Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Theft by any other name still theft

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 15, 2016)

What do you call the act of taking property under threat of doing something unpleasant to any victim who refuses to comply? Obviously it is theft.

What do most people call an identical act when committed by government employees? Taxation.

Why the hypocrisy? Giving an act a new name doesn't change its nature. Taxation is theft.

Of course, I have heard some taxation apologists claim your money isn't yours at all- it all belongs to government and you should be grateful they allow you to keep any of it. What couldn't be justified under such an absurd belief system?

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. got it backwards when he asserted taxation is the price we pay for a civilized society. In truth a civilized society is what we often manage to create in spite of taxation. Allowing taxation to continue limits how civilized a society can be.

Some people eventually come to terms with the truth that taxation is theft, but still find ways to excuse it. They believe society can't function without taxation.

If you want something not popular enough to be voluntarily funded, you need to let it go. If your idea is good, why would you need to force people to go along, threatening them with prison- or worse- if they'd rather opt out?

If something is wanted or needed, it will happen without robbing your neighbors. It is wrong to force people to pay for things they won't fund voluntarily, and it is evil to force them to finance things they oppose. Things like war, prohibition, government schools, abortions, welfare, and government agencies such as the BATFE which are criminal by their very existence.

Is a parking lot mugging justified if the mugger promises to spend a portion of the money on things you need? Or if he is using the plunder to feed orphans and widows? What if the mugger promises to hire strongmen to patrol the neighborhood to prevent any other muggers from operating in his territory?

If you keep money safely hidden from the mugger in your shoe, have you committed mugging evasion? Do you owe the mugger?

Theft is theft even if you really want to use the money for something good. Taxation is theft even if it pays your salary. Theft doesn't magically become OK if you give a percentage of it back to your victims. And taxation is theft even if you can't imagine living without it.

This would be an excellent time to subscribe or donate; income in this household is way down and expenses the past couple of months are way up. Of course, you take care of you and yours first. Only donate or subscribe if you can afford it, and IF you believe you get value from my scribblings and occasional videos. Follow the arrow to the options.

Being nice to violators

How nice should you be to murderers, rapists, and thieves? How nice should you be to their friends and family who support and approve of their nasty deeds? What if they have all been carefully brainwashed for a lifetime to not see their acts as murder, rape, or theft?

Does this excuse them and obligate you to overlook what they do? To be nice to them?

This is the exact situation with those who work for government.

It doesn't matter if you are talking about a kindergarten teacher, the janitor who mops the courthouse, or the cop who murders a jaywalker who he claims appeared to have a gun.

If you work for government in any capacity, you are doing wrong. You are harming rightful liberty. Do you still expect your victims to be nice about it?

I understand those who say they are undermining the State from the inside. And maybe this occasionally does some good. I also understand they need to not be noticed as infiltrators so as to not be kicked out. But if you put on the uniform and hang out with the bad guys, you must expect to be shot as an enemy. It's a hazard you knew and accepted when you chose that path, and it's no one else's responsibility to coddle bad guys just because you may be in their midst of your own free will.

I'm not talking about "collateral damage", but someone actively taking part in living undercover as a bad guy, even if you are trying to destroy them. If this is what you are really doing, and you can live this life without doing any harm, I hope you avoid getting caught up in it. And, I'm just talking about whether people should be nice to the bad guys, not about defense.

If you are one of the bad guys, I'm probably not going to be nice to you. Nor should you expect me to. You can whine or make up "laws" to try to force me to act like you want, but that just shows how bad and weak you really are. Good luck with that.

If you have never supported this blog financially, this would be a great time to start. Or to make a one-time offering. There have been lots of unfortunate financial things going on in recent months- I'll spare you the details- but I am in need.
Please check out the options for support over to the right, and if you feel this blog has been of any value to you, please consider trading value for value.

Monday, May 16, 2016

The feds are not the biggest danger to your guns

The right to own and to carry weapons- including, but not limited to, guns- is a natural human right. It exists everywhere at all times, in spite of what governments may say, just because you were born human. There is no legitimate or ethical way to restrict or ration this right. None at all.

