Year-end subscriber-raiser

Many sites and blogs are doing year-end fundraisers, and I guess I'm ready to do the same. Just a bit differently, though.

I'm looking for 5 new subscribers. I'm not setting a dollar amount goal, just a goal of 5 new subscribers of whatever level: Paypal or Patreon.

If you'd like to join with me, please do. Or, if you know someone else who might be interested, pass the suggestion along to them.

And, as always, thank you to my subscribers, my donors, and all my readers.

Progress report:     5 to go to meet the goal.

Progress report 2:  4 to go to meet the goal.

Progress report 3:  4 to go to meet the goal.

Progress report 4:  4 to go to meet the goal.

Final report: Thank you to my new subscriber. I had hoped for more, but I appreciate what I get.

How are they good? They aren't.

(The video linked in the picture, just in case you're interested: link)

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Back to the library

After my daughter's friend was murdered in the library, she has not wanted to go back. It's just not the library without Miss Krissie there.

But this weekend we did go back for their annual Christmas program.

Last year, the Library's Christmas program was so pitiful that I wondered if they were losing interest in continuing the tradition. This year they put a lot of effort into it, probably in an attempt to draw people back.

My daughter was still not comfortable there. She wasn't the only one.

I wasn't comfortable because of the heavy police presence. It's nothing but security theater, and is worse than useless. No one is made safer by having cops are around.

I was disappointed, although not surprised, by their new "We don't care if you die!" signage. Why do fools always ramp up the failure after suffering the consequences of their failure? It's a discouraging human trait, I suppose.

I love libraries. I hate that they are so often funded through theft, rather than voluntarily. They could be so much more than they are allowed to be if they were freed from the burden of government control. And, although almost all "private" businesses in the area also fall prey to the superstitious belief that signage empowering murderers is somehow "helpful", government facilities are the only ones "Constitutionally" prohibited from doing so. A lot of difference it makes.

All in all, going to the library just wasn't a positive experience.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Treating vices like crime causes crime

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

Are you tired of watching government make the same tired mistakes? At least they could have the decency to make some new and different mistakes for a change.

Which recycled mistake caught my attention this time? The government has decided opioid abuse is a "public health emergency".

I haven't seen much mention of making new criminal "laws" yet; just suggestions to use this as an excuse to throw away more of your money. The implication being this prodigal spending will magically fix something.

Opioid abuse is an individual health and psychology problem. Health and psychology professionals need to be left alone to deal with it in an informed way. If this is to be solved, this is how it will happen. Government deserves no seat at the health care table.

But government doesn't actually want to solve this, and you know this will end up with new and bigger criminal penalties. They never let a crisis go to waste.

If government were serious about solving the opioid "emergency" they would end drug prohibition. Completely; not the deceptive way they shuffled the deck with alcohol prohibition.

Government has zero business regulating vices, because vices can never be crimes. If anyone still cares, every vice is a behavior protected from government intrusion by the Ninth Amendment, because the Constitution didn't specifically give government the power to meddle in it. It is therefore off-limits-- not that they are inclined to obey any limit on government action.

While vices are not crimes, treating them like crimes causes real crime. Every time. The only people who dare wade into the dangerous waters created by the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs are those willing to steal and use aggressive violence. This turned the drug trade into a scene of theft and aggression. Prohibition changed a personal problem into a crime wave.

The drug trade should be carried out in corner shops which advertise their services to valued customers, not forced into the back alleys or hidden from view. There should never be incentive to shoot your customers or competitors, and there wouldn't be without prohibition. When was the last time Walmart conducted a drive-by shooting against Albertson's? Drug prohibition ensures crime. It isn't helping anything.

Well, that's not quite true. It does help those who benefit from a growing police state and a world-record prison population, and those who enjoy the inflated profits drug prohibition brings. For the rest of us, though, prohibition is part of the problem, not a solution.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Humans have rights.

Every human alive has the exact same rights.

If rights don't really exist, then no one has any rights, which also means no one can have the right to rule others- so no problem.

If rights do exist, then they don't depend on your IQ, your skin color, your sexual orientation, your sex/gender, where you were born, where you live now, which government enslaves and fleeces you, whether the rights are listed on parchment, how nice you are, or any other metric- real or imagined.

