on the issue of capital punishment remains the same-- it is murder motivated by revenge. It is a primitive, superstitious cleansing ritual. It taints everyone involved-- no one comes out the good guy. When you hand government the power to kill, there is nothing left to hand it. You have accepted total State domination. It is wrong. Just because you approve of some of the murders doesn't change it.

The ONLY ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge. I understand the lust for revenge in some cases, but I also know it's wrong.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.

Connecting dots between Brent Aguilar and a murderer

I have mentioned before the case of the young mother stabbed to death on the local trail I like to walk. I have speculated she may have been murdered as "payback" for her former fiancee killing a guy at a party a year and a half ago. It turns out there is an alternate possibility suggested by new revelations.

I am not accusing anyone of anything, but simply connecting some dots which will not be connected by local police or prosecutors- dots which may have no connection at all, but it is a real possibility which needs to be considered. So I'll do it.

Here's what I know, or what has been reported.

As mentioned before, her former fiancee was arrested and charged with stabbing a young guy to death at a party a year and a half ago.

She was stabbed to death by a guy as she was at the trail with her 6 year old son.

The crime scene investigators, a special team from the state of New Mexico tasked with investigating crime scenes- along with the local cops who first showed up at the scene- managed to overlook the apparent murder weapon, which was found by the victim's relatives after the police tape had been removed and the investigators had left.

The person eventually arrested and charged with her murder claimed he had been hired to kill her by person's unnamed. He then changed his story and said he was just "having a bad day". I strongly suspect he changed his story to protect himself from being silenced by whoever hired him. I originally believed he had been hired by friends, family, or associates of the guy her fiancee had killed, to kill her in revenge

But, here's the new development which led to my speculation:

Turns out the father of her two kids is Jorge Corona- the man who was brutally attacked by officer Brent Aguilar. Yeah, you remember him. Right?

So, here's the line of inquiry which "officials" and "authorities" will never pursue. What if her killer was hired by Aguilar, or a "supporter" of Aguilar, as a warning or threat to Corona? Or as simple revenge.

Anyone looking at this objectively would have to admit it s a possibility. It should be looked into. If only to show I am wildly wrong with this speculation.

We already know Brent Aguilar is aggressive. We already know that, as a cop, he is willing to steal and harm the innocent through the enforcement of arbitrary and harmful "laws". We know that Corona has caused him aggravation due to making the attack public, and by bringing legal attention his way. It is possible that Aguilar- or someone believing they were acting on his behalf- hired the killer.

Think about it.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but every possibility must be considered, and this is just as possible as her murder being payback for her fiancee's actions, and more probable than this having been a random attack. And, obviously, I don't expect anyone in any position of "authority" to ever even admit thinking about this. They must protect their own gang at all costs.

.

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

I don't believe revenge is right.

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

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

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

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

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

My daughter is devastated.

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

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

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

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

--

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

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

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.

"Capital punishment" is murder. Here's why

The reason a State death penalty is murder seems to be lost on some people.

Killing someone who is currently attacking or violating private property is not murder. It is self defense. If self defense fails and the victim is murdered, it is still OK- or wonderful, even- if the attacker is killed at the time and place of the attack by a bystander since the assumption that everyone around is still in mortal danger would be reasonable. If no one happened to be there to kill the attacker at the scene, killing him is then off the table, ethically.

Killing that same person later- when they are no longer an imminent threat- is a revenge murder. I realize a large majority of people think revenge is sometimes OK... but it isn't.

For one thing, if you weren't there, you don't really know what happened. Making a mistake and demanding restitution from someone who turns out to have been innocent is bad enough, but making a mistake that results in death is unforgivable.

Having a government employee do the killing on the victim's (or "society's") behalf changes nothing- unless you believe the propaganda about the State- meaning the individual humans comprising it- being somehow exempt from the ethical rules all humans are subject to.

.

Suppose there was a gang...

... A gang which required members to rape, pillage, and attack people as a condition of membership. A gang which financed all its activities, and bought all its clothing and equipment, with money it stole from the local population. A gang which bragged about driving nice cars stolen from people they attacked. Any member who didn't commit those acts on a regular basis would be kicked out, and quite probably be subject to revenge by the other members.

As a condition of gang membership, you are agreeing to pretend other people's property rights can't apply to you. You pretend no one has the right of association where you are concerned- if someone tries to walk away when you insist on talking to them, the gang's rules say you can murder them. If someone tries to defend themselves from unwanted physical contact- or from even worse- the gang's rules say you can murder them. The rules you impose on others don't apply to you.

If you are a member of this gang you are openly admitting support for what the gang does. When you wear the gang colors, you are identifying yourself as a member in good standing. You are leaving no room for mistaken impressions of what you are, what you do, and what you support.

Any non-member caught wearing the gang colors or claiming to be a member would be kidnapped and caged, robbed, and quite possibly killed by actual members of the gang. The membership must be kept pure. There is no room for pretenders.

