Worse than the worst

I'm sure you've heard of the "knock out game", where some loser just punches a victim in the head without warning, intending to knock the person unconscious.

Yeah, it's a disgusting thing to do. Those people are the worst!

But, to me it would seem even worse to torture the person first by tying them down, taunting them a while, then punching them unconscious. There's the added factor of psychological torture.

And to me, this illustrates the tactic behind State "executions".

Yes, I actually think losers who play the standard "knock out game" are probably less ethically reprehensible than the losers who clinically murder people for the State. And that's a really law bar to begin with.

That's when I ignore the number of those on the death assembly line who have been discovered to be innocent, but railroaded by a corrupt "criminal justice system", "crime labs" that come up with whatever results the cops and prosecutors want them to come up with, and "judges" who have no business judging anyone but themselves. Murder carried out under clinical conditions is still murder-- or maybe it's murder plus.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"The law" is no excuse

Statists make the absurd claim "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", but that's obviously nonsense. If you aren't aware of some random, arbitrary rule made up by some ethically empty control freak, how can you be expected to act counter-intuitively and "obey" it?

Only an idiot would expect that.

Ignorance of the "law" is normal, natural, ubiquitous (even by those who worship and enforce "laws"), and it is most definitely the best excuse.

I would turn the statist's claim around.

"The law" is no excuse to molest, kidnap, rob, and murder people. The "law" is never justification to archate. And anyone who believes it is is a nasty goon.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Same language, different thoughts, no communication

I'm talking about when a discussion gets bogged down because of the different ways people use words, and different definitions... and it results in no communication taking place. No fun!

And I really do try. Normal dictionaries are no help. You can always find a definition somewhere that fits your thinking, and is contrary to the other definitions. Probably under the same entry.

So when this happens I tell them what a word means to me. I link to the "dictionary post" entry. I try to explain what I mean by the word, contrasted against what they mean by the word. Just as a way to get us talking about the same concept, even if we use different words. Deaf ears. They invariably refuse to listen.

For example, to me a right is anything you can do without violating another person, therefore you need no permission to do it. Anything. There are lots of ways to expand that thought, of course, but that's the basic point.

And then I attract attention from people who want to argue over privileges while calling them "rights". Or they want to change rights into privileges by allowing government (or some other gang) to hand out licenses for engaging in that behavior. Ugh.

Yeah, I realize almost no one out there "gets" rights. Too much conditioning, I suppose. Too much belief in "authority".

Sorry, but if it can be lost or taken away, it isn't a right. A right can be violated, though, but that's not the sticking point they usually want to focus on. They simply can't get over their point debating how and when rights can be lost or removed, to justify violating people's rights in one way or another. Because that's where it always leads.

And this same tactic goes on over many other concepts as well. It is frustrating.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Who's responsible?

A while back I saw someone who wanted to make the NRA pay for the medical and funeral expenses of the Las Vegas evil loser's victims. I'm sure he feels the same about yesterday's victims of the evil loser in the Texas church-- or will as soon as he thinks of it.

I guess he's one of those "special" folk who believes the NRA is actually pro-gun rights. LOL!!

But, wait... what is he demanding?

The NRA doesn't manufacture or sell guns. It doesn't encourage evil losers to go out and murder people-- in fact it does quite the opposite as long as you're not a cop or a troop (and yes, it makes exceptions for them, because it loves and worships them with all its shriveled little heart and its fat bank account). The NRA's gun safety programs used to be the big selling point for membership, and safety necessarily includes not shooting innocent people.

The NRA has as much to do with actual guns as Facebook does with breeding cats.

But, if the guy had faced this reality, I'm sure he would have just switched to wanting to force gun manufacturers and sellers to pay the expenses. Or, forcing their insurance companies to pay, if that fails.

And that's just as stupid.

Using a car analogy, as he was doing before running away... If you sell a car and some time later the guy you sold it to (or someone he sold it to) uses that car to plow into a group of kindergarteners, injuring hundreds and killing a bunch of them, should you or your insurance cover the medical and funeral expenses? Or is the evil loser driver responsible for his actions, and should he be held responsible-- or should his insurance  company (if he has any) be financially responsible, according to the contract they have with him?

If, after all this, there's simply not a pocket deep enough to cover all the expenses, either get charity to help, or suck it up. Robbing people to pay for something they didn't do is evil. And so is "regulating" guns.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Liberty an unappreciated necessity

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 4, 2017)

It's a human tragedy that most of us lack real appreciation for life's necessities.

