One year

It's been one year.

And, to be honest, the past few weeks have been rough for me. To the point I have been having trouble functioning, sleeping, and thinking. But, I mostly pulled out of it last year, and I will again.

It's almost totally arbitrary- this idea of the "anniversary". Time isn't cyclical. But, for me, this date on the calendar now has a stain, and will serve as a reminder each time it comes up again. I feel as though even acknowledging it with this post is probably counterproductive, but this is all I cared about today.

I will say this, though. This blog and you, my reader, have given me something of a purpose over the past year. A constant reason to think of other things. Even the recent election distracted me as this date approached. My son and 9 year-old daughter (and especially her, being 9 and keeping me busy) also helped immensely.

I just want to thank each of you for sticking by me and giving me some purpose.

Thank you.

-

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


(Steemit link)

My scheme has so far failed

Just so you know, when I become a "celebritarian" I will use my fame to obtain sexual favors from willing women. I warn you of my intention now so as to avert any scandals later.

Plus, I've admitted in the past that I'm here for the groupies (they do seem to be sorely lacking so far).

However, there will be no contracts. No possessiveness or jealousy. No threats. No gaslighting or browbeating. I only want totally willing and enthusiastic participants.

I expect things to heat up any time now. Any time...

Hello? Bueller? Anyone? Oh well.

-

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


(Steemit link)

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)

Government feeds on your fears

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 12, 2016)

Liberty is more powerful than fear (my chosen headline)

Government needs you to be afraid.

They depend on your fear of crime, including terrorism (and, apparently clowns) to make you believe you need them. This fear causes you to give away your liberty and dignity for the illusion of security they promise. The solutions they offer are designed to feed your fears by making you focus on nearly-nonexistent threats.

Above all this they want you to fear them and their abilities. If they can also make you feel guilty, even better.

They let it slip that they are reading your emails, texts, social media posts, and listening to your phone calls, because they want fear to cause you to censor yourself. If you censor your words, your thoughts may soon follow suit.

They want you to fear what will happen if you don't ask permission for one of the thousands of activities they pretend to have authority to license. Once they stop issuing the licenses, you'll forget your ability remains.

They make examples of some people they catch to demonstrate the cost of disobeying their directives, because they want you to fear arrest. This way you won't try to do any of the perfectly ethical things they prohibit.

It's quite a scam they've got running, yet the moment you stop being afraid, they lose their power over you. And that terrifies them.

They fear you and me more than we fear them. Consider all the ways government shows it's afraid.

Notice how many government buildings now hide behind concrete barriers and "controlled access" entrances. Look at the road closures around government facilities.

Hear what a cop actually means when he insists on disarming you "for both our safety". Here's a hint: it's never about your safety when an armed antagonist disarms you.

Stop for a moment and reflect on the level of cowardice behind "no guns" signs, metal detectors, and pat downs. They are terrified of their bosses-- you and me-- being armed, even though they have armed minions among them whom they exempt from the rules they impose on you.

They also fear you knowing what they are hiding from you, to the point they ponder killing, with drones, your champions who expose them. This isn't the way it was meant to be.

You deserve greater liberty. Stop letting anyone convince you to be afraid. Be responsible for yourself and help others who can't help themselves. Your life will improve noticeably once you've discarded the fear.

-

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.


.

Appreciating small "favors"

I don't v*te, so I obviously don't v*te for "the lesser of two (or more) evils".

That doesn't mean I can't appreciate when one of the lesser evils gets imposed on me instead of the greatest evil.

And, make no mistake, I am firmly convinced, due to decades of experience, that Hillary Clinton was that greatest of evils.

Just because I'm relieved the blizzard hit my house instead of the tornado doesn't mean I wanted the blizzard. (OK, bad example- I generally love blizzards. But you know what I mean.) I also don't believe it would make any difference if I petitioned the weather and requested the blizzard over the tornado. I'm better off preparing for both rather than begging the atmosphere to respect my wishes.

I'm slightly relieved when the one I believe (and it is ONLY a belief) I'm better equipped to survive strikes. I won't choose a lesser evil, but I'm glad to avoid the greatest evil.