Sometimes the gang's members actually do helpful things. This is what the gang and its supporters want everyone believing the gang is all about, but it is actually a small and uncommon part of what the gang does. In fact, it is rare enough to be newsworthy when it happens.

The rapes, theft, and murders committed in the name of the gang are said to be committed by a "few bad apples", even though a "good apple" who didn't do those things- or at least turn a blind eye to those who do- would be kicked out of the gang and targeted for revenge. By staying in the gang, a member is endorsing all the gang's activities- official and unofficial.

The gang has done a good job convincing your family, friends, and neighbors that without them, other gangs would commit the same acts, but that this would somehow be worse; it would be chaos and mean the end of civilization. It is a lie, but few are willing to admit they are being lied to, and many actually believe it is true.

"Polite society"- particularly including newspapers and television and radio stations- ignores the nature of the gang, and instead praises the members for the few good deeds done- deeds that don't require gang membership to perform. They also ignore the evil nature of the acts that only members of the gang can get away with committing. Those who refuse to ignore the institutional evil are ostracized.

When a member of the gang gets killed while wearing the gang colors, "Polite Society" weeps and wails and tears at its clothing, acting as though the death came out of nowhere and was completely beyond understanding. No matter what the gang members have done recently, and no matter that the supposed "good apples" didn't disavow the acts of the members who committed the acts. Polite Society demands everyone weep and wail along with them, and voice their loyalty to the gang over and over again, lest they be thought of as horrible, uncivilized monsters.

I'm not Polite Society. I can't grieve when members of the gang are killed. Even if they weren't currently attacking the innocent, by remaining in the gang and wearing the gang colors openly, they are declaring themselves an enemy to everything good and civilized. How can anyone see the deaths of these gang members as a "bad thing"?

Well, this gang actually does exist. It infests every town and city in America, and in most of the world. They are the police- the Blue Line Gang (in America). They pretend they have no choice in the acts they commit because politicians made up "laws" by saying magic words which made their perverted opinions "official". Never mind that Nuremberg proved this to be a worthless defense. Individually, they each have the ability to refuse to do evil, even if a politician says they must. And, if a person can't avoid committing these acts without removing himself from the Blue Line Gang, then to be a good person he MUST quit the gang, regardless of the personal costs. If I have a job and my boss tells me I am required to overcharge a customer or lose my job, I can't remain in the job and still be a decent person. It simply isn't possible.

It doesn't matter if you believe these "laws" are a good idea, or even "necessary". It doesn't matter if the lack of them scares you. Any "law" which seeks to control something other than aggression or property violations is a counterfeit "law"- the few that are left are unnecessary laws.

In the absence of police some people might get away with violating life, liberty, and property of others. The existence of police guarantees it.

This is why there is no such thing as a "good cop", and why there can never be. It is self contradictory.

The police is where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face. Without them no evil ruler could impose his will on large numbers of people- people would simply kill him in self defense. Which is why politicians work so hard to whip up support for cops.

No good person can remain consistently good and continue to support the police. It simply isn't possible. I know good people who do support the police, but by doing so they are being inconsistent, and actually being evil at that moment. Withdraw your support; be a good person all the time.

The sooner you accept it, internalize it, and act on it, the sooner you will be free.

(Also published in The Libertarian Enterprise 7-17-2016)

-

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

War is crime

I oppose war. 

I support the natural human right of defense. 

If a government military is involved, it's not defense. Same thing if a quasi-government-like military is involved. 

If your forces are going into other people's towns, neighborhoods, and homes, to kill them and destroy things, you are not a good guy. You are doing things you don't have a right to do. The residents there have the fundamental human right to kill you in the act, no matter how evil they might otherwise be in other situations.

I get that you may be doing this in response to others doing things they had no right to do. Two wrongs don't make a right. It looks more like revenge-- "punishment"-- and I consider revenge to always be wrong (even though I totally understand the drive).

I'm no pacifist. Not even close. If you're familiar with this blog, you already know that.

There's an ethical way to respond to archators-- see the above about the natural human right of defense.

I know this opinion is about as popular as a scared, leaky skunk in an elevator. If opposing war gets me "canceled", it's worth it.

-

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

Please consider it.

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo

Thank you.

Self defense, not "vigilantism"

America really is filled with idiots.

I was commenting on a story about school bullies, and someone responded to my comment, saying that "since vigilantism will never be legal, we need police to deal with juvenile assaults just as they would with adult assaults".  (Except all those committed by the reavers, themselves, I suppose.)

Slow down, Pokey.  Self defense is NOT vigilantism.  Not by a long shot.

I hate vigilantes.  What they do doesn't qualify as self defense, but as revenge or retribution.  They are no better than government goons.

