Killing aggressors

The only ethical "death penalty" is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything else is revenge.

This doesn't mean you are unethical if you don't kill the attacker, no more than that you are unethical if you do. Your choice.

The burden lies on the person who chose to archate, not on the person who had to react.

I only question the use of "should"

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Police" is not a "race", it's a gang

Recently there have been more and more attempts to make awareness of the scumwad nature of cops somehow comparable to racism, or automatic hatred of people with tattoos. Yes, really.

The story goes that you can't judge a person by the color of their skin, the tattoos they wear, or the uniform they put on. It's a lie. And, it seems very racist and insulting, too.

No one wakes up one morning and decides what color skin they'll have. And even if they did, skin color means nothing about the content of the person's character.

Sure, tattoos are chosen, not inborn, but again, they mean nothing about how the person wearing them will act. Aggressors could have tattoos of bunnies and unicorns, and the best person you know could have a tattoo of a gang symbol, wormy skulls, or Bernie Sanders' face. 

Police, though, wake up each and every day and make the choice to enforce harmful and arbitrary "laws" against people in exchange for money stolen from their victims. It's not about the cop as a person, it is about the aggression and theft they commit as a condition of keeping the "job". But, the fact a person would choose to do that shows something very important about their character.

Yes, sometimes cops do good things. So do other gangsters. It doesn't excuse the existence of the "job" in either case.

Cops are not a "race" or an expression of personal taste- they are an aggressive gang. The worst and most dangerous aggressive gang in America. Being aware of this fact doesn't make you a bad person, so don't feel guilty.

I understand some people are afraid and believe cops will protect them... you can't fix cowardice or stupidity.

Not a race; a gang

-

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

(Steemit link)

"Diversity"

Diversity.

Voluntary diversity is a good thing.

Forced "diversity" is disastrous.

Forced anything is.

Forced "charity" is theft. Forced "safety" is slavery.

Recognizing the disastrous nature of forced diversity isn't justification for government "borders", though, because forced division is just as harmful as forced diversity. Government's involvement can turn any idea into garbage.

Anything government touches turns to crap. Good thing government won't touch liberty with a 10-foot pole!

Diversify or else, feline!

-

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

(Steemit link)

Statists are so boring

I'm getting less and less interested in responding to statist's objections.

Their objections are boring. Mostly because their objections never change. Recycled endlessly by people who don't know their "new" objection has been addressed (and obliterated) over and over again-- over the centuries.

They don't care, because they won't hear. Or, perhaps they can't hear because they don't care.

If I respond, they'll not be moved, but will only dredge up another old, moldy objection-- seeing it as fresh and clever. And it won't be.

Sure, it's possible that a silent observer will see the interaction and come to a new realization as to how inconsistent and hypocritical- and delusional- the statist positions invariably are. So that's why I haven't totally stopped responding to these type of comments. But, especially on FB, I pause and consider whether a response would be useful, and more and more I realize it wouldn't be. So I just skip over it.

Statists bore me with their inability to think critically and outside their imaginary box. They lack originality. But they can sure type lots of words!

-

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

(Steemit link)

Understand instead of judging?

I constantly get scolded, and I'll bet you probably do, too.

We shouldn't be so judgmental.
Just accept that some people have perfectly legitimate reasons for being rapists, kidnappers. Nazis, communists, cops, murderers, or other archators.
They feel they are doing the right thing.
Just try to understand where they are coming from.
Don't be so arrogant as to believe your way-- to reject the violation of life, liberty, or property of others-- is somehow better than theirs.
They have different experiences, and different values, after all.
You should just listen to them to see their perspective. Then you'll understand that they aren't wrong; just different.

Right?

Understand them enough?

-

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

(Steemit link)

Law becoming justification for violation

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 1, 2017)

You might be shocked to learn how little regard I have for the law. Or, maybe you wouldn't. This doesn't mean I approve of harming others, their property, or their rights; quite the opposite. It just means I recognize the law for what it is. Instead of being protective, the law has become the most common excuse used to violate people. Laws, and the State which imposes them, are the opposite of civilization; they are anti-social.