This means the Second Amendment couldn't have created that right. It will still exist even if the Second Amendment is abolished. The right existed long before the first government was dreamed up, and it will still exist millennia after the last government has collapsed in upon itself.

People worry a lot about the feds making up new anti-gun "laws", but almost all those laws end up being enforced by their accomplices in local law enforcement. Law enforcement is always breaking the law by doing so.

"Just doing my job" and "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them" doesn't cut it. Those excuses didn't work in Nuremberg and they won't work in America.

Every time you read in the sheriff's report about someone being arrested on "illegal weapon" or "illegal carry" charges you are seeing how evil the local law enforcers are. I realize it may be an easy way to arrest someone who couldn't easily be arrested otherwise. It is still wrong. It is committing a wrong openly and then announcing it. It is arrogant and disgusting.

Who needs to worry about the feds with local bullies doing their dirty work for them?

I don't "believe in" the Constitution. It either created the problem we now live in or did nothing to prevent it. But many of those who recognize the evil of anti-gun "laws" still claim to support the Constitution, while also supporting those who violate it.

Enforcing any anti-gun law is a serious crime, if the Constitution means anything. It is a serious violation of natural human rights even if the Constitution is irrelevant. There is no justification for it. You can tell how much a person cares about liberty (and how much they respect the Constitution) by how supportive he is of those individuals who enforce gun laws. There's a term for those who enforce anti-gun "laws": domestic enemies.

The really awful thing is that while private property owners have the right to tell visitors to not bring guns onto their property (even if it exposes them as cowardly vermin), government has no such right, and is in fact specifically prohibited from doing so, by the document they point to as giving them the "authority" to exist. Yes, this means the "no guns" sign at the post office or at the government "public" school is a serious crime; not the rightful act of ignoring that sign.

But statists want to try to have it both ways. It never works like that and never will.

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.
.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

You will be violated. Your move.

People are going to do things to you they have no right to do. They will violate you. It's just life.

A few of these bad guys won't even bother trying to justify their acts, but most will.

Most of the justifiers will claim they possess a magical quality they'll call "authority", and will claim this quality can turn evil into good when they use it.

They are liars, of course.

But most people will buy it, because in their minds "authority" is permission to do bad things. Things they know they shouldn't do, but will somehow believe are OK as long as you have "authority". Yes, it is just that dumb.

All that stuff is beside the point. The point is, what are you going to do about it? What will you let the violators get away with?

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Government is always at war with Liberty

Government is a perpetual War on Rightful Liberty. That's its entire justification and purpose.

Oh sure, its supporters lie and say its there to "protect your rights", or to be the final arbiter in disputes, but those are provably false.

In fact, when government is claimed to "protect your rights", what happens to those rights? If they aren't completely violated and made "crimes", they are at least made subject to permission and license... which in reality is still just violating them.

And what good is a final arbiter when he is one of the parties in the dispute? Less than no good at all, is what. If you have a problem with me stealing from you or molesting your daughter, do you really want the final say on the matter to be mine? Then why allow government to have the final say in matters of "taxation" or "weapons violations" or anything else that wouldn't even be an issue except for counterfeit government rules?

In all cases government is only there to violate your rights and to fight its war on your Rightful Liberty. You don't need that kind of abuse- there are enough freelance bad guys out there to deal with, and having to expend energy on keeping yourself safe from the "help" does nothing but empower all the bad guys.

The thing is, the bad guys of The State vastly outnumber the freelance bad guys they claim to be protecting you from- probably at least hundreds to one.

I have been violated by freelance bad guys so few times in my life I could probably count the times on my fingers.

But every single day I am violated multiple times by employees of The State. Whether it is every time I am forced to pay a "tax", or every time I am not allowed to use my property as I wish, or every time I am prohibited from carrying a gun where and how I want, or when I am forced to pay attention to my speed rather than paying attention to traffic and road conditions, or whatever. Sure, you might say most of those are minor- and they are- but they are still violations of rightful liberty. And one violation is too many.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Charged with 'Possession of...'