We don't appreciate things until it's too late.

Water is overlooked until you have to scrounge for every drop. I've been thirsty enough to sip water from a rotten stump's hollow, filtering it through a bandanna against my mouth to avoid swallowing mosquito larvae and globs of algae. I've been thirsty enough to drink water, peppered with rabbit pellets, from holes in rocks.

Yet, even I can take for granted that when I turn on the faucet, good water will come out. Occasionally I remember the times water was scarce, and feel appreciative.

You won't appreciate heat, light, or cooked food until you don't have the option of flipping a switch. The appreciation for those modern conveniences grows stronger when you've made every fire by rubbing sticks together.

Do this a few thousand times over several years and it will help you feel gratitude for technology-- even lighters.

In the same way, you'll never value liberty until you've had it and lost it. Almost no American appreciates liberty because they've never actually experienced it. They've been taught to believe Americans are free, and questioning the truth of this statement is labeled "ingratitude".

It's not. It's recognizing reality and demanding better.

Until you are free to live as you see fit, as long as you're not harming anyone else, your liberty is being violated. Until you are free to travel, trade, and protect your person and property without seeking permission from anyone to do those things, liberty is imaginary. If you are required to get licenses and permits to go about your life and business, you aren't free.

No one has the right to require the licensing of driving, carried guns, or businesses. No one has the right to take your money, using the excuse of taxation or fines. No one has the right to prohibit or regulate any part of your life until you tread on the equal and identical rights of others. It is your unrefusable* responsibility to not violate people by restricting their rights, and nothing can change that.

Those who support the violations and celebrate them as "freedom" are lying to you.

Yes, it could be worse.

I'm grateful for the liberties still allowed. I crave the return of those which have been criminalized through the error of allowing government to grow.

If you are grateful too, show it by defending liberty even when everyone around you would rather you didn't.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

A moment of silence-- owed by you and me, anyway

It's time for a moment of silence after an evil loser murdered a bunch of people in a Texas church.

Of course, this silence only applies to you and me. The anti-liberty bigots have decreed that only they are permitted to squeal loudly for anti-gun "laws" in the immediate aftermath.

But sane people must show our "respect" for the victims by keeping our mouths shut, no matter the lies spouted by the anti-liberty bigots. Lies which will inevitably result in more innocent victims.

The same old same old.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Borderists don't understand property rights, part infinity

Borderism in bloom.

"In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will. And 'public property' has borders as well. It is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners. And while it is true that the State is a criminal organization and that to entrust it with the task of border control will inevitably result in numerous injustices to both domestic residents and foreigners, it is also true that the State does something also when it decides not to do anything about border control and that, under the present circumstances, doing nothing at all in this regard will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry." - Bionic Mosquito

First off, "immigration" is a lie used to justify bigger, more powerful government. Government to be aimed at those the borderists want to aim it at, but bigger, more powerful government, regardless.

What was that main theme again? "In a fully privatized libertarian order ... 'public property' ... is the property of domestic tax-payers..."

Ummm. No. Sorry.

In a "fully privatized libertarian order" there would be no "taxes" to be paid by anyone, "domestic" or "foreign". If there were "public property", it would be owned by a group which VOLUNTARILY agrees to pay for its purchase and upkeep and allows the public to use the property at its whim. Not financed through theft. Not really "public".

And this has absolutely no bearing on the borderist argument, no matter how badly they wish it did. Borderism is anti-property rights, because they believe the State's spurious claim on my property trumps mine.

The last 3/5 of the paragraph wobbles between admitting government "border control" is a bad deal for the slaves (and others), and seeking to justify it anyway.

This is just one example of where the borderists go wrong; the examples are seemingly endless. And frustrating. All calculated to reach the conclusion that "feels" pragmatic and cozy, while avoiding the truth.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Mean Ol' Truth!

The truth is the truth. After you have noticed the truth, or had it explained to you, that should be the end of it.

You can complain about the truth, or wish it were otherwise, but the truth doesn't change to make you comfortable.

And this is something anti-liberty bigots really don't like hearing. They either don't believe there is a truth, or they believe their feelings can alter it. It just doesn't work that way.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Letting government control you

If I want to do something, I don't stop just because government decides to mandate it.

For example, I want to wear a seat belt when in a vehicle. I did so long before it became "the law". I didn't stop wearing one when government made it a "crime" to neglect to wear one.