Those who claim to believe rights vary depending on the rights government recognizes are confused about what rights are.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Which forms of government "work"?

What do you mean by "work"?

Fascism doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work. Democracy doesn't work (and is basically communism of a sort anyway-- based on "to each according to his need" of power over others, rather than of property). A republic doesn't work-- it always becomes a democracy. Constitutions don't work. "Rule of law" doesn't work.

The unkind truth is that government-- attempting to govern anyone but yourself-- doesn't work. The reason being that statism, the fundamental belief which leads to the attempt to govern others, doesn't work.

Unless your goal is slavery, death, and destruction, in which case, they all work just fine.

I hear the government extremists whining "Anarchy won't work either", and they are kind of right. Anarchy won't work... if you try to turn it into some form of "system" for "governing". (Of course, it then immediately ceases to be anarchy.) That's because governing others is always a failure. Sooner or later-- and the later the failure smashes into your reality, the worse it will be.

You can successfully govern yourself (or you can fail at that, too), but you can never truly successfully govern others. It doesn't matter how big your gang of bullies (military or police) is. If you are trying to govern others, you have already failed. Taking the government side is failure.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Witch!"

Am I the only one who sees the current pageant of accusations of sexual misconduct as a witch hunt?

If you are looking to me as a beacon of sexual purity, you're looking in the wrong place. I'm sure I've expressed unwanted sexual interest many times in my life. You never know until you show that you are interested, and showing interest puts your neck on the line and opens you up for rejection (or worse). I've never forced or coerced sexual favors from anyone. I take "no" for an answer. If it's not mutually voluntary, I'm not interested. I've also been the victim of sexual assault-- but somehow I don't use that experience to beat everyone else over the head, or kick them in the crotch. So, I'm sure just about everyone has something in their past they could point to which places them on one side or the other of the issue, or maybe even both sides. Especially if you stretch the definitions as much as some people want to stretch them.

Honestly, it feels a little satisfying that so many of the accused hold themselves up as our moral betters-- either oh-so "progressive" on social issues, or so deeply moral in traditional religious ways, that we should just bow down to their obvious superiority and let them tell us how we should be living. Their troubles seem somewhat deserved. Yes, it's schadenfreude.

I have no clue whether the accusations are truthful. No doubt some are, since, as I've realized, everyone has probably done something someone else would find offensive, and a great many people have probably crossed the line into doing sexual things that are coercion or even initiated force. And initiated force or coercion are never something anyone has a right to do.

But why is the act of making accusations suddenly so trendy? Maybe it's just a snowball effect, or jumping on the bandwagon. The more who accuse, the easier it is to come forward with your own accusations.

To me, it has become such an avalanche that it lessens the impact of each individual accusation, and maybe that's the reason behind it anyway. Get it all out of the way, then forget it and move on to the next crisis-- letting those "betters", or the new ones who replace them, continue telling the rest of us how we should be living; which liberties we need to give up for the common good. What rights don't matter anymore, or no longer fit in the 21st Century. Because we can't be trusted, or so those who've shown themselves to be untrustworthy declare.

And then they'll go back to behaving as they always have. Because they are entitled. We just can't relate to the pressures they face. Right?

(I'll bet I even committed some sexual offense by choosing to illustrate this post with a witch I find sexually appealing.)

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Malcolm and Harry

A while back I was struck by the similarity of these two characters' poses. Both seem to mean business. Both are properly armed for the task at hand. And both are confronting archators in the proper way to confront them- most of the time.

Both could be considered heroic.

Both characters have their fans; there's probably even a lot of overlap. But I still like one of these a lot more than the other.

If I had to choose, I'd prefer to be friends with Malcolm Reynolds. Dirty Harry chose to be a tax junkie, and an enforcer of "laws". Not a good guy in my eyes, even if the thugs he went up against were worse.

I might even like the actor Clint Eastwood more than actor Nathan Fillion, but as for the characters portrayed above, it's no contest.

-

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Presidential material

The recent death of Charles Manson left me pondering.

As a result of this pondering, I realized I would have preferred a President Charles Manson over a President Hillary Clinton.

I have no use for presidents, and I most certainly don't support Trump. However, I am still convinced Hillary would have been much, much worse. So much worse that I'm positive even Charles Manson (assuming he did what he was convicted of doing) would have been better.