Possession of anything, no matter what it is, can never be a real crime.

It doesn't matter how much you wish it were so.

That goes for drugs, guns, large amounts of cash, "open containers", or anything else.

For one thing, it is easy to plant some prohibited item on a person you want to find a reason to punish. Cops do it all the time, and if you believe they don't you might ought to consider a few thoughts.

Is it easy to plant something on someone? Is it likely you'd get caught doing so? Is the benefit of planting it outweighed by the small risk of being caught? Is it likely that anyone who voices the concern that the prohibited item was planted will be ostracized as siding with the "criminal"- and quite probably lumped in and accused of the same "crime" the supposed criminal was accused of?

The answers to all those questions, if one is honest, shows that planting prohibited items goes on all the time.

Sure, some people actually do have guns and use them aggressively. Some people do use and sell "drugs"- although making this "illegal" was one of the most evil acts of statism ever committed. Some people involved in things the government disapproves of do carry around big wads of cash. So what?

For a real crime, as opposed to a government "crime", to have been committed, an individual or their property has to have been violated individually by the individual person who is responsible. Possession of anything doesn't cut it. Not ever.

But, when the "authorities" can parade (or speak of) the prohibited things being found in the possession of a person they are seeking to punish, and when the general population cheers for the "bad guy" getting caught. it is just too convenient. Advocating these sorts of "laws", or supporting enforcement of them, plays right into the wrong hands.

Simple possession, of anything, can never be a crime, even if in some cases it might be ethically or morally wrong. Anything else is just too ripe for abuse by the real bad guys: the bullies who call themselves government.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Just a common cop

The other day I saw a cop and the thought came to me "He's just a common cop."

Yep. That's what they are: a common cop, or even a "common badge". Lowly scum, just like any other common criminal-type property-violating, aggressive scum.

These "people" need to be reviled just like other "common criminals" are. They are worse, in fact, since they seem to feel entitled to worship due to their vile position. Few burglars would expect to lead a parade or have people thank them for what they do. But, cops? All the time.

#CopsAreScum

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

All have identical, equal rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 8, 2016)

I see politics as a flawed attempt to get along with people you don't like. Flawed, because using the violence of laws to try to make people do what you want leads them to pull the same stunt against you. It's the ultimate "an eye for an eye" opera, which never ends unless one side stops.

One sad thing I've noticed is people preemptively poking themselves in the eye-- doing their enemies' work for them-- without realizing what they are doing. They do this by supporting the political party "their people" have historically identified with regardless of how it actually treats them.

I wonder why people do these harmful things to themselves.

Why do most feminists, LGBTQs, and environmentalists support the Democratic Party, when it doesn't actually support them?

Why do most conservative Christians, gun owners, and entrepreneurs stand behind the Republican Party, when it betrays them whenever it gets the chance?

The mainstream parties are out for their own best interests, willing to use whoever they can dupe, as long as they find them convenient. As soon as the favors are due, they get amnesia about who gave them their power. And their supporters forgive and forget.

On all these matters libertarians-- even the Libertarian Party, if you still believe politics can solve anything-- are more welcoming to all the above than either of the mainstream parties.

The only thing anyone might miss in libertarianism is the lack of license to violate others or their property. If this is your desire, you're on your own. It doesn't matter what your excuse is, how bad you want to reserve the option, how "necessary" you believe it is, or who assures you it's OK.

Libertarians know beyond a shadow of a doubt, and are willing to put their lives where their mouths are, that every human on the planet has equal and identical rights. Whether the "powers that be" respect those rights or not. Regardless of what you own, who you love, where you were born, what language you speak, what you worship, how much melanin is in your skin, or which chromosomes you have.

Unfortunately, this eliminates any excuse to use laws to make anyone subservient to anyone else. No legal favoritism and no legal hindrances. Many people can't tolerate this equality.

This causes me to reach the sad conclusion that for most people it's not enough to experience liberty-- someone else must have their liberty violated, too. Which explains why we still suffer politics and governments.

Great and Fearful "Laws"

I'm not afraid of your "laws".

