Cops I have known

I feel bad for the good people I have known who became cops. I know some of them had the best of intentions. Yes, some saw the pay and the "authority" as tempting bait, but even those managed to convince themselves this was a way they could do good while collecting rewards. Maybe they were even still good people as long as they were off the clock, but no one can be good while being a cop. Not anyone.

I have also known those who had aggressive tendencies and gravitated to "police work". I'm sure that's not a surprise to you. I know one who did something highly "illegal" (but victimless) just before he became a cop. And another who constantly had to be carried out of a bar because she invariably drank til she passed out- do I think her self-control improved after she put on the badge? Ha.

I have known some good ex-cops. They were disgusted with what cops have become, of course, but even they weren't good people while they were being cops. They only regained their goodness after they quit that "job".

I have also known current cops I mostly got along with. When not "policing", they were OK, but while being a cop, they weren't good. In fact, some were downright horrible. One thing I never forget: if around a cop, never forget he is a cop first, an acquaintance second. Never let your guard down. Never mistake him (or her) for someone you can trust.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

A self-advertised hypocrite attracts attention

I am not a fan of Holy Pole Quilt (AKA The US Flag). However, this is an interesting local(ish) situation brought to my attention.

These are flapping on a pole at a cop's house in the Big Town just west of here:

I couldn't figure out what the top sheet represented, but my contact said he thought it was a Dallas Cowboys item. After a little checking, I believe he is right.

But, obviously, the bottom rag is a proclamation that Blue Line Gang lives matter more than yours or mine.

My contact says that doing this kind of thing to Holy Pole Quilt is "illegal".

Could be. I don't care about that, but what does bother me is that this cop, who my contact says is also "a reservist" (a government military thing), would gladly molest people for doing equally harmless things that he disagrees with. And you know he would. It's a requirement of his gang membership.

I have no issue with him proclaiming himself a terrorist (as all cops are), nor with him showing his love for a sportsballing team. Flags only have meaning if you give it to them, and other people's flags are not your concern. However, if you are going to be committing acts of law enforcement against your neighbors, you might want to consider not being a hypocrite.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Finding scapegoats

It is so much easier to blame someone else than to take responsibility for your own screw ups.

Government and "laws" create drug problems and the gang violence that goes hand-in-hand with prohibition. So statists blame Mexican drug gangs. And gullible people buy it.

Government and "laws" make it safe for thugs to prey on a disarmed victim pool. So statists blame guns and foreigners. And gullible people buy it.

Government and "laws" ruin the economy. So statists blame "illegal immigrants" for "taking our jobs" and call for tariffs and trade barriers. Conversely, government's welfare scam robs people of their rightful money, also ruining the economy, and statists blame "illegals" for using the handouts instead of working. And gullible people buy it.

"Immigrants" are an easy scapegoat, and "borders" are a knee-jerk response. So statists grasp and clamor to be rescued. And government uses them.

Government and "laws" screw things up and offer a "solution" to those willing to use them to violate others. And gullible people buy it.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

In which I'm exposed as a "true bigot"

"Spoken like a true bigot."

That's the reply I got to a comment I made on Facebook to the picture below.

What was this truly bigoted comment?

"Wearing a haircut like that is about the same as putting on a cop/military uniform. It's not "fair" that people will see the wearer a certain way, but it is certainly understandable. And, a haircut, just like behavior or a uniform, isn't something you are born with and can't change (like "race"). I'm very sorry, but if I see a person with that haircut, I am going to be cautious and probably avoid them, for fear they are a government-employed aggressor, out of uniform. The risk of assuming the person isn't one is just too great to be worth taking."

First of all, I understand the picture to be tongue-in-cheek. I don't even consider that the quoted odds might be accurate. It's a JOKE.

But, after getting that out of the way...

Ancient humans didn't survive to reproduce if they got eaten by a bear. It was dangerous to not see a bear that was there. It wasn't dangerous to believe you saw a bear, when it was only a rock. Those who mistook bears for rocks didn't survive long, while those who mistook rocks for bears did, even if they were wrong. Even if they got laughed at.

Cops are modern humans' bears. Or pigs. Or ManBearPigs, perhaps. Either way, it is more dangerous to not see a cop that is there than to "see" a cop that isn't-- to mistake a person who merely looks sort of like he might be a cop for a cop. Again, it's not "fair", but it's reality.