After all, everyone knew he was crazy, so there wouldn't have been too many people openly supporting whatever agenda he would have been pushing. He was also old and in poor health, so there was a good chance of him dying instead of finishing his term- as it so happened. Probably... assuming his presidential health care didn't extend his horrible life.

Now, might all those points also mean he would have been a better president than Trump? Maybe. All I know is that dead presidents are the best presidents. At least, they can't hurt anyone anymore, unless evil idiots continue to enforce the opinions they imposed while alive. But at that point, it's the fault of the evil idiots who continue to enforce the opinions of corpses, rather than being the fault of the corpse where the opinion originated. Don't blame a corpse for the evil actions of the living.

But, isn't it bizarre to think how bad politicians must be to make Charles Manson seem a thinkable alternative?

.

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Violation can't justify more violation

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

In the aftermath of any mass shooting, it is disheartening to see well-meaning people express their outrage over innocent people being violated by immediately demanding politicians violate innocent people.

I understand feeling "something must be done", but I can't support any plan which violates people's indispensable rights. The horror of someone violating people can't justify violating more people.

No one has the right to murder, and very few gun owners commit murder. No one has the right to create anti-gun "laws", yet every government does. It is wrong to violate people who have harmed no one. People clamor for more laws, even as the attempt is doomed to fail and will only make mass murders easier to commit.

Each and every person has an absolute human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon they see fit, everywhere they go, openly or concealed, without asking permission of anyone. This right can be respected or it can be violated. Rights aren't subject to majority opinion, feelings of fear, or claims of necessity. Rights don't come from the Bill of Rights-- abolish the amendment and the right remains unchanged.

Of all the unpopular rights, the right to free speech is probably the most dangerous when misused. If you disagree, you might want to take a closer look at history. Yet, no one has the authority to prohibit or place limits on speech, even if governments pretend they do. You will always have the absolute right to speak your mind regardless of any law.

Governments have no authority to limit any right; by doing so they only delegitimize themselves. Creating or enforcing anti-gun "laws"-- commonly and incorrectly called "gun control"-- is a serious crime; no better than committing a mass murder.

People who have no moral objection to murdering will happily ignore another anti-gun "law". Imagining otherwise is a fantasy. Only people who have no intention to murder will be affected. The more anti-gun "laws" you make up and enforce, the more you empower murderers, and the more victims you serve up for their pleasure.

Author Robert A. Heinlein observed "An armed society is a polite society". A related truth is that an unarmed society, where only the police, military, and freelance criminals remain armed, is not a society at all. It is a prison. A slaughterhouse. I refuse to endanger you just to make myself or anyone else feel better. I will not appease bad guys of any sort. Not ever.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Still without internet

I need at least $65 to get internet turned back on at my house. I realize this isn't an Earth-shattering crisis. But I'm tired of neglecting the blog.

As always, please don't donate if you can't afford it, have better things to do with your money, or just don't want to. Because that would make me unhappy. More unhappy, I mean.

Thanks.

'Twas the night after Thanksgiving...

I just had a rare pleasure- in fact, a singular one. I hosted a friend of the blog in my home last night. I was favorably impressed by his intelligence, kindness, and personality. He was every bit as nice as I would expect of my readers. Everyone in my household (including the cats) enjoyed his visit.

So, why doesn't this happen more often? Because I'm off the beaten path. There's no interstate nearby. No scenic attractions. A few historical sites, mostly involving Buddy Holly and Billy the Kid, but nothing people put on their bucket lists.

But I'm glad to have been available to provide a way station on his cross-country journey, and glad to have met him in person. It was the highlight of my Thanksgiving holiday.

-

I'm still without internet at home, but I think I'll be back to my regular blogging come Monday. If things go as expected.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Happy Thanksgiving/Gratitude Day!

I'm still without internet at home. I'm hoping to get it back soon. Until then, I am grateful for each of you. Thank you for reading.

The economy- well, mine anyway

I'm

in need of an infusion of money. I know it's annoying when I mention such a crass subject. And I know this is the worst time of the year to mention it. But the internet is unlikely to be turned back on before they get paid, and it's cold enough I'm probably not going to ride my bike to borrow WiFi. I'm posting this from my phone, which isn't conducive to writing.

And the internet isn't the most critical thing, just the one most likely to be noticed by the outside world.