I don't honor or respect them, either.

Nor do I want or need them.

They are nothing to me. Less than nothing.

Laws never stop bad guys from hurting me, and if bad guys who use laws to violate others want to hurt me they don't need laws to help them do so.

Sure, the most cowardly bad guys hide behind "laws", but they'd hide behind something no matter what.

Respect for the law seems an empty thing to hold on to. A very silly thing.

Monday, May 09, 2016

Statist Language Games

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Control the language and you control thought. Sometimes to the point that thoughts outside of the box aren't even possible. How can you think something when there are no words to express it? Or if the words have been redefined to the point they are meaningless?

Nowhere is this reality as obvious as in the use of "legal definitions".

Legal definitions are written by statists. Statists who believe in the State and in "laws" that create the State and prop it up. "Laws" which create "authority" and privileges and obligations... which have no foundation in reality.

Maybe in some cases they were halfway decent statists who wanted to promote liberty, but the very notion of a legal definition is statist.

When people focus on legal definitions they are being brainwashed into statism.

People who "study law" seem to get sucked into the superstition worse than people who don't. They begin to believe human-written "law" is legitimate. And "important". And somehow "truth".

At least I sure see a lot of evidence of that.

**Magical words will fix everything, if you just say them the right way.**

**Look at the words on this paper; they don't say what you believe they say, and if you know what they *really* mean, you can show this to the Rulers and they'll leave you alone.**

Stuff like that.

It's where you get the self-contradictory idea of the "sovereign citizen".

And those who fall for this the hardest get really angry at people who don't buy into their superstitions. I just had one (who was also posting links where he blamed everything on Jews, and demonstrated he doesn't have a clue what "libertarian" means) call me an idiot on Facebook. I count that as an endorsement.

But he seems to really believe that if a definition is the "legal definition", it means something more than what the word means, and it can be used to advance his agenda- whatever that may be.

Well, good luck playing a game that was rigged so that you can never really win. As for me, no thanks.

Magical acts of statism: destroying guns

Very few statist acts are as stupid and full of delusional magical-thinking as the act of destroying guns. Either individually, or on an industrial scale. Well, perhaps the statist act of destroying ivory and rhino horns is equally stupid and delusional.

But, really. You have tools that you fear. Instead of fearing (or defending yourself from) the few bad guys who use the tools, you allow a huge gang of the worst of the worst to steal the tools, and then destroy them to "keep them out of the wrong hands".

If you are destroying guns for the State, you are the wrongest of hands.

Do you somehow believe that destroying valuable tools will change the hearts and minds of those who would violate others? You say you hate gun manufacturers, but you help keep the price of their products artificially high.

You believe that destroying historical objects is a good thing to do, just because you are too cowardly to take responsibility for yourself?

Do you believe a gun used in a crime has somehow been possessed by an evil spirit and needs to be melted down to ... what?.. burn the demon, or release it back into the wild? How dumb are you, really?

Yes, destroying guns is stupid. It is magical thinking. And yet, many of those responsible know how stupid those who cheer their destruction are, because they know what I just pointed out. They simply count of you being too stupid to see it.

Don't be their tool.

Sunday, May 08, 2016

All the world is a stage Act on it.

Everything good happens against a backdrop of liberty. Or, inside a matrix of liberty, if you prefer thinking in higher dimensions.

Nothing truly good violates liberty, and nothing evil is liberty compliant. (Liberty has room for plenty of ethically neutral acts, though.)

Even when evil people like cops or freelance thugs choose to do something good-- something which they have a right to do and which violates no other person or their property, and which benefits someone other than themselves-- liberty allows them the choice. It gives them the space in which they act.

When they choose to do wrong, that's not liberty. It is a violation of liberty.

Saturday, May 07, 2016

Hurting the bad guys' feelings

I am not an angry person.

But, I'm not gonna coddle statists, and they often see this as anger. The truth is "mean". It hurts their feelings. Well too bad. But I get it. No one wants to see that they are wrong.

What seems really odd to me is when other liberty lovers mistake truth and a lack of coddling for anger.

Maybe you want me to hold their hands and tell them "Now, now. You're not so bad. You just have a different opinion. It's OK". This might work in a few cases, but some people need to be snapped out of it, and this touchy-feely stuff won't work for them. They need to be shown exactly how horrible they are being. Yeah, they may dig in their heels, but it's still right to warn them that beliefs- especially horrible false beliefs- have consequences.

But, really, you believe telling them what they advocate is wrong isn't nice? Are you missing what they are doing to you? Would you comfort a rapist from all the mean old people who tell him he is evil? Would you get upset at the person who shoots him in self defense? Would you say we should just reason him out of his behavior, and if he doesn't want to change, "Oh well"?

Then why coddle statists?

Maybe you don't understand exactly what it is they are supporting. They don't care that they support sacrificing your property to their beliefs. If you get in the way, they support putting you in a cage. You liberty scares them, and they want bullies to control you. And if you resist any of this, they're fine with you being murdered. That is what government-- The State-- is. It is ALL it is. Aggression and theft on a grand scale. "Too big to change."

Well, it's still wrong to support The State. In every circumstance. If you're going to support evil, but you don't want anyone to call you out on it, you are going to be disappointed. Time to grow up.

Thursday, May 05, 2016

Reading hieroglyphs

When you see a "no guns" sign do you know how to interpret that particular modern hieroglyph?

I do.

The above symbol means "The management of this establishment is so terrified of self-responsible humans that in case one of them ignores this deplorable sign and enters you'll find said manager crying like a baby, soaking in pants soiled with his own filth, under the nearest chair."

A picture is worth a thousand whimpers.

Or, maybe it really means something else altogether. You never know with anti-liberty bigot cowards.

Wednesday, May 04, 2016

Statist drama overload

I get it. I'm different.

If you are going to engage in statist drama- v*ting, "criminal justice", punishment, prohibition, imprisonment, "borders" and "immigrants", and all the rest- just leave me out of it.

I am not in your cult and I don't want to be involved in your aggressive and destructive rituals. I hate them and I hate your cult.

Even if you claim it is for my own good- perhaps especially then- none of it is done on my behalf.

Tuesday, May 03, 2016

Liberty much like buffet choices

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 1, 2016)

Buffets are nice. You get to choose what you like from all the glorious possibilities offered, picking and choosing your favorites. If you see something you find disgusting, skip it and move on to the next item. No single buffet can possibly offer everything, but no one can tell the buffets what to offer. Consider them all together and your dining choices are practically unlimited.

Some people think of liberty as a buffet, but they want to be in control of what's offered so as to limit the choices others can make. They want to pick and choose between the things they personally like while claiming everything they don't like is off-limits for everyone. This is the opposite of liberty.

With liberty you can choose anything which doesn't violate another person or their private property. The popular, the offensive, the wise, and the foolish- they are all there. Things you love and things you hate. The only thing not available is the authority to tell others which selections they can't choose. Neither are you allowed to slap the choices you disapprove of from anyone's tray.

No one will force you to take part in things you don't like, but they are there if you ever change your mind. Your power lies in making the choices for yourself, not for anyone else.

In other words, you don't get to decide what is on the buffet, even as you decide which parts to enjoy.

Be warned: this liberty buffet has many choices which may offend you. Some of the offerings may even offend the majority of people. But as long as one doesn't use private property against the wishes of the owner, nor use violence against those who are not being violent nor violating someone else's property, it's simply none of your business. Being offended is your personal problem, not a license to push others around.

This is hard for a lot of people, even some who claim to support liberty. People react strongly to those things which offend or disgust them, forgetting that things they see as normal probably disgust and offend someone else.

It's painful to see someone who says they love liberty trying to limit other people's choices on the grounds that those choices are disgusting.

Respecting liberty doesn't mean you approve of everything others might do, it means you recognize where the limits of your power lie. It's an issue of boundaries.

Support?

Is "Cops are scum" collectivism?

(Previously posted to Patreon)

In spite of the well-meaning-- but misguided-- objections of some liberty lovers, "Cops are scum" is NOT a collectivist statement. It is a recognition of identity.

Frozen water is ice. It doesn't matter what form it takes; whether a snowflake, an icicle, or the surface of a hockey rink. It doesn't matter what contaminants it contains or any other conditions. If it is frozen water, it is ice.

If someone is a cop, that person is scum.

Only scum would lower itself to do the things a cop must do as a part of the job.

It doesn't matter how nice Cousin Bob the Cop is at the family picnics. If cousin Bob is a cop, then cousin Bob is required to be scum while he is on the clock. Can a person be part-time scum, or does it color everything he does? Can there be good serial killers?

Now, maybe you believe scum is a necessary component of society. That's a different question altogether. I believe you are wrong, but it's a question for another day.

Saying "cops are scum" is no more collectivist than saying "rapists are aggressors". "Policing" is what someone does, not who they are. A rapist might be the nicest person you ever met while they aren't raping. They might save little old ladies from violent death. But, still, as a rapist he is an aggressor-- not a "good person" at all, no matter what else he does. And, no matter what good a cop may do, as a cop he is scum.

Saying something like "Black people are criminals" is collectivist. No one chooses his or her "race". Being "Black" or "White" or "Asian" doesn't mean anything as to the character of the person. I know people of every "race" who could disprove any collectivist accusation anyone could dream up about them, good or bad.

But being a cop is a conscious choice. It is the choice to enforce counterfeit "laws" against people. It is the choice to be a thief and aggressor. Choosing to be a cop is choosing specific actions and behaviors. You can't make that choice and be a good person.

Every good thing a cop might do could just as easily be done by anyone. Every evil committed by a cop could only be committed and gotten away with by those operating under the safety net of being a cop. Cops are allowed to commit evil by "virtue" of their job. Things you or I would rightfully be shot for doing, cops do every single day.

So, when someone doesn't like the truth that "cops are scum" being shared, and tries to make the case that you are being as collectivist as racists, just remember: "Cop" is a behavior, not a "race". To deny that some behaviors are evil is denying reality.

#CopsAreScum

Letting "the law" control you

If you go out of your way to make an effort to break a "law" just because it's "illegal", you are just as much a slave to the "law" as those who go out of their way to obey.

Monday, May 02, 2016

Statists are crazy wrong

Statists are often somewhat right about the problem, but crazy wrong about the causes and the solutions.

Crime is a problem. Real crime, not victimless "crime". But it's not as large a problem as statists believe. If they were realistic about the amount of crime there is, it would eliminate a lot of their justifications for government/The State.

They see crime and are quick to blame "illegals", guns, drugs, and whatever else their particular bonnet bee happens to be, but don't notice that the root cause of actual wrongdoing is aggression, and the biggest advocate (or "normalizer") of aggression is the belief that it can sometimes be right. Particularly if done in the name of The State.

And their "solutions" inevitably revolve around giving The State more excuses to commit aggression and theft.

Yes, they are actually that crazy. That's why they are still statists. And why they continue to be so wrong about the causes and solutions for problems.

Sunday, May 01, 2016

Punishment addiction

I understand where the base desire for punishment comes from- it comes from the same place the acceptance of theft and aggression comes from.

But it often causes more of what it is claimed to stop. Especially when imposed by The State.

I used to be a fan of punishment. Therefore I can still understand the attraction, even though I have moved on.

But, if you believe you can teach someone to not violate person or property by making them suffer through their own person or property at some future time, it seems to me you don't understand people very well.

People never believe they are going to get caught. They will be the exception. So, they don't fear punishment, because that only happens to people who get caught.

And things such as imprisonment create a culture you have forced them to join- as punishment- where they can learn more justifications to violate person and property, and more skills to carry it out. It's a stupid, self-defeating "solution", even if you can't think of anything better right now. Even if you believe doing anything else means they "got away with it".

I see people who are hung up on punishment as addicts. Nothing you can say will convince them they are shooting themselves in the foot. It's something they must see for themselves, if they are to ever see it.

KentForLiberty pages