Self defense is just the act of stopping yourself from being harmed by someone who is attacking you.  That is your responsibility- whether you choose to fulfill it or not.  If you fight back against someone who is attempting to steal from you this is defense of property, not of "self".  But it is still fine and dandy.  Fight back!  Don't let bad guys get away with it.

But, once they do "get away", following them to exact revenge is not the best way to deal with it.  It is too easy to target the wrong person at this point.  If you feel you must anyway, then you accept full responsibility for any mistakes you make and you will be held accountable.  As you should be.

.

Slavery gaining steam-- Revenge by "law"

"Red flag laws" are becoming all the rage. Or, as I call them: "Bitter Ex-Wife Revenge and Empowerment Acts". Because you just KNOW that's how they'll mainly play out.

Well, Ammo.com has written a piece on where these bad ideas came from, how they "work", and some of their consequences.

Seems to me only a pathetic coward would use a "red flag law" instead of doing the hard work to defend the innocent herself/himself-- if there were a credible threat.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Free will" is irrelevant

I recently listened to a bizarre debate between two sciency guys who don't believe there is any such thing as free will because the Universe is deterministic, but they interpret this in different ways, which is why they debated.

Yet, every point that each of them made was made with the assumption of free will. They were swimming in it the entire time and didn't notice. "She could have done differently" or "What kind of upbringing did he receive?", as if those ideas have any meaning outside free will.

The reason these free will skeptics kept assuming free will exists is that they were focused on how it relates to crime (and things government pretends are crimes). Free will has to exist for them to justify their belief that governments have rights which include allowing a government to punish people (often, Trump in their examples) for their actions. In other words, their statism-- their government-supremacism-- required them to be absurdly inconsistent to avoid exposing the fallacy. It required them to never notice their absurdity or inconsistency.

In my view of the world, if there is no such thing as free will, it doesn't matter.

Does the lightning have free will if it strikes a tree, causing the tree to fall and crash through your roof? It doesn't matter. The lightning did a thing, that thing set other things in motion and damaged your roof. The lightning (in fact, the laws of physics that made that particular lightning strike inevitable) owe restitution for the damage to your house, but the lightning can't and won't pay. Maybe you now believe you or your insurance company have the right to punish the lightning... good luck with that.

If a person commits an act which violates you, it doesn't matter whether the person had any free will to make that choice or not. Something was caused to happen and restitution is owed. A person can pay restitution, even if it is only symbolic and can't erase the whole debt. The person could have been as destined to commit the act as the bolt of lightning was to strike and it doesn't change the debt which was created.

Maybe you also believe that person should be punished.

I don't believe in punishment, which I see as nothing more than revenge with lipstick. It doesn't reduce the debt at all, and in the case of government "justice [sic] systems", it creates even more debt which requires restitution which will never be paid by the archator which owes it: government. I understand the desire for revenge/punishment. I have felt it many times. But I also understand why it is wrong; why it is beyond what I have the right to do.

I understand the arguments against free will. I am not entirely convinced by them, but since free will isn't necessary, I can live with not knowing for sure.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I prefer consequences to revenge

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 17, 2019)

If your idea of a good time is to vandalize someone's home, I have no sympathy for you no matter what consequences result.

Last year a relative's home near Clovis was burglarized and cleaned out. Through the ruthless determination of his granddaughter, all his belongings were discovered on the property of the burglar (or an accomplice) and recovered.

Now, someone has decided it was a good idea to try to destroy his whole house. The house he built with his own hands more than half a century ago.

If you think this makes me angry, you'd be on the right track.

When a person makes the choice to violate life, liberty, or property they've lost their humanity in my eyes. Their reasons or justifications never matter.

I understand spur-of-the-moment bad decisions, but to make a conscious decision to violate someone? That's where I draw the line.

No, it doesn't mean I want to see the law used against them. In fact, the law does more to protect bad guys from consequences than it does to protect their victims.

Nor am I calling for punishment, which I oppose as revenge. I prefer social consequences. Real justice. Including-- specifically-- shunning.

There are people out there who know these and other criminals who make a habit of victimizing residents of the community. I doubt either they or the violators they know are literate enough to read newspapers or anything else, though. Maybe someone can read this to them.

If you know someone who habitually violates others, and you choose to continue associating with them, you are as guilty as they are. Violators should be left to die alone in the elements, naked and starving. There's no excuse to sell them food, water, fuel, clothing, shelter, or medical care once you are aware of their choice to violate. If you continue to trade products and services with them you are spitting in the faces of all their victims; past, present, and future.

I'd rather see their pictures, addresses, and crimes posted on social media or on public flyers. Let everyone know who they are and what they do. "Innocent until proven guilty" is only the standard for government courts. If you know the truth, share it.

Consequences of this sort would do more to promote civilization than all the laws you could ever write and enforce. Violators survive only because otherwise good people help them, even if it's accidental. Stop enabling them to live to violate again.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com