As Lao Tzu observed over 2500 years ago "The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become".

America is there. Maybe not so poor, economically-- although so much poorer than we could be otherwise-- but poor in spirit.

There are only two kinds of law: the unnecessary and the harmful-- it could be argued they are the same. Laws prohibiting murder or theft are unnecessary; such laws are irrelevant to your right to defend yourself and others from the acts in question. And any law which restricts your human right to live as you see fit, as long as you don't violate others, is actively harmful. More and more, laws are the justification for violations; exempting certain people from consequences of being the violator, as long as they are acting on behalf of the law.

The disconnect between legal and right has gotten so large it is finally being noticed by ordinary people.

To say "There ought to be a law" is to plunge another knife into the chest of society. To support the laws which already exist is to twist one of those knives a little more.

It's also dangerous. The more tightly controlled any system becomes, the greater the likelihood of catastrophic collapse from unexpected events-- no room is left for adapting. If modern America isn't yet to the point where everything not forbidden is mandatory, you can see it from here. Where does this leave people room to learn to make right choices? It doesn't. Too many people think "Is it legal?" instead of "Is it right?", from a lifetime of training.

If every decision is already made for you by a law, it's easy to believe that's what you should do. No thought required. Ethics and morals become obstacles.

If forced to live in a wheelchair, your leg muscles will waste away. If propped up by multitudes of laws, your moral sense and your ethical radar will waste away in exactly the same manner. I prescribe some exercise, instead.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Spreading love and humanity

Love and humanity and worthy goals. I believe you should make an effort to spread them far and wide. Even toward people who mean you (and others) harm.

To a point.

In spite of what some might believe, defending innocent people from aggressors- however you do it- is also an act of love and humanity.

Sure, you can show compassion and forgiveness to aggressors. And that can be an act of love and humanity. But, how much more loving and humane is it to defend the innocent from those who have made the choice to violate them?

How loving and humane is it to watch someone be violated, and refuse to act because that wouldn't be a loving and humane response to the aggressor? Not very.

-

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. 
Any donations or subscriptions are GREATLY appreciated... even though by asking, or apparently by including this message, I show myself to be a failure and a loser! Thank you, anyway.

(Steemit link)

A little money rant

It shouldn't get to me, but it does. It's completely my fault; I let it.

When I interrupt the blog to ask for money, I already feel bad enough. I hate doing it.

But, then, when I do, some people want to make it worse. It has happened several times over the years. Does that make them feel better about themselves?

I visit many blogs every day.
Most of them have standing requests for donations, much like the tag I put at the end of most of my posts. So?
Sometimes they make special pleas when something comes up, as I sometimes do. I am free to donate or to ignore the request.
If I don't feel like donating, it still doesn't offend me that they ask. Why would it? No one is forcing me, or threatening me. If it's a case of that blog disappearing if not enough donations are received, and if that would matter to me, I'll donate. If not, I won't complain to them because they asked. This seems about as childish as it is possible to be. I have never stopped reading a blog because they asked for money- if I don't want to hear it, I ignore those posts and just read the ones that interest me.

Many times their requests are for thousands of dollars.
For example, here's a donation meter I copied from someone's blog (with the identity blocked out to save them the "embarrassment" of publicly asking for money):

I wish!     

I wonder if Mr. Anonymous goes to that blog and all the others and criticizes the requests. Or, is it just mine?

Notice both the amount asked for on that blog, and the amount received. Never have I asked for that amount, and never would I expect to receive anything that would even show up on that meter as more than a red puddle in the bottom.

No, I get along the best I can, and when I need to, I request a little extra. Often, none comes through. And that's OK. No one owes me ANYTHING.

It is completely up to the reader to decide if I am worth helping or not. And whatever the reader decides is the final word. I have never been offended that someone didn't subscribe (which I don't exactly consider charity) or donate (which I do). As always, if someone doesn't want to help, can't afford to help out, or has better things to do with his money, I DON'T WANT him to donate!

Is that really so unreasonable?

Maybe my little effort to contribute to the debate isn't worth what that of other writers and bloggers is. I can accept that. I'm small potatoes. Not at all important in the grand scheme of things. No one knows who I am, nor cares. I will never be a shaper of society's opinions. I am not a "mover and shaker", but just someone who expresses unpopular opinions in a tiny, insignificant eddy of the internet. I'm fine with that. It's not about how much work I put into it- it's about the value others see in it. I do many jobs where the value others see in my labor doesn't come close to the effort I put in. I suspect that's a universal thing. It's just life. I could choose to do something others would value more.

If it bothers you that I sometimes ask for money, I have to wonder why you would ever visit blogs at all. Or, again, is mine just so unworthy that the mere mention of the need for money is offensive, while others can do it and it's OK? If you notice it's a "bleg" and that annoys you, just move along. Read someone else's blog post. If it bothers you so much that it's not worth seeing what I say ever again, go in peace. It's fine.

So, yeah, I know I shouldn't let people like that get to me. But I'm human, and sometimes they do, especially when I feel like they are kicking me when I'm down.

-

No offensive bleg today

Alphabetical listing of every good State

.

My "beggar blog"

"Why donate to someone who can not take care of their own bills?Way I see it, your constant begging for money is not getting you much money.I just laugh every time I run across your beggar blog."

I admit it, my personal economic model is flawed. I do the work, put it out there for free, and hope people will see fit to pay me for it.

This doesn't work as well as I might hope.

But you are free to read without subscribing. I never ask anyone to donate or subscribe when they'd rather not, or if they can't afford to, or just have better things to do with their money.

So, to answer your question, Mr. Anonymous, don't. There is no "why" if you don't want to. Read without paying, there will be no consequences​ and no hard feelings​. I'm not like a theater owner who'll kick you out for sneaking in to see a movie without paying. You have my permission to be here, or not.

You can also skip the posts were I ask for donations, subscriptions, or gifts, if that makes you happier. No worries.

Glad my troubles​ amuse you. I guess that's another service I'm not forcing you to pay for.


.

S.O.S.

A bill has unexpectedly changed the due date, and so of course I will be hit with overdraft fees (if it's not already too late to avoid that), so... if you have been considering subscribing or contributing to KentForLiberty, this would be an excellent time from my perspective.

Please, and Thank you.

.

Supporting government "services"

It strikes me as strange when I am trying to take someone's side, yet they get upset because I don't agree with them hard enough.

This happened recently where a woman was saying there aren't more libertarian women because she feels looked-down upon because she doesn't home school, and she feels that this is because other libertarians see educating the children as "a woman's responsibility". This seems utterly bizarre to me, but OK.

I said:

"Unschooling doesn't require a particular gendered parent to facilitate the unschooling. (Neither does traditional "homeschooling") Either/or... or both. Why would anyone demand it's the 'woman's place' to help the children gain an education? That's just dumb. I think kinderprison is a tragedy for the kids. Yet, my daughter's mom insists she attend (against her will), and my relatives (who are almost all involved in government schooling) back her up. Now my daughter has zero interest in learning anything- which she did before she was subjected to school. There will be consequences for my daughter's life. And I would very happily be the parent helping her to unschool- only partially because I see kinderprison as child abuse.
I know circumstances often make it seem impossible to save kids from 'public school'- and maybe it's almost impossible. But I really don't see it as aimed against women."

I probably could have worded some parts better and more clearly, but this was an off-the-cuff response where it seemed to me she was getting piled on by people making quasi-religious points about a woman's greatest privilege and highest calling and so forth. I honestly thought I was taking her side.

Her reply seemed to indicate she was angry with my comment because her kindergarten-age son loves school and does well in it.

Hmmm. OK.

Even if your kid loves "public" schools, and thrives under Prussian-style training, that doesn't justify the existence of a theft-funded, coercively imposed "system". And I'm sorry if that truth hurts your feelings. It's not about women versus men- although I'm sure some would like to see it that way.

Some people love having cops around. It's still unethical to hire them with stolen money and have them impose counterfeit "laws" on people. No amount of your appreciation, support, and flourishing can ever change that. Evil sometimes works very well, and some people love it. It's still wrong.

Some people thrive in criminal gangs. Some people find their apparent full potential as a burglar or as a kidnapper. They find self-worth and value in strange places. Some people do well in prison. Some people just love their Stockholm Syndrome.

Even if there is something I love, and feel I couldn't live without, I know it is never right- it simply can't be right- to use the political means to get it. Never. Not even if I love it and thrive with it as currently "provided" by government. I'm not so delicate that reality will offend me and make me feel picked-on.

I understand- there are government schools. My opposition to them isn't going to make them magically go away. My own daughter attends one. Even if she loved it, and was doing better in it than she would be doing without it (which I can't know without a "control"), it would be wrong of me to support government schools. That would be selfish. I also have no issue with people using government "services" they are forced to pay for whether they use them or not. I might prefer people shun them on principle to make them useless and unused, but that's not realistic.

If I am attacking the theft and coercion behind some things, don't take it as an attack on you for using those things- unless you start being nasty in defense of the status quo and making it about some tangent that buzzes your bonnet. In that case, since you identify so strongly with unethical acts, feel free to take it personally. And also in that case, feel free to suppose I wasn't taking your side in the first place.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Walter, Walter, Walter... sigh

Sometimes a person's blind hypocrisy pains me.

Walter Williams could be a genius... if he could just unfetter his mind from those bits of statism of which he approves.

In this piece he clearly explains what constitutes theft-- then he spoils the whole thing by making unwarranted exceptions to soothe his biases:

"To condemn legalized theft is not an argument against taxes to finance the constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government; we are all obligated to pay our share of those."

Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it, too!

Walter, sorry but theft is theft even if you like what the stolen money is spent on. To condemn theft is to realize there is no ethical difference between "legalized theft" and "illegal theft". Both are utterly unethical.

Just because the Constitution empowers theft in order to carry out certain functions doesn't make it OK. You are NOT "obligated" to help a tyrant control you, nor to help him finance it, just because someone once wrote up a rather weak "social contract" and claimed it would apply to you centuries later. Anyone who could possibly, under any imaginable circumstances, have been bound by that agreement has been dead for centuries. If you like the Constitution, invite people to sign it, individually, and live under it voluntarily. I won't sign.

You are partly right, Walter. Liberty isn't for wimps. But, apparently, it isn't a good fit for the ethically inconsistent, either.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Lessons to learn

A woman I never met in person died today. Yes, that happens all the time, but in this case I feel ... guilty.

She first sent me a "hello" on an obscure social media site the day my daughter died- just a couple of hours after I had found out. I did answer, but only to tell her the situation and that I'd have to get back to her later.

I did, and we chatted some here and there, and we even texted back and forth a little. She "friended" me on other social media sites and we kept in touch- not closely, but fairly regularly.

She was troubled, and I knew it.

Her son was in trouble with the "law" and in jail, and she would tell me about his hearings and how they went, and the pain it caused her. She told me about her past drug abuse. She had financial troubles worse than my own. She had some health problems, but she never really said much about it. She loved her dogs and talked about them a lot. Mostly, I just listened to whatever she wanted to talk about.

But it had been a couple of months since I had talked to her, because recently I've been a bit withdrawn and haven't really kept in touch with people like I should.

Then, today, her mother posted on her FB page that she had died. It was the first I had known that things were as bad as they had been. I went back and looked at things she had posted recently, and she had been begging for help, saying she was in so much pain she couldn't even get off the floor to go to the bathroom. Then her mother and others began posting that she was in the ICU. I saw nothing of all this until today's death announcement.

With as many "friends" as I have on FB, I rarely see any particular person's stuff on any regular basis. Not an excuse, just an explanation. Her death isn't really a personal loss for me, so I am certainly not looking for sympathy- save that for those who really knew her. It's just that things like this seem to affect me more now than they used to. I wish I had known how dire her situation had become. I might not have been able to do much, but... maybe. It still brings a pang of guilt that I didn't even know.

So, again, I am reminded to appreciate people while I can, and try to stay aware of their needs and situations. I wonder if I'll ever really learn the lesson.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Stories told to scare children

When I was a kid, my parents told me several times about kids my age who met with tragedy- while doing whatever it was they didn't want me to do. What a coincidence!

One was outside while her dad was mowing and got a segment of wire through the heart when the mower hit some wire hidden in the lawn. So I wasn't allowed to be outdoors while the yard was being mowed. (Until I got to the age where I was encouraged to be the one mowing.)

Another story involved a girl who got her head run over by a car at a gas station while the family car was being fueled. This explained why I was told to stay in the car at gas stations.

Yet another tale told of a girl drowning in a small creek at one of my favorite outdoor destinations. This one didn't keep me out of the vicinity of the creek, though. Some things- such as playing around the Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River- were more important to me than other things- such as wandering around gas stations.

Also, I was led to believe that the beautiful tiger salamanders I would occasionally encounter had venomous bites- deadly! This kept me from picking them up and bringing them into the house- I brought in "horny toads" instead.

Also, judging by the reaction of my parents, the garter snakes I found everywhere were the local equivalent of spitting cobras; their reaction led me to believe these reptiles were deadly to gaze upon and worse to touch- so I didn't start picking them up until I read for myself, and began to discover the nature of the tales I was being fed.

Did I say these stories were meant to scare children? I probably should have said they were intended to manipulate children. Me, in particular. And they worked for a time, but had unintended consequences.

When I discovered the gentle nature of tiger salamanders, and that the worst garter snakes could do was to slime you with foul-smelling goo, I began to question everything I had been told. Was it all just to manipulate my behavior; to make me more compliant?

Were the horror stories about the 3 tragically injured girls just as false? I'm still not sure about that- perhaps I should ask some day. But, if people would mislead me about some things, in order to get me to do what they wanted, would they lie about other things as well? You know the answer to that.

Well, statists tell tales meant to scare you and manipulate your behavior, too.

If there's no State forcing people to pay against their will, there would be no roads, libraries, parks, or education. You would be dead because warlords would have taken over and raped and murdered your whole family. Without the fear of punishment administered by government, it would be "kill or be killed" chaos. People are greedy, prone to theft and aggression, and only the superheroes in government "service" stand in their way. "Democracy [sic] is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." Anarchy is just like communism- it can't work in the real world... because, reasons.

Just like the stories told to scare children, the stories told to scare adults may have lessons embedded somewhere. Yes, people can be selfish and evil. The worst are drawn to government "jobs". Roads would have to be paid for- they aren't free. Sometimes, if a warlord sees an opportunity, and a docile population not inclined to defend themselves, they will take over. It's how government happens.

Yet, civilization is proof that people are better and smarter than the statists believe. Because, government is made up of the worst of the species, and it still usually manages to not immediately result in total global death. In fact, society and civilization manage to continue in spite of governments.

Don't let the fears and lies of pitiable cowards keep you from enjoying your liberated potential. You know how to live to reach it. Sure, listen to the scary tales of doom told by statists, then learn for yourself and prove their stories wrong. You have that power.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Cop supporters share the guilt

Cop-- all cops-- are evil gang scum, not because of who they were born, but because of what they choose to do That is simply the plain truth. But, it would be a waste to spend all your life worrying about it. Or them.

So, I don't.

There are many harmful things in the world. Disease, natural disasters, a variety of bad characters, thieves, and bullies. Cops are just one of many. You'd go crazy focusing on all the bad stuff.

Yes, police are a cancer on society, but just like other forms of cancer, they aren't going to magically go away tomorrow. I accept this fact and ignore the Blue Line Gang most of the time.

The biggest problem, the one which makes me speak out, is that here you have a deadly cancer ... that people worship! What's up with that?

That nonsense demands a response.

Those who worship and defend the cancer justify themselves all manner of disingenuous ways: It's not "worship"- cops are "necessary"- they don't make the evil "laws" they enforce- what will you do when you "need" a cop?- they know a "good cop"- it's just the "bad apples"- cops are all that stands between civilized people and chaos. And so on. Yeah, some copsuckers actually believe the silly things they say.

That's why it is important to keep telling the truth, no matter how upset "the public" gets, or how many times cops and their fan club threaten you. If they would shut up and grow some decent principles and stop supporting those bad guys, people wouldn't need to call them out for supporting evil. But they won't, so we do. And it is a little irritating, because I have better things to do. But cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face- without them, no dictator would ever be more than a local annoyance who would last a short time until someone gets fed up and shoots his nasty noggin. Cops enable evil tyrants. And, if you support cops in any way, so do you.

-

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

(Steemit link)

Chaos is a sign of accomplishment

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 22, 2017)

Most of the political left, following the lead of the mainstream national media, is focusing on what they characterize as President Trump's incompetence and the chaos which surrounds his administration.

He told you he was going to stir things up. Anyone with any sense should know stirring things up is going to cause chaos. Especially so when it affects those who were comfortable with the way things were. While spring cleaning, or draining the swamp, chaos is a sign you are accomplishing something. It is rare to do anything significant without creating chaos.

Chaos isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is it destructive? I fervently hope so.

Destruction is almost always the first step in creating anything new. Try to build a house without destroying some trees for lumber, and without tearing up some dirt and grass. The trick is in destroying the right things without harming anything which needs to be preserved. Much of the federal government which Trump is fighting, including the "intelligence community", needs to be destroyed. This is a battle I hope Trump wins, although I know he won't take it far enough.

To those who don't like what is happening, chaos looks like incompetence. They are probably wrong when they see it this way. Time will tell.

On the other hand, I completely agree that Trump is utterly unqualified to be president. Everyone is. How can any person be qualified to be in charge of a massive gang which violates life, liberty, and property by the daily fact of its existence? There is no such thing as being competent to control other people's lives; in other words, to run a government. In fact, the more competent the ruler, the more dangerous. I fear Trump is probably more competent than his opponents want me to believe.

As an advocate of individual liberty, I am not a fan of President Trump or any other politician. However, I am as uncomfortable with dishonest criticisms of his actions as I am with the honest support he gets as he further destroys Rightful Liberty in America.

There are plenty of legitimate objections to things Trump is doing and plans to do, such as his support of expanded police state tactics. I can appreciate the good without holding back my criticism of the bad. But chasing ghosts like "chaos" and "incompetence" waste valuable credibility which is needed to fight against his very real violations of life, liberty, and property.

-

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

(Steemit link)

It's just life

I just spent the past two weeks visiting with my son. It's nice to have both my surviving kids with me whenever I can- but I hurt because I can't stop thinking of it in that way: "my surviving kids".

I love how much my daughter loves her brother, even though he's 20 years older than she is. She tries hard to not cry when he leaves. I admit to quite a lump in my throat every time he drives off.

I'm also happy that she got along great with his girlfriend, even though she was certain she wasn't going to like her... and I'm glad I really like her, too.

My son has hinted that they might be thinking about moving here. That would be great, and my daughter would be thrilled, but I'm not going to get my hopes up too much.

But, he's gone again for at least 6 months or so. I feel that familiar emptiness. Other things haven't really helped me feel better about life.

The household finances just took another hit. Funny how it always seems to go in that direction, never the other way, while expenses always go up and never down. That's just how it goes, I suppose.

Yet, my daughter is happy. My son is happy and enjoys his job. We are generally healthy. We have a roof over our heads and food to eat. I am trying to teach myself another skill (which my daughter says I will never need to use in real life- like every other skill I have, apparently). My mom is still thrilled about the Little Free Library I built for her to put in her yard. There's good and bad and life goes on.

I hope you are having more good than bad. And I hope you know that I appreciate you.

-

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

(Steemit link)

When should you shoot a Muslim?

I would say... never. With caveats.

First, let me explain about the word "should", because it's important. "Should", to me, indicates an obligation to do the thing in question. I believe "should" begins and ends with "you should respect the life, liberty, and property of others". Beyond that, you have to figure out the best way to do that. I don't necessarily see you as having an obligation to defend yourself or others-- particularly not by specifically shooting an archator. But I hope you would choose to do so when the alternative has a good chance of being worse for the life, liberty, and property of innocent people. And, yes, there's always a chance you could be wrong, and in that case you might owe restitution (which you may not be able to pay). Acting carries greater responsibility than does failing to act-- except in your own conscience.

But, supposing you do have such an obligation, when should you shoot a Muslim? Anytime you should shoot a cop*, a Christian, a shoe-shine boy, or your daughter: when they are initiating force in such a way that you believe innocent life is in danger-- or they are making a credible threat to do so-- and shooting them has the best chance of stopping them while protecting the life, liberty, and property of their intended victims.

It isn't the beliefs in a person's head that make it OK to shoot them, because there's no way to ever know their thoughts for certain, it is the actions they are committing-- or the actions they let you know (by words or preparatory steps) they intend to commit. If you act too soon, or through misunderstanding their intentions, YOU become the bad guy. Act too late, and you allowed something to happen that you will probably regret for the rest of your life (which may be only seconds).

This is why I think it is probably not a violation of the Zero Aggression Principle to shoot a person when they scream (yes, scream, not calmly utter) "Allahu Akbar!" in public. The question is, is such a person making a credible threat to initiate force? Maybe not always, every time, in every place. But, in places without a significant Muslim community? Here in my local area? It would be a good bet, if it ever happened. You would need to evaluate the situation, but the screaming would be a signal to amp up your situational awareness, to go into "Condition Orange" or even "Condition Red", if you had been slacking.

But, just having a right to do something doesn't mean it's necessarily the best thing to do under the circumstances (on either side of this debate). I have a right to carry a full-auto rifle, openly, down the streets of New York City. And, I can almost guarantee you I would die at the hands of members of the Blue Line Gang for doing so. I would be right, and I would be dead. You have a right to go into the courthouse and start screaming about Allah (or Jesus) and you would probably get shot for it. Out on the streets here, twitchy cops around or not, you'd be safer screaming about Jesus, but I still wouldn't be too confident of your long-term survival. If you're going to go around screaming about your deity, you should probably make sure to make no other moves that could be seen as unusual or suspicious to add to your risks. It may not be "fair", but it's reality.

So, yes, you have the right to go into the mall and scream "Allahu Akbar!", but you may not like the chain of events you set in motion by doing so. In the current social climate, many people, probably including myself, would consider you to be making a credible threat to murder innocent people. They might feel an obligation to act to prevent whatever you seem to be announcing an intention to do.

"But... freedom of speech!" The right of free speech doesn't mean there won't be consequences. You also have a right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and there will be consequences for doing so-- don't do it if you aren't prepared to pay the price.

-

*I mentioned this upcoming blog subject to my son, and before I even hinted at my answer, he offered "Same time you should shoot anyone!" Smart guy, if I do say so myself!

-

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

(Steemit link)

Amazing competence

I love being around people who radiate competence. It's part of the reason I love watching blacksmiths work-- everything they do looks like massive levels of competence to me. People making something with their hands, while using good tools, are a pleasure to watch. And useful things are as beautiful to me as any work of art.

But blacksmiths, though among my favorites, aren't the only ones. I love watching skilled leatherworkers, and cabinetmakers, and glassblowers, and just anyone who makes something. I love watching an optician measuring for glasses, and then fitting them to the person. And cake decorators, jewelry makers, primitive survival practitioners, and... There are just so many examples; the longer I think, the more I can come up with.

Beyond the physical, people who can think clearly and explain their thinking, and even make me see it through their eyes, have the same effect on me. I am awed.

I am impressed by competence. I really enjoy exposure to people who are truly competent in something good and useful. I know I am in the presence of greatness, no matter what they may think of themselves.

"Basic" human competence. (Which may be less "basic" and more rare than it ought to be.)

You people amaze me when you are really good at something- and I love it. Keep it up.

I hope I am competent in something, or that I eventually get there. I'll keep working at it, and I hope I never stop, no matter what.

-

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

(Steemit link)