I understand physics. I want to reduce my chances of injury in case of a wreck. I am not under any delusion that a seat belt guarantees anything-- Cheyenne was wearing a seat belt and it didn't help.

But, I know the risks both ways, and that's my choice. I wouldn't dream of forcing my choice on you (but if you are riding in my vehicle, I will ask you to put on the seat belt, and I may choose to not drive you if you won't).

I don't support using "laws" against you if you make a different choice, and I understand that cops who make "traffic stops" based on seat belt use are nothing but bullies and thieves. Maybe worse.

In other cases I haven't stopped doing some things just because government decided to forbid them. And I haven't started doing things just because government forbids them, either. There are a few things I have chosen to do after government made them mandatory, just to avoid being murdered, not because I agree. I wish I didn't think this is necessary, but in a few cases, I do.

Mandatory or forbidden, government's opinion on matters is generally irrelevant to me.

If you change your behavior just because of government or its "laws", you are letting them control you no matter which way you go. If that's your choice, at least recognize it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Paint and corners and statists

In Facebook discussions I sometimes find it amusing to let statists paint themselves into corners.

It's easy for them to do, because statism is internally inconsistent and stupid. All I have to do is keep them talking, and that corner, surrounded by the paint they applied, with no way out, is where they'll end up.

I just keep asking questions about their position, and leading them where they are already heading. I try to avoid saying anything too shocking, or anything that will scare them off.

OK, so maybe it's not so much that I let them paint themselves into a corner, as I help them. I give them the paint and brush if necessary.

What is sad is how often they realize what is happening and go silent right at the end. Right before the fun part. I feel robbed because I don't get to use my ultimate point when that happens. Such is life.

Yes, I have a mean streak. The ZAP helps keep it under control.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Statism's foundation

Statism is based on lies. Without lies it evaporates like a single drop of water skittering across the hot surface of a wood stove in January.

Not just the classic Orwellian "War is peace" lies, but lies most people don't even notice.

Lies like "taxation is the price we pay for a civilized society", and "there's no difference between men and women (and/or "men" and "women" can be defined however you want, or denied altogether)".
Lies like the myth that a country is like a private club, where the members have the right to control who gets in.
Believing that "democracy" or a Constitution make mob rule OK is believing in a lie.
Liberty and rights are not up for a v*te, even if government allows "the people" to v*te on them. It's a lie.

Lies, even those which don't seem to have anything to do with statism specifically, can be harmful and help prop up statism. They give justifications for "laws" which violate liberty. They train people to believe there is no truth, but whatever you feel is right is OK-- and most people feel it's OK to violate you in one way or another.

Seeing the lies and refusing to go along with them is not a path to popularity. It's not "pragmatic" or nice. So be it.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Who's calling whom "arrogant"?

Time after time I've seen people call libertarians "arrogant". Sure, I would agree with that in many cases. So?

Time after time, though, the haughtiest, most arrogant, and "better-than-you" folk I encounter are statists of one sort or another. Often the very same ones who get off calling libertarians "arrogant".

The blind hypocrisy is actually kind of funny.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
Donations? Subscriptions? Please?

Follow me on Steemit

Politics rigged game I won't play

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 27, 2017)

People often describe the things I write as "political". They may not even intend it as an insult.

I prefer to think of my views as post-political; beyond the obsolete sphere of politics. I wish people would recognize politics as the enemy; the opposite of how they should view the world and interact with others.

It would be nice if they did, because politics ruins everything it touches. Politics makes people see the world through the fake "Right vs. Left" lens. It's a distortion, not reality. The truth is, there are people who want to violate and control you, and people who don't. People who use politics are the ones unwilling to leave you alone. Even worse, the rush of using politics against others, when your side has the power, is addictive.

It's time to heal the addiction and move past it.

Politics can be regarded as the method people commonly use to attempt to live among those they hate or fear; seeking to force their will on them. It's why they elect bullies they hope will target, under the guise of laws, "those people". Whoever "those people" may be to the politically inclined. Unfortunately for those who play the game, their bullies occupy government offices only for a while. Once your bully leaves office, the office remains and someone else will fill it. And it might just be a bully elected to target you.

Part of the problem is the monopolistic nature of politics. If my side wins, your side loses. There's no room for "live and let live", or "you do your thing, I'll do mine, as long as neither of us tries to force the other to go along". This would be civilized, so we can't have that!