I understand that some people who are not cops, and may not even like cops, like to wear that haircut. I also understand why they would be upset at the assumptions other may make about them when they notice the haircut. Really. I get it. I have also experienced bigotry over my hair. It's not pleasant, but it just is what it is. If I want to change that reality, I can change my hair in mere minutes. So can someone wearing their hair in a way that makes them look like a cop. It comes down to what is more important to you.

Every choice you make WILL have consequences. If you choose to wear your hair in a style that is associated with cops/military, it seems whiny to be upset when people treat you as though you may be a cop.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

A loser's competition

I see both "liberals" and "conservatives" (or any statist/archator in general) as really dumb. So dumb, in fact, that I can't bring myself to care whether they feel the same about me.

Which of them is dumbest at the moment is whichever one I'm noticing. And, pretty much, if they have done something noticeable, and that almost always means they did something stupid. It's the only trick they have.

Both of them sometimes take the right side-- the side of Rightful Liberty-- but they can't stick to it. They waffle as soon as they don't feel comfortable with where the path leads. And Rightful Liberty never leads to statism.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Dealing with Princess Snowflake, a government employee

As I have mentioned before, against my wishes, my 9 year-old daughter is stuck in "public school".

I do my best to not make it worse for her.

I need to do better.

This year she has a very young, inexperienced "teacher" who is very brittle and delicate. My daughter likes her, and I try to keep it that way. No need to make her more unhappy than she is.

A few weeks ago, the woman sent out a message saying that the students were having trouble with the math vocabulary words.

I nicely mentioned that I would have trouble learning them the way they were being "taught" (but I didn't use sarcastiquotes).

The woman sends home a list of math words, stripped of context, and defined with other words the kids probably don't know. And my daughter has a much better vocabulary than most of her classmates, so if she has trouble understanding what is being said, I can only imagine the trouble other kids are having.

I politely said that, divorced from context, my daughter was having trouble attaching meaning to the words, and remembering the relationships. And, that if I were in the kids' shoes, I would also be struggling. I ended by saying I realized it wasn't her fault, that she was only teaching what (and how) she was required.

I got back a somewhat snarky reply, saying the words are taught in context in class (which just illustrates my point), and that if I had questions, I needed to call her. It was very dismissive.

I didn't call. She ignored my point when written out, why should I believe she would listen to me speak?

So, I let it drop and things haven't changed. Why would they?

But weeks later I got a message that my daughter wants to call me to come get her out of school every day at about 9:30am. She is distracted from completing her work, and is making the other kids upset, wondering why she doesn't want to be in school. The woman said my daughter told her this particular day that her pet had died, and she was very upset. She finished by saying that she cares about my daughter and doesn't want any kid to be unhappy in school.

Remembering my previous attempt at communication, I confirmed that a pet did in fact die during the night. Then I said, quite simply and honestly, that my daughter doesn't like school. That's it. I didn't say "hates school" or anything. And, I included a link to this: “Why Don’t Students Like School?” Well, Duhhhh…

I thought that would be fairly safe; not from a libertarian source, nor anarchist, or even from unschoolers.

I thought wrong.

My daughter's mother (I foolishly forwarded the "teacher's" message to her) contacted the woman and tried to find out what was going on. The teacher said she had gotten 2 comments from me (counting the one weeks before, apparently) and they made her "uncomfortable".

I wasn't mean, nasty, or unpleasant, and I certainly wasn't threatening to her. I can see no reason for her to have felt "uncomfortable" from my messages.

Well, suck it up, Buttercup. You are in a "job" that violates my daughter's life, liberty, and property (and mine, too). You enthusiastically sacrifice education for schooling. I consider you a child abuser, or at least an accessory. And yet I am still being nice when I need to deal with your unresponsive, entitled self.

Henceforth, if I need to refer to you, I will refer to you by your new name: Princess Snowflake.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Political creatures can't run your life

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 25, 2017)

Another year, another president. Some people are optimistic; others are wringing their hands in apparent horror. As with every president, I'm a disinterested observer.

Presidents and other such political creatures haven't mattered much to me since I was in my twenties and began to grow out of my desire for a leash.

There has never been a president who had much impact on my life, unless I foolishly paid more attention to him than was warranted. The longer I live, the less frequently this happens.