Please don't donate or subscribe if you can't afford it, have better things to do with your money, or if you just don't want to. Voluntaryism all the way.

Libertarianism can and does work

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 18, 2017)

From time to time someone will tell me they really like the idea of libertarianism; they only wish it could work in the real world. This reminds me of someone confessing they like the idea of electricity, if only it could actually work. Because not only can it work, it does.

Libertarianism doesn't just work; you are surrounded by it all the time. In fact, you practice libertarianism yourself, even if you never realized it. And so does everyone else-- other than the noticeably rare, unpleasant monsters. If this weren't the case, civilization would be impossible, and society would collapse into relentless chaos and death.

Every time you buy something instead of stealing it, you've put libertarianism to work. Each time you choose to not punch someone who annoys you, you've made the libertarian choice. If you recognize the right of self-defense against people who would injure, kidnap, steal, or vandalize-- or threaten to do those things-- you've joined the ranks of libertarian thinkers. How does it feel to successfully use something people claim "can't work"?

Libertarianism is nothing more than accepting that you don't have the right to attack people or take their stuff. You probably learned this as a child. When people say they don't see how libertarianism can work in the real world, it's often because they desperately want to allow some exceptions, either for themselves or for others. Especially where certain jobs are concerned.

Any exception is imaginary-- right and wrong don't change depending on your job.

Everyone says they are against bullying, but almost everyone supports the bully they believe is on their side. They dream up excuses to rationalize how this bully isn't a bully, even as he attacks people. They fantasize that the bully's gang isn't a gang, or that his victims deserve it. They claim society couldn't function without these exceptions.

Almost everyone knows stealing is wrong, but most people try to find ways around this when they want something badly enough. They use dishonest words to make it sound different. So, instead of "theft", they call it a tax or a fine, a property code or a license fee.

This lack of consistency is the trap which leads people to conclude libertarianism "can't work", even as they live the vast majority of their lives by its principles.

Welcome to libertarianism. Feel free to drop the exceptions you've been trying to justify, because they are only holding you down. Libertarianism works for everyone.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Are you still trusting liars?

Cops lie. Court employees lie. Prosecutors lie. Crime labs lie. The mainstream media usually accepts these lies without question and passes them along, in the form of "press releases" or statements by those government employees, to a gullible public.

The "information" is created by those who want their target to look guilty as possible, so the truth will be twisted (or ripped apart) to give the appearance of guilt. This misinformation is then passed along without fact-checking and spread to those who hunger for drama and don't care about the truth, but only want to think the worst.

And that doesn't even address the issue of whether the "law" said to have been broken was counterfeit.

This is why I never believe police reports or arrest reports without first-hand knowledge. I assume they are not completely truthful.

I know of a guy who got into this position, and was deceptively smeared by the cops and their co-conspirators, a while back.

But, as he said to me, what can you do when this happens?

Very few people care about the truth, and too many people automatically believe the liars in government.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Speeding, drunk driving, and guns

"...there are laws against speeding and drunk driving. Those are acts that endanger others. Yes, absolutely it makes sense to have such laws even though criminals won't obey them, because if and when they're stopped or caught they deserve to pay for the damage they've done. No one argues otherwise about guns."

Well, not exactly.

I assume the anti-gun bigot he was responding to was trying to make a point that guns should be banned for the same reason speeding and drunk driving are banned (but I didn't subject myself to the video), but the gun rights activist quoted above also missed the boat on this one.

The "laws" against speeding and drunk driving are every bit as illegitimate as those against gun ownership, and for exactly the same reasons. Those caught and punished under those "laws" have usually caused exactly zero damage before they are "caught". And yet, he's in favor of this. And it's the exact same argument made by the anti-gun bigots about the potential for damage by guns.

Every act is potentially dangerous. If the danger rises to the level of a credible threat, then defensive action can be taken without you being guilty of archating. But in the vast majority of cases, what passes for "speeding" and "drunk driving" falls short, and "drunk driving" has been redefined into absurdity.

Yes, if you cause harm to life, liberty, or property, you owe restitution. If you pose a credible threat, you can be stopped before you cause harm, but you probably "owe" nothing in that case. And "pre-crime", the way the State conducts their war against "potential threats" as though they are actual harm, doesn't cