Saturday, October 07, 2017
Echo chambers aren't an option
I'm not going to stop writing to go to a video format, but just offer these as a bonus of sorts. I make more videos than I post here. If you haven't yet subscribed to my amateurish videos, take this opportunity to do so.
Friday, October 06, 2017
"Conservatives" are just statists
My contempt for "conservatives" grows. Almost daily. Which is strange, since my own personal preferences would probably lean mostly toward what outside observers would call "conservative".
Most of the behaviors that would label someone a "liberal"/"progressive" hold no interest whatsoever for me.
I really want to have sympathy for "conservatives", but their hypocrisy makes this very hard.
And it really comes down to the way they want to impose their preferences at the barrel of a government employee's gun.
I understand that you don't want to smoke crack. I'm right there with you. But to then decide it's OK for government employees to kidnap, rob, and cage people who choose differently is vile. And the same goes for everything else "conservatives" feel entitled to molest people over. They want their values forced on everyone.
Look, if someone is archating, do what you have to. But if they are simply doing things you don't want them to do, without archating, you need to leave them alone (beyond trying to talk them out of it, perhaps). If you can't do this you have become the bad guy. The archator. Just don't.
Trying to convince me of your rightness, while using government to impose your preferences, is always going to fall flat. Your arguments are hollow. I see you as a bigger threat than just about anyone else out there. You could be so much better. Just let go of the superstition that holds you down and makes you wrong. Come to the good side-- we have liberty.
Thursday, October 05, 2017
Who causes most of life's troubles?
It sure would be nice if life could go the way I believe would be better. At least for a while. That's not usually how it goes.
It's not that there's usually anything particularly awful going on, just more of the same. A break seems like it would be nice.
Life brings trouble, so knowing the alternative...
It would be comforting to blame others for my troubles. It would be easy. And dishonest.
Whose fault are my troubles? Mine. Without a doubt.
Even when I can point to specific people who cause trouble for me, it is almost always my fault they are in a position to cause problems to me. Due to my previous bad decisions or other things.
And I also know my troubles are not the fault of statists, not even mass-murdering ones. I could manage to screw things up in my own life in a free society.
That's not to say statists don't make things worse with their "laws", theft, and aggression. Of course they do.
But most of the responsibility lies with myself. And I know this from experience-- when I lived in a freer place, I still managed to be my own worst enemy. That's why I don't still live in the freer place.
So, even though I write about external things the most, I focus more of my own time and effort on working on myself. I have no idea whether that's what I "should" do or not, but I do know I can't change other people; only myself. I'm a work in progress, and always will be.
I appreciate those who stick by me and encourage me.
Thank you.
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
Make no mistake...
Everyone who wants any anti-gun "law" is promoting mass murder.
Any politician who proposes any anti-gun "law" is befriending mass murderers.
Any cop who enforces any anti-gun "law" is collaborating with mass murderers.
That is the simple fact of the matter, no matter how you feel about it.
Stating this fact during or immediately after a mass murder occurs, knowing what the anti-gun bigots will already be promoting, may not seem "in good taste" to those anti-gun bigots who want to preach without contradiction (or to the wishy-washy folks who enable them).
Well, neither is mass murder or encouraging it. SHAME on you!
The "feeling people" say it's time to talk about gun laws
They ALL need to either be abolished or ignored. Permanently. And I really don't care which. Either one would have the same positive effect.
Again, the recent massacre occurred, and was more deadly, in large part because of the existence of "gun free zones" and because of anti-gun policies that made it less likely that good people in the hotel could respond quickly to an evil loser.
As it happened, 72 minutes was considered "quick response" for people with guns to show up to stop the evil loser.
Every anti-gun "law" only affects the good people who don't want to hurt innocent people; never the evil losers. It's like giving them a hall pass to kill.
It's time to end this evil loser-enabling "culture" once and for all. It's time to make a truly polite society rise from the ashes.
-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Donations and subscriptions make me happy!
Follow me on Steemit
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Donations and subscriptions make me happy!
Follow me on Steemit
Tuesday, October 03, 2017
Was the Las Vegas murderer an anti-gun bigot?
-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
A special "Thank you" to M.L. whose thank you note kept bouncing.
Any and all donations and subscriptions are greatly appreciated!
Follow me on Steemit
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
A special "Thank you" to M.L. whose thank you note kept bouncing.
Any and all donations and subscriptions are greatly appreciated!
Follow me on Steemit
"Ban all the things!"
Parenting. Fun fun.
A few days ago, my daughter was playing some online games, and came across one she has decided to hate. When she saw it she said "I wish they would ban that game!"
I asked if it wouldn't be better to just not play it if she doesn't like it. Leave it there for the people who do like to play it. I asked "How is it hurting you?"
This is how statism gets a grip. It's too easy to call for something you don't like to be banned. Even if something is wrong or harmful, banning it isn't the proper way to deal with it.
She moved on, and later even played the game she had wanted banned, with a friend.
I really try to not lecture-- although she considers anything I say to be a lecture. I hope she is learning to figure these things out for herself.
(She's still more mature than the anti-gun bigots proudly displaying their ignorance, stupidity, and evil in the aftermath of the Las Vegas mass murder.)
Monday, October 02, 2017
Las Vegas concert "security"
Just look at the picture above and notice how safe those disarmed-by-law people seem to be. It must warm Nancy Pelosi's heart-like blood pump.
It has been reported that "security" was checking attendees for weapons as they entered the Las Vegas concert area.
Yeah, that worked. "Security". Theater. Magical thinking.
But the Mass Murderer Cheerleader Club is dancing in the blood of the dead and wounded, calling for more of what failed to save lives. As they always do. Anything these idiots propose would enable more evil losers to kill more people. It's the inevitable result of everything they cry out for.
Do I believe they have "good intentions"? Maybe. Some of them do. But others know enough to know exactly what they are advocating. They know where their path leads, and they don't care. They want it anyway.
Anti-gun "laws", rules, and policies NEVER make any innocent person safer, and sometimes make them less safe. Sometimes they lead directly to death.
In this case, the policies didn't make anyone safer, but didn't really contribute to the death and destruction, either. If you have a policy that doesn't help, but can hurt, you are stupid or evil-- maybe both-- to keep implementing it. You are definitely evil to advocate doing more of it, harder.
Yes, that's right: stricter "security" won't stop things like this, but will only make them easier to commit. "Security" could have made everyone strip and attend the concert naked after being probed, chemo-sniffed, and rape-scanned by TSA machines. It wouldn't have saved one life-- unless you count those who would refuse to be treated this way to attend a concert and went elsewhere.
Sometimes there's just nothing you can really do when some evil loser decides to kill people. But that's no excuse to keep doing the wrong things; things that never help and sometimes hurt.
Anti-gun bigotry is wrong. It is evil. It kills innocent people. Don't enable the bad guys by trying to restrict guns; fight back by refusing to be unarmed.
I know, pointing this out isn't nice. Sorry, but I'd rather be good than nice.
-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Any subscriptions or donations are greatly appreciated!
Follow me on Steemit
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Any subscriptions or donations are greatly appreciated!
Follow me on Steemit
Las Vegas mass murders- random evil
-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
A few donations and subscriptions would sure be helpful!
Follow me on Steemit
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
A few donations and subscriptions would sure be helpful!
Follow me on Steemit
Your responsibility to not archate
They get very excited about (your) responsibilities, but manage to gloss over or ignore one of the biggest responsibilities there is: the responsibility to not archate.
That is, the responsibility to not violate the rights-- the life, liberty, and property-- of others, even those rights you don't like.
Yes, that is a human responsibility that can't be eliminated, no matter how unhappy it makes you.
This trips them up every time. It's a good way to distinguish between libertarians and the "conservatives" who like to make liberty noises as long as things are going their way.
There are other responsibilities, of course. Some of which I don't particularly enjoy. But really, if you gloss over the responsibility to respect the rights of other people, you're not going to be a good person even if you live up to every other responsibility you have.
Sunday, October 01, 2017
Government can't protect you from disaster
(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 30, 2017)
Each time there's some potential calamity on the horizon, I hope people will have learned this truth from history: government can't protect you. I am usually disappointed.
Whether it's a hurricane, blizzard, disease epidemic, economic collapse, or the aquifer running dry, your safety is not government's responsibility; it's yours. In most cases they couldn't solve the problem if they tried. All they can do is spend money which isn't theirs to spend, hold meetings so they'll appear to be doing something, and issue orders you're expected to obey.
Sometimes those orders are smart; other times, not so much. Occasionally, following their orders brings disaster.
With hurricanes, for example, be smart enough to evacuate if that's what you need to do. Be prepared in case you can't get out. Realize every decision has consequences.
Governments can't distinguish between clueless people too stupid to know when they should evacuate, and people who know what to expect and who have prepared by doing what they needed to do to be able to ride out the storm.
Granted, there are more of the former than of the latter. But sometimes the prepared are driven from their homes-- at gun point-- along with the foolish, and put in situations more dangerous than those they are forced to leave behind. All because someone believes they know what's best, and is willing to force their beliefs on others. One size fits all in the eyes of the State.
This is wrong, even if it's "for your own good".
I'm not suggesting people stay put, then call 911 as soon as they realize they've bitten off more than they can chew, expecting to be rescued. No one has the right to put others at risk simply because they're stubborn, or because they made a choice which didn't turn out like they expected. "Never before" doesn't mean it never will.
Life isn't simple. You have to do the work. Even if someone volunteers to do it for you, no one values your life as much as you. It's your job to live it and defend it. No one can be paid enough to care as much as you do. No one knows your situation better than you do. It's up to you, and if you are hoping someone else will save you from the dangers of the world, or from your own poor decisions, you may have an unpleasant shock in store. Plan ahead. Don't be caught off guard.
Each time there's some potential calamity on the horizon, I hope people will have learned this truth from history: government can't protect you. I am usually disappointed.
Whether it's a hurricane, blizzard, disease epidemic, economic collapse, or the aquifer running dry, your safety is not government's responsibility; it's yours. In most cases they couldn't solve the problem if they tried. All they can do is spend money which isn't theirs to spend, hold meetings so they'll appear to be doing something, and issue orders you're expected to obey.
Sometimes those orders are smart; other times, not so much. Occasionally, following their orders brings disaster.
With hurricanes, for example, be smart enough to evacuate if that's what you need to do. Be prepared in case you can't get out. Realize every decision has consequences.
Governments can't distinguish between clueless people too stupid to know when they should evacuate, and people who know what to expect and who have prepared by doing what they needed to do to be able to ride out the storm.
Granted, there are more of the former than of the latter. But sometimes the prepared are driven from their homes-- at gun point-- along with the foolish, and put in situations more dangerous than those they are forced to leave behind. All because someone believes they know what's best, and is willing to force their beliefs on others. One size fits all in the eyes of the State.
This is wrong, even if it's "for your own good".
I'm not suggesting people stay put, then call 911 as soon as they realize they've bitten off more than they can chew, expecting to be rescued. No one has the right to put others at risk simply because they're stubborn, or because they made a choice which didn't turn out like they expected. "Never before" doesn't mean it never will.
Life isn't simple. You have to do the work. Even if someone volunteers to do it for you, no one values your life as much as you. It's your job to live it and defend it. No one can be paid enough to care as much as you do. No one knows your situation better than you do. It's up to you, and if you are hoping someone else will save you from the dangers of the world, or from your own poor decisions, you may have an unpleasant shock in store. Plan ahead. Don't be caught off guard.
Some things are constant
It's good to be open-minded and remember that you might be wrong.
However, it's not really necessary to constantly re-evaluate whether you have the right to archate.
I mean, if it makes you happy to keep ruminating on it, go ahead.
But, just like you don't need to wake up each morning and test to see whether a dropped egg will still fall, you don't need to wonder if it's still not within your rights to walk around shooting random people or walking into their houses and taking what you want.
Some mental exercises are probably a waste of time. (Yes, I know that's a shocking statement, coming from me.)
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Nationalists, flags, and "leftist commies"
I see that the Sportsballer/Holy Pole Quilt flap is quickly separating the liberty respecting individualists from the collectivist State apologists. And it's not pretty.
Yes, your boss can probably force you to worship an idol while you are on the clock, but no decent boss would ever do that. And no self-respecting person should feel obligated to accept such a "job" offer. (Of course, thinking this way is why I am perpetually broke, so feel free to disregard my opinion.)
Declining to participate in a government extremist ritual isn't much of a "protest" if you ask me. Especially since kneeling instead of standing and repeating the chant is still participating. It doesn't even approach what I would consider a protest. But nationalists are easily triggered.
I also realize that the sportsballers have no clue. They don't understand what they think they are protesting, in most cases. Maybe a few do, but for most it's still just a form of going with the crowd.
But, if you are going to start ranting about how the "protesters" are "commies" or something to that effect, then you are aligning with the State, in the worst way possible.
Against liberty.
Against everything the country you believe you are standing with supposedly stood for.
You are choosing collectivism over liberty.
You are siding with Rulers.
You are the one acting like a commie, regardless of your projection and angry words to the contrary.
If you choose statist rituals over liberty, you are not on the right side, even if some of those you rant against are also wrong.
Friday, September 29, 2017
"Police corruption" is meaningless
Are police corrupt?
Is the mafia corrupt?
Would the old Chicago mob have been OK if Al Capone* had just cracked down on the corruption in his gang? Or, was the problem more systemic than that? Was the mob functioning exactly as it was intended to?
If your purpose, or at least the real-world manifestation of your "purpose", is evil, how can the word "corrupt" even have any meaning to your situation?
What would a non-corrupt street gang look like? If you eliminate the evil deeds, nothing is left. It is no longer a gang, but is just a non-archating social club.
For police to not be "corrupt" they would have to be funded voluntarily (no "tax" funding at all).
They would have to stop enforcing almost all "laws" and only spend their "on-the-job" time protecting life, liberty, and property.
They would stop enforcing any "law" that forbids you from doing something they are allowed to do (carrying a gun into a post office or school, for example). Yes, this is related to the previous point, but important enough to separate out.
They would have to come down hard on any cop who violated life, liberty, or property, and not form a "blue wall of silence" around him.
They would be accountable for any violations, and would accept the restitution they owe-- personally and individually, not paid to the victims by the "taxpayers".
They wouldn't "patrol", but would only come when invited.
In other words, they wouldn't be cops.
-
*Yeah, I realize his mob was less corrupt than today's police, but ignore that for now.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Government needs you (to lie)
Government is empowered by lies. Its own, of course, but those aren't the most vital lies.
It needs your lies in order to survive. Truth kills government, but telling the truth has a heavy cost.
Expressing support for cops is either lying, or is actively supporting evil.
Denying that "taxation" is theft is lying.
Insisting government can be good is a lie.
Lies lies lies.
Those who want you to lie will look for ways to hurt you if you tell the truth about their gang. And they have a lot of power at their disposal. In the long run, lying in support of government is still more destructive and harmful. This isn't an exercise you'll survive-- but neither will they. No one gets out alive.
Lying for government brings temporary comfort, at a price.
Supporting government is an exercise in denial. It is denying the truth in favor of lies. It is support for the worst humans can do to each other. Why not just bite the bullet and be honest, instead?
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
How to waste your time
Arguing for the "legitimacy" of the State (or government) with an anarchist-- using legal definitions and statist concepts-- is as pointless as threatening atheists with Hell for not believing.
It's just not going to work.
You are speaking gibberish while trying to defend the indefensible to someone who doesn't believe in the things you put your faith in.
And even bothering to respond, as an anarchist, to the statist making the "argument" is probably a waste of time.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Child sacrifice- "everyone does it"
"Public school"- or, more honestly: kinderprison.
Does it magically stop being child abuse just because "everyone does it"?
How does that work, exactly?
Would it not be child abuse to sacrifice your children to Moloch if that was the expected thing to do in your society?
Kinderprison is child sacrifice to the god of The State. Even if their bodies survive, their minds are less likely to. Almost no one escapes without at least some mind damage after going through "public school".
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Why not just ignore monuments?
(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 23, 2017- running a bit late.)
If I were to give advice to the Leftist protesters across the country, it would include this: ignore the monuments of your enemies.
I have no love for those who built and strengthened the government. Any government. I consider it ridiculous to memorialize such people in bronze. But their statues can serve as reminders of past mistakes. Plus, they are useful pigeon roosts.
When you remove statues and monuments, you haven't erased bad events of the past. You've hidden their reminders. You've swept those events under a rug. It's like covering evidence of historic crimes. Leave them on display to remind yourself "Never again!"
There are also those who practically worship those symbols; they might as well be idols. Some people get part of their identity from them; some of their self-worth. Tearing down those statues is only going to cause more trouble. It's going to fragment society even further. This is not the time for that.
I'm not in favor of paying a solitary cent to ever again create another statue to honor a politician or member of the government's military. But, of those which are already there and were funded with tax money, the money is long gone; it will never be returned to its rightful owner. Those paid for with voluntary donations, while they shouldn't be on "public land", are otherwise none of my business.
So why not simply ignore the symbols you find repulsive?
I see courthouses, police stations, public schools, and city halls as symbols of oppression and tyranny. They aren't just reminders of a terrible past, but are monuments to contemporary slavery-- a concrete burden on individuals, and thus on civilization, today. Yet I don't generally advocate for them to be demolished.
As long as the underlying beliefs which prop up those structures remain, you and I would be forced to pay for their replacements. It's those archaic ideas and beliefs which need to be abolished; the physical structures are only a symptom.
Could you find tolerance for the symbols you despise so you'll have the moral high ground when someone starts calling for the demolition of the historic symbols you value?
If you make it socially permissible to destroy monuments to things you hate, you make it acceptable for your enemies to tear down monuments to things you love, too. Do you really want to go down this path and see where it leads? This is what comes of politics-- consider yourself warned.
If I were to give advice to the Leftist protesters across the country, it would include this: ignore the monuments of your enemies.
I have no love for those who built and strengthened the government. Any government. I consider it ridiculous to memorialize such people in bronze. But their statues can serve as reminders of past mistakes. Plus, they are useful pigeon roosts.
When you remove statues and monuments, you haven't erased bad events of the past. You've hidden their reminders. You've swept those events under a rug. It's like covering evidence of historic crimes. Leave them on display to remind yourself "Never again!"
There are also those who practically worship those symbols; they might as well be idols. Some people get part of their identity from them; some of their self-worth. Tearing down those statues is only going to cause more trouble. It's going to fragment society even further. This is not the time for that.
I'm not in favor of paying a solitary cent to ever again create another statue to honor a politician or member of the government's military. But, of those which are already there and were funded with tax money, the money is long gone; it will never be returned to its rightful owner. Those paid for with voluntary donations, while they shouldn't be on "public land", are otherwise none of my business.
So why not simply ignore the symbols you find repulsive?
I see courthouses, police stations, public schools, and city halls as symbols of oppression and tyranny. They aren't just reminders of a terrible past, but are monuments to contemporary slavery-- a concrete burden on individuals, and thus on civilization, today. Yet I don't generally advocate for them to be demolished.
As long as the underlying beliefs which prop up those structures remain, you and I would be forced to pay for their replacements. It's those archaic ideas and beliefs which need to be abolished; the physical structures are only a symptom.
Could you find tolerance for the symbols you despise so you'll have the moral high ground when someone starts calling for the demolition of the historic symbols you value?
If you make it socially permissible to destroy monuments to things you hate, you make it acceptable for your enemies to tear down monuments to things you love, too. Do you really want to go down this path and see where it leads? This is what comes of politics-- consider yourself warned.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)