Don't get me wrong-- I'm grateful America narrowly dodged the Clinton bullet and "only" got cracked over the head with Trump. I'm always mindful of small favors.

Many on the left are upset because the winner of the popular vote didn't win the office. I agree, although they undoubtedly won't appreciate my agreement. The reason for this is clear when you notice a fact studiously ignored when the election results were publicized.

The overwhelming winner of the popular vote was... "none of the above". Not Trump, but not Clinton, either. That's right-- the majority of people eligible to register and vote chose to not vote for a president at all, and their choice was rudely (and incautiously) ignored. Yet, some political addicts still believe elections are legitimate.

It has been pointed out, and may even be true, that ignoring the Los Angeles and New York City areas, Trump beat Clinton in the popular vote. I'm all for ignoring those two cities-- they have undue negative influence even without letting their politics control the rest of the population. However, the residents of those cities voted for a different ruler than the one being foisted upon them. Maybe it would be better to let them have the president they want, even if it isn't the president the rest of the country has. In fact, let every person who believes they need a president have the president of their choice. If this results in having 325 million presidents, so be it. This is the only possible path toward self-responsibility and rightful liberty, anyway.

No one can run your life better, or knows the details of your wants and needs more intimately, than you. You are the sovereign ruler-- the inalienable king-- of your own life, despite the contrary opinions of politicians, and the hirelings who impose those opinions. Don't abdicate your rightful throne to any pretender holding political office.

Best of luck, Mr. Trump. You'll need it.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Quit doing the wrong thing

If you are violating the life, liberty, or property of anyone, you are doing wrong.

It doesn't matter if everyone does it.

It doesn't matter if everyone accepts it.

It doesn't matter if other people believe you are doing a good thing.

It doesn't matter if it's always been that way.

It doesn't matter that you love someone who does it.

It doesn't matter if you believe you're being useful or necessary.

There is simply no way to be in the right and violate life, liberty, and property.

Please, just don't do it, and if you do, please quit.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

The employer of the useless

Due to my utter lack of marketable skills, all my life people have tried to steer me toward government "jobs".

Just out of high school, I even looked into taking the post office test before being told I wouldn't be considered for hire because I wasn't a "veteran", so there wasn't any point. I'm now glad I didn't.

Once, a friend tried to get me a job with the state parks department. It turned out the only thing the guy interviewing me was interested in was getting me alone in a tent- which I picked up on during the interview, so the proposed camping trip "to see what the job entailed" never occurred.

And, people have told me I should be a teacher or other things that generally end up being government "jobs". I won't consider it.

But I do find it amusing that being pretty much useless results in being told to get a job with government. It's safe. It's lucrative. And apparently, you don't have to be of any use to anyone to collect the check financed by theft.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Begging to be enslaved

From the blurb on Amazon about Eric Fromm's "Escape from Freedom"*:

The pursuit of freedom has indelibly marked Western culture since Renaissance humanism and Protestantism began the fight for individualism and self-determination. This freedom, however, can make people feel unmoored, and is often accompanied by feelings of isolation, fear, and the loss of self, all leading to a desire for authoritarianism, conformity, or destructiveness. (emphasis mine) 

Wow. If true, that's hard for me to take. And I pity anyone so pathetic.

"Unmoored"? Being chained to an aggressive thief makes people feel steady and safe? Can a person like that even be considered a person? Human, yes. I can see that, but without apparent "personhood". Pitiful.

"Feelings of isolation"? Nothing is so conducive to mutually beneficial relationships as liberty. If someone can impose themselves on you, you may not be "isolated", but is rape really preferable to solitude? Maybe some statists really believe so.

"Fear"? If liberty scares you, maybe you should commit a crime so you can be locked away for your own peace of mind- where someone else will make all your decisions for you and protect you from the unknown and the random.

"Loss of self"? Your "self" craves to be controlled? Not unless you are a hive insect. Instead, freedom gives you back your self. If you don't like you, or don't trust you, that could be uncomfortable, I suppose.

But, at the root of it all, I don't care if a person is so pathetic they feel they "need" "authoritarianism, conformity, or destructiveness", what I do object to is when these pitiable creatures feel the need to impose their shortcomings on their betters. And, yes, the truth may hurt their feelings, but those who don't need to be controlled, and don't desire to control others, are quite definitely better than those who don't want liberty.

I am an abolitionist, but I won't force you to be free.

-

*I haven't read the book, but maybe I should. Although, I try to limit the "serious reading" nowadays. For sanity's sake.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

This is where to find Socialist Utopia

Where is socialism successful, and those living under it happy and healthy?

The same place where magic is real, where faster-then-light travel is possible, where shape-shifters live.

Fiction. All those things are in fiction. Books, movies, TV shows. But only in fiction.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

If you want to coexist with me...

No matter how I feel about a particular religion-- be it Islam, Christianity, Statism, or the belief in "authority"-- your beliefs are your business.

As long as you don't act on those beliefs by archating.

It's not my problem that you are Muslim until you try to force Sharia on people who aren't Muslims.

It's not my problem that you are Christian until you try to force Bible-based rules on people who aren't Christians.

It's not my problem that you are a statist until you try to force your "laws" and Rulers on people who aren't Statists.

Whatever your beliefs, don't use them to justify violating anyone who doesn't share them and I can coexist with you just fine.

But, once you do, I will not feel the slightest bit bad for defending myself or others from you and your beliefs. And your death at the hands of your intended victim will please me.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Getting from Here to There

I've been pondering "gradualism" and "pragmatism"-- things over which I have disagreed with people in the past.

And, I'll probably continue to disagree in the future.

Let me illustrate my thinking.

You are Here. You want to be There. (I'll assume for the moment that "There" is Rightful Liberty, where everyone's right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights, is respected completely.)

If the path between Here and There was a nice, grassy meadow without threatening life forms or geological features, there wouldn't be a problem. Just go.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Between Here and There are dangers and troubles, both seen and unseen. There are snakes and swamps and canyons. There are vast expanses of scree, and creeks. There are rutting bull elk, mosquitoes, bears, "laws", and cops. These things can't be completely avoided by skirting the territory; they might be minimized a little, though.

So, how to deal with it?

Some people want to go the long way around, befriending the mosquitoes and appeasing the cops out on the perimeter, while avoiding the hard path.

Others want to plow on ahead, just shoving their way through everything until they either get where they wanted to be, or die in the attempt.

Still others pick their way across, taking the shortest possible path the best they can, but never forgetting the destination.

The problem I have with those who try to go completely around everything is that too often, they forget where There is. Or that it even exists. They become comfortable with the status quo and hate anyone who threatens to remind them of There. They grow attached to some of the things they should recognize as wrong. Like cops, "laws", "nice" politicians, and the government military. Then they behave as a collaborator against those who refuse to pretend that bad things (and people) are not bad. They may even begin defending these violations.

And that's what I can't stomach from "gradualists" and "pragmatists".

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Principles, or a convenience?

If you have principles, they don't change just because you are personally affected by something.

If you do change, it means you probably didn't have principles to begin with, but were just following your feelings; a convenience.

Or, maybe you realized your previously held principles were wrong. It happens.

Or, maybe you have reasons why you felt the need to abandon your principles. I suppose that happens, too. The only reasons for that I can see involve a desire to do something your principles told you is wrong, and the desire to do it anyway was stronger than your attachment to your principles.

I recently saw a person publicly declare he is rejecting the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) after years of following it. The reason: Someone had insulted his girlfriend and he decided that the ZAP was inconvenient and "pacifist" because it informed him that using violence against the insulter would be something he didn't have a right to do. He didn't like this and started posting links claiming that words cause real harm.

He totally missed what the ZAP is.

It's not a Law, it is a promise.

I have always said, if you feel a need to do something you have no right to do, go ahead and do it. And live with the consequences.

If you reject the ZAP, my question to you is this: Who do you want to attack without feeling bad about yourself?

Please check out the Zero Aggression Project

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Government doesn't serve community

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 18, 2017- This one never showed up on the website. Perhaps it was deemed "too dangerous" or "rude".)

 I believe serving the community can be a wonderful thing. However, the idea of service has undergone some peculiar mutations over the years.

The best way to serve the community is to do the best job you can, being useful, and not violating anyone's life, liberty, or property while doing it. Avoiding violations is the bare minimum to qualify as service. Master this and the rest will fall into place, even if you don't get the same praise and recognition as those who draw attention to themselves.

Those on the government's tax-funded payroll, who are often considered by their peers and a fawning public to be serving the community, aren't. If your job empowers you to violate or control others who have no choice but to fund you and are not permitted to refuse your service, you aren't serving them-- no matter the justification. Please quit.

The cashier is serving the community. So are the waiter and the dish washer. As is the good mechanic, and the dog walker. The knowledgeable hardware store employee who can help people avoid costly mistakes is serving heroically. Being paid for your service doesn't diminish it, as long as the pay is completely voluntary and your customers can choose to go elsewhere, or to opt out entirely if they don't want or need your service.

If people have no choice but to fund your job through taxes or other fees, you aren't serving them. You are preying on them. Even if you are doing something they might hire someone to do in a free market, compulsion means they aren't your customers, but your victims.

It would be nice if people would flee those kind of jobs, and seek jobs which are mutually beneficial and one hundred percent consensual. Jobs which actually serve society by helping individuals.

Yet, serving others doesn't even necessarily involve your job.

Pick up litter where you see it, and never contribute to the trash blowing in the wind. Open doors for those behind you. Lend a hand when you can. Don't drive aggressively, or distractedly.

Mind your own business unless invited to give your opinion or assistance. Be a good neighbor in every sense of the concept.

These are things you can do to have a positive impact on the people around you-- your community. Don't let self-contradictory definitions warp your view of what constitutes service. You can do it from where you are right now, and if you do, I honor your service.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Antifa"- just another type of anti-liberty bigot

"Antifa" are archators.
Just as bad as the fascists they claim to oppose.
So are Democrats and Republicans and other socialists.

Sure, they all fight among themselves, but they are NOT on your side. None of them. They are all just different flavors of anti-liberty bigot.

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. Sometimes, as in this case, they are far more alike than different.

But, I do enjoy seeing them keeping each other busy and out of my hair. And I can't grieve when they hurt one another. It always seems so well-earned.

Socialist thugs

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Honoring "Law"

There is a fairly easy way to know when you can discount the next thing someone will say: when they say something positive about "the rule of law", or that "America is a nation of laws".

When I hear those things, I know the next words will be statist apologetics; justification to violate the life, liberty, or property of someone, somewhere, for some "reason".

Because, somehow, those "laws" which are touted never benefit the Rightful Liberty of the individual, but only some collective concept.

"Laws" of both kinds disgust me.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

"Context"

"Context" is a concept I have recently seen used a couple of different times to justify archation. As in, you just have to understand where "they" are coming from. They aren't wrong, they just understand the context of things. Put yourself in the shoes of people who want to give themselves permission to violate the life, liberty, or property of others.

I understand "context". I also understand it is inferior to principle.

"Context" means rape is OK to those who are afraid of principle.

Everyone who seeks to justify statism of any degree is afraid of principle. They have to make a choice-- and they do make one. They choose "context"- also known as "situational ethics".

It is true that not every decision is a "right or wrong" dichotomy. There are some "maybes" out there; some gray areas. But most of those where people want to claim "context" are clearly right or wrong, and the people wanting to use "context" are wanting to feel good about doing the wrong thing. Consequences don't care how you justify your archation.

It depends on the "context"?

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Response: Not Being ‘Evil’ Does Not Mean Being Foolish

enlightened rogue responded to my post Does evil justify evil? with this response: Not Being ‘Evil’ Does Not Mean Being Foolish

And, I agree with him to a point. But I do have a problem with this:

"Treating the symptoms of any problem will not ultimately correct its cause, but it will help lessen suffering from those symptoms and help prevent still further problems." 

If treating the symptoms makes one comfortable enough to forget about the cause, the cause will stop being responded to. And this is what I see happen time after time. People only squeal about the symptoms as long as they are uncomfortable, but if you can make them comfortable again, they refuse to think about the cause until they are once again uncomfortable. I want statists to suffer from their poor choices.

 It's a difficult mess, to be sure.

Edited to add: If the symptoms aren't fatal, and the root cause is, treating the symptoms isn't "helping" anyone.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

(Steemit link)

Donation request

If anyone would like to help me afford something my 9 year-old daughter is asking for, a one time donation of $20 to $40 would really help.

It's nothing "important" enough for me to get myself into financial hot-water over, but it's important enough to her (and thus, to me) that I decided to make the request.

I also request that if you are a subscriber or previous donor, you ignore this and let someone new enjoy the endorphin rush this time.

Thanks for your consideration.

.