Politics is a rejection of personal responsibility. In fact, it often criminalizes personal responsibility and replaces it with one-size-fits-all laws. In truth, the laws fit almost no one, and don't fit anyone very well. But they are "the law", and you are expected to comply no matter how arbitrary and harmful they are. It's how politics works.

I understand that if someone is using politics to violate your life, liberty, or property, you'll feel the need to use politics in self-defense. Then those feeling the pointy end of your politics will turn the tables on you the first chance they get. It's an endless pendulum of destruction and abuse.

Politics is a rigged game. I refuse to play.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

My one unchanging rule

Wherever I go, wherever I am, there is one rule I live by that doesn't change: Don't archate.

I hold myself to it, even though I don't consider it a "thou shalt not" to be imposed on you.

I may agree to additional rules if the situation warrants it, but I won't agree to any rule that breaks that primary rule.

In a civilized society this wouldn't be a problem, but in the uncivil environment of States, this can get me into a lot of trouble if I'm not careful. Sometimes even if I am careful.

I may be forced to alter my behavior somewhat if a bad guy has the drop on me, but it doesn't mean I accept his counterfeit "rule", it just means I know he can kill me.

But that's just how it is in the here and now. As for my part, it's not going to change on my end. I know a counterfeit "rule" when I see one, and nothing can hide their nature from me, just as nothing I have encountered so far has falsified the Zero Archation Principle, and I would be surprised if anything ever did.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Rights- reciprocal or absolute?

Are rights strictly reciprocal? If you refuse to recognize the rights of others, does that mean you, yourself, have no rights?

I saw someone make this claim, and in my mind it doesn't hold up, even if it seems correct at first.

First off, let's get this out of the way: if rights are imaginary, then no one has any rights, including the right to rule, so that gets rid of the specter of "legitimate government" (among other atrocities) right off the bat. Go in peace and do what you're going to do-- subject to what others are willing to put up with.

On the other hand, I think the nature of human beings makes rights a real and necessary thing, so the rest of this is based on that premise.

I think it is the nature of rights that they can either be respected or violated, and nothing else.

I think rights can't be "lost" regardless of what someone does. Actions which violate rights may create a debt which needs to be paid, or they may cause defensive actions to be used against the person, but that person still has the exact same rights they did before they violated anyone. Consequences simply happen.

Insisting on restitution doesn't violate rights. Restitution is justice.

Self defense (of person or property) doesn't violate rights. Self defense is a human right.

Shunning someone, even to death, is an exercise of the right of association and doesn't violate anyone's rights. No one has the right to impose their presence on you, and their existence doesn't obligate you to do anything other than to not impose yourself on them.

If rights somehow only exist if they are mutually recognized, then rights would never exist in the presence of archators of any kind, and specifically anywhere there were a State or government. States NEVER recognize rights, but relegate them all to the status of privileges-- to be handed out and withdrawn at the whim of the "law".

Yet, I can still see that you have rights regardless of who is violating them.

If you are facing an armed mugger (or a government employee), it is apparent he doesn't recognize your rights. If rights only exist when mutually recognized, there would be no rights present for either of you. But if I am watching, I know you still have rights, and if I need to shoot the mugger in order to help you keep your rights inviolate, I may choose to do so. The opinion of the mugger has no bearing on the existence of your rights. Rights never depend on what the other person believes or does.

So, no, rights are not dependent on being reciprocated, even though that might be nice.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Chaotic order

I've already mentioned that too much chaos AND too much order are both deadly. But here's another observation: too much order-- specifically too much government (which I consider to be any external governance at all)-- becomes deadly because it creates too much chaos for individuals.

When you have too much government, your normal actions stop having normal consequences. This is what chaos is. You can't really know what to expect, and can't usually avoid the random consequences even if you know they are possible. You can be murdered for doing normal, non-evil things that humans have always done.

Things like carrying a weapon, crossing a street, using medications, hiding money from thieves, fighting back and killing your attacker, and various other normal acts.

Normal life becomes complicated and difficult to get through due to the "rules" which impose the order. This is stressful and causes individual chaos.

The order in too much order is only on the surface. The underlying chaos this "order" creates runs deep. If you support government, you support deadly chaos rather than the productive kind. You are the one promoting chaos and ruin. Regardless of your mindless protests to the contrary.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

On fire for liberty

Why can't those who don't understand liberty understand liberty?

I have a hypothesis.