Yes, Trump has many insane ideas which would be disastrous for liberty- "stop and frisk", a border wall and mass deportation, and "protectionism" of various sorts. However, I expect him to break those promises- as all presidents do- if he doesn't get assassinated by the Hillarites first. That's why even his scary promises don't worry me too much. I will still oppose "laws" which violate anyone's Rightful Liberty, no matter the justifications, no matter who they come from.

Whatever happens, I will continue to behave as I always do; hoping for the best while preparing for the worst.

-

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


(Steemit link)

"Why don't they talk 'Murican?"

Sometimes it's expressed "Why don't they talk right?" or "Why can't they just learn to talk like us?"

Usually said by people whose grammar is atrocious.

Sometimes I think people see more evidence of intelligence and humanity in the look in a dog's face than in the conversations of people speaking a language they don't understand.

But they forget that window works both ways.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Cops, and my emotional response

My emotional response to cops can be illustrated by imagining finding half of a decomposing mouse in the burrito you have been eating.

My emotional response to those who support cops in any way can be illustrated by imagining watching someone eating, and enjoying, that burrito after they've discovered the rotting mouse.

When they notice me vomiting in disgust, they hate me and call me names, and get in my face to scream "You can't seriously believe society can get by without these wonderful mouse nuggets in our food, can you? That's Utopian!"

But, that's emotion. Emotion is obviously wrong to experience, and foolish to express. Just eat your burrito, ignore any strange smells, textures, or flavors, and love those heroes in blue.

-

I will say this, though: Expressing support for cops is expressing support for murder, rape, slavery, theft, and every other evil. You can deny it, and complain that I exposed it for what it is, but that is the absolute, unalterable fact. It's not emotion; it's not opinion. Cops are what they do, because "police" is a set of behaviors, not a person, and if you support them, you are supporting their acts. Yes, you really are- stop denying it. Do what you will, but civilized folk are watching you.

-
(The Steemit link for those who do that sort of thing, and would like to help without sending $$)

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

Message for Hillary supporters (and Trump supporters, too)

-

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


(Steemit link)

The election is rigged

"In this case, a rigged election is largely assured. Because, as I have taught you, shenanigans always happen when you have the following situation:

1. Huge upside gain from cheating.
2. Opportunity
3. Low odds of getting caught, or low cost of getting caught." (link)

And, yet, people will play the rigged game in spite of it all. You'll get what you ask for.

-

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

V*ting, demonstrated

-

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


(Steemit link)

Evil "energy vampires"

Presidential candidates and sitting politicians are a perfect analog for those "energy beings" from the classic Star Trek series- you know the ones.

The ones who feed- vampire-like- off of negative emotions and aggressive energy.

The only way to make those entities go away, or starve to death, is to stop feeding them. Stop giving them what they need to survive. Notice what they are, and how they are using you, and refuse to be used one more day.

I can't make you, of course.

But, it sure would be a nicer world if you'd laugh at them and make them scuttle away and leave everyone alone.

They are NOT legitimate. They don't deserve your respect. They are not "leaders", but seek to be rulers. They are parasites and vermin. Treat them as such. They have earned it.

(See also this video)

-

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


(Steemit link)

My anti-v*ting guide

Cold, hard logic would suggest that you refuse to keep playing a rigged game against professional cheaters. But if you are going to v*te anyway, here are a couple of thoughts I have for you.

NEVER Hillary Clinton. Just not ever. No way, José. Years ago I had a friend who was friends with the Clintons and he told me to NEVER trust her. His advice in every area was always excellent. He never lied to me or steered me wrong. And, believe it or not, I just googled him and he's apparently still alive.

NEVER William Weld. I'm agnostic about Gary Johnson, but William Weld is a non-negotiable toxic lump of dog crap. He's not simply not a libertarian, he is actively and enthusiastically ANTI-libertarian. He illustrates "anti-liberty bigot" as accurately as Hillary herself. To v*te for the LP candidate this time is like continuing to eat at a restaurant that serves you a giant cockroach in your meal, and refuses to apologize for it. You simply can't reward that sort of behavior, and your v*te IS a reward. Just don't- I plead with you.

You are going to do what you do. Think long and hard about it first.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Being good is right, even if illegal

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 5, 2016 - from now until whenever, my CNJ columns will appear in the Wednesday paper.)

 Dare to be a good person (my chosen headline)

What is a good person, and why bother trying to be one? I define a good person as someone who doesn't intentionally harm innocent people or their property, makes it right when they harm someone by accident, and who does their best, whenever possible, to help those who need it.

I can even be talked into scratching the part about helping others as long as no intentional harm is committed against the innocent. Mind your own business and don't hurt anyone and you are most of the way there. I wish I could honestly say I always live up to my own standards.

Most people act fairly good the majority of the time. Why? Well, why do you, personally, act good? Do you behave yourself only because you are afraid you'll be punished if you don't? In that case, you aren't good, but only pretending. Being good when you are afraid of consequences is empty. If a person refrains from attacking and stealing only because someone-- whether human or supernatural-- might punish them, they aren't a good person.

But there is even more to it. Doing something just because the law says it's OK, or even required, is not good. Obeying the law has nothing whatsoever to do with being a good person; often quite the opposite. Some of the best people are outlaws, and some of the worst are bad specifically due to their support for legislation which intentionally or incidentally harms the innocent. Such as ObamaCare, or the barbaric War on Politically Incorrect Drugs-- the 21st Century version of Prohibition which they didn't even bother to make quasi-lawful this time by amending the Constitution.

Allowing laws to stop you from doing the right thing is also not good.

How many people neglect to defend themselves or come to the aid of others because they are afraid of the legal trouble they could get in? How many fail to consistently carry the proper defensive tools just because government pretends to have the authority to regulate them?

How many people comply with legislation and taxes which destroy their ability to provide for themselves or help others financially? Opening a business is good; interfering with the free market is bad. Every business which never opens due to all the government fees, taxes, licenses, and red tape is a lost opportunity for good.

Why be good? Because it works, and is always the right thing to do, even when it's illegal.

.

-

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. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.

The only thing you don't have a right to do

The list of things you have a right to do is an infinite list.

You have an absolute human right to smoke pot, carry a gun, be fat, act silly, trade with others, be a racist, believe in a "flat Earth", drive a car, say offensive things, have sexist thoughts, speak your mind, wear a hat, travel, learn, have mutually consensual sex, read, own and modify a home, pick your nose, or uncountable other acts.

Really there's only one thing you don't have a right to do: to archate.

As long as the thing listed above is done without archation, you have a right to do it.

Archation comes in many guises. The mugger and the IRS employee are archating. The cop and the little parasite "playing" the "knock out game" are archating. The burglar and the game warden are archating.

Archation is the opposite of anarchy. It is the use of the political means, rather than the economic means. While not limited to those calling themselves "government" it is behaving as a State acts; using aggression or violating private property. If you add archation to anything you otherwise have a right to do, you don't have a right to do it. Not that way.

And, if you try to prevent people from doing anything they have a right to do, you have become the bad guy. It is no different to use a "law" than to use a gun- if you are archating, your method is irrelevant.

You have no right to govern other people. To attempt to do so is an act of archation. Your victim has the right to defend himself (and others) from you. If you don't like that reality, stop being a thug.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Let people be wrong

If you believe in liberty, I believe that must include giving other people the freedom to be wrong. To do the wrong things. To do things they have no right to do sometimes. Things that embarrass you.

I think that includes not demanding that they not v*te, not hold a government job, stay off welfare, or whatever.

Even if they are family members.

Liberty is never controlling.

Tell them where you stand, why you think they are wrong to do what they are doing. Then step aside.

Yes, you have the right to defend yourself, but you are not always required to do so. Weigh each situation. Are they directly archating?

You are also not required to let someone violate you. Again, weight the situation. Maybe you simply need to get away from certain people. Or to put your foot down if they want to make you go along with them. To say "you may not violate me" isn't controlling anyone- although I have heard people make that claim with a straight face.

Letting people be wrong is probably one of the hardest things I ever do. And one of the most essential, when dealing with statists.

Let people be wrong. Don't hide the consequences from them- let them see the connection between their poor choices and the results. Maybe, if they mention it later, suggest a better way. You don't know who it may get through to.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Set it and forget it? Nope.

One of the sillier arguments against self responsibility (also known as anarchism) is "If you get rid of government, someone will just start another one. Humans always have and always will."

So we should never do anything that's not permanent? Like eat, bathe, or anything? If a battery would have to be recharged, there's no point in even using a device?

Yes, the tree of liberty needs to be periodically watered with the blood of statists. And your toilet needs to occasionally be flushed. It's just reality.

Almost everything in life needs to be repeated. Nothing is permanent. Even statism requires periodic elections, appointments, rituals, and the replacement of employees who finally become good government employees by getting embalmed or cremated.

If you want a permanent fix which can be done once, then ignored forever, you aren't mature enough to be responsible for yourself.

-
(If you do such things, please go "thumbs up" this on Steemit)

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

The religious ritual of v*ting

The only reason I can see for a liberty-leaning statist to v*te for Gary Johnson is as an attempt to break the hold of the DemoCRAPublicans. He's no libertarian and his running mate William Weld is an authoritarian monster and anti-liberty bigot right up there with Donallary Clump (and actually much worse than one half of that twisted statist chimera).

But since it's all a superstitious ritual anyway, even that's a weak justification. Politics matters only to the extent you let it matter.

I will admit this, though- the v*ters are right about one thing. V*ting in and of itself is not an act of aggression.

Demanding that I go along with the results of your v*te, however, IS an act of aggression. If you would impose the results of your election on me by force, you are an aggressor. A thug. A bully.

You wouldn't want to be a thug, would you? Then have your election and leave me alone. I do not consent.

So, v*te, but keep it classy and non-aggressive. Remember that it's nothing but a religious ritual, and the results don't apply to those who aren't believers in your religion of Statism. You can't demand that atheists tithe or go to confession, and we laugh at your threats to excommunicate us. Nor do we fear your Anarchist Hell, knowing it is really much preferable to your Statist Paradise. Your religion doesn't have any hold on us.

I will not abandon my home just because the mafia moved in. So keep your "If you don't like it, move to Somalia" comments to yourself, or I'll suggest that if you love authoritarian government so much, perhaps you'd be happier in North Korea or Venezuela.

V*te if it makes you feel as though you've accomplished something, but keep your filthy government off my life. Thanks.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Hillary's weiner

Don't misidentify things

Once, in a high school zoology class, the teacher set out a bunch of preserved samples for us to classify. It was for a quiz or a test. We were to study them, and then be able to identify them on a test the next day.

I noticed that a flounder was mislabeled as a "skate" or "ray"- a completely different type of fish.

I pointed this out to the teacher.

He said that since he only had that one specimen as an (incorrect) example of "Chondrichthyes" I needed to pretend that's what it was for the test.

I told him he was teaching the students something that was wrong- misleading them. Giving them bad information. He insisted that it didn't matter, and I needed to just go along.

I refused. I kept saying "but it isn't what the label says it is!"

He had a bit of an outburst and said I was beating a dead horse.

I dropped the matter, but didn't ignore the lie.

I don't remember the outcome, other than I refused to call it something it wasn't just to satisfy him. Did he mark my answer as "wrong"? Or, did he give me credit for the unwanted right answer?

I'm still the same way. I won't misidentify something just to make a liar more comfortable. And they still don't like it.

-

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


(Steemit link)

Taking Teddy Bears

There is a situation someone was sharing on Facebook that made me really angry.

A friend's daughter had a stuffed toy rabbit she'd had and loved since she was a baby- maybe since she was born. She is now 13 years old and still loves and sleeps with the toy.

And someone stole it, just to hurt her.

If that's not evil, then nothing is.

Her dad believes he knows who stole the toy, but can't prove it. Without proof he can't go kicking in doors and choking suspects- because he isn't a bad guy.

You might think a 13 year-old ought not be that attached to a toy. I might agree in principle- but I have to admit I can completely empathize with her. She wasn't hurting anyone. Whether she "should" be that attached to a toy isn't the point- she was, and someone violated her property and hurt her. On purpose.

That infuriates me.

I know there are others who are just as attached to other things- or even myths they mistake for things- that are harmful. Like The State.

If what they love so much didn't directly violate other people, I would say you need to leave them alone and let them keep their figurative teddy bear. The problem is, with the State, their teddy bear only continues to be as long as it is fed the blood of innocents.

These are the people who- as long as they can't stay out of the lives of the rest of us-  need to have their beloved thing ripped from their hands and destroyed. Not innocent 13 year-old girls whose beloved possession isn't harming anyone.

-

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


(Steemit link)