There are those who are able to use liberty when it is available. They don't put any thought into it; it is just there, or it's not.
They are like the people who can use fire as a simple tool, as long as someone else provides it. (Including by manufacturing lighters.)

There are then those who can see how liberty could be increased, and hunger for it when it is violated. They appreciate it, even if they can't really think outside the box. They often see nothing wrong with violating the liberty of people they don't care for.
They are like those who can usually build their own fire when they need one, and then use it as a tool, but don't understand the physical conditions which result in fire well enough to figure out how to make one if the familiar methods aren't available to them. They are probably a bit irrationally afraid of fire.

Then there are those who deeply understand liberty. They know what it is, at an instinctive level. They understand the implications of having it as well as those of having it denied. They can find ways to create liberty where none exists. They know people only get as much liberty as they respect in others, regardless of how they personally feel about those other people.
These are like the people who understand fire. They understand what it is and why it is necessary, and hidden ways it is used that most people never notice. They understand the chemical and physical processes which cause fire, and due to this understanding, can think of new ways to make fire if none of the known methods are available, and they can dream up new ways to use fire once they've got it.

So, trying to explain liberty to some people is like trying to show a dog how to make a fire with flint and steel, and then use that fire to smelt iron, make tiles, and cook a meal. They simply can't understand. Do they have a hole in their mind where liberty should be? I don't know. Is there a way to help them understand, anyway? I'm not sure.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

It's logical and factual

If theft is defined as an act in which property is taken from the owner against the owner's will, and if taxation is an act which (ever) involves property being taken from its owner against that person's will, then taxation is theft. If taxation is theft, and theft is wrong, then taxation is wrong.

In the same way...

If you can't archate and remain a good person, and cops have to archate to keep their "job", then cops who continue to be cops can't be good people.

You can rail against either point all you want, but you can't change the truth.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
A few more helpers would be wonderful about now...
Follow me on Steemit

You can't handle the truth- so you bully

I'm sure you've seen it yourself.

Someone doesn't "properly" worship Holy Pole Quilt, and offended statists threaten to come beat up the unbeliever.

Someone doesn't promote the lies hiding the truth about "The Troops" and the US military, and the fanboys start spouting desires for aggression against the heretic.

Someone tells the truth about cops, that they are nothing but a nasty gang of thugs, and their supporters lose their minds and start advocating your murder-- usually at the hands of the cops.

Someone refuses to give up their guns "in spite of" of the actions of some evil loser, so anti-gun bigots call for their government goons to go door to door stealing guns and killing anyone who resists.

Way to admit you just lost the debate.

Threatening aggression against someone who disagrees with you is a cowardly thing for a loser to resort to. It is also an indication that the statist is stupid. If you have no arguments, just threaten to punch or murder the person who exposed your lies.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Many misunderstand Declaration of Independence

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 20, 2017)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence

Those are some of the wisest words from American history. Sadly, they are almost entirely ignored today, other than occasional lip service to keep up the charade.

As stated, all humans are born equal; with identical rights. This doesn't mean people are equal in ability or that outcomes are guaranteed. "Unalienable" means no one has the power to separate anyone from their rights in any way for any reason. No one has the right to deny anyone their right to life, liberty, their pursuit of happiness, or any of the other rights which it admits those three are merely "among". A government office doesn't grant this power, nor does "national security" or any other excuse.

Government is not the "Creator" of the people, nor of their rights. Equality and rights do not come from government, nor are they only possessed by people under particular governments in certain lands. The Declaration doesn't claim any rights depend on citizenship, or even residency, but exist in all humans, for all times, wherever they may be.

I wish more people understood this.

In fact, I wish more people would read and understand the Declaration of Independence, noticing how it applies to today's situation. The US government has become far more tyrannical than was the government of King George III. Eighteenth Century Americans were bothered enough by the king's violations to divorce Great Britain; backing their decision with deadly force when their right of self-determination was opposed.

Less than one hundred years later, these lessons had already been forgotten. They had become an inconvenience to the ambitions of a home-grown tyrant.

The Declaration doesn't say the union which became the United States of America was to be a suicide pact; no one able to leave after joining. In fact, it states the exact opposite quite clearly. All political bands are dissolvable, as a human right, when the rights of the people are violated by a government which refuses to back down. Notwithstanding the outcome of Abraham Lincoln's war. Lincoln was on the wrong side of that bloody debate.

If you respect the Declaration of Independence, you can pretend its principles don't still apply to each and every person alive, but only at the expense of your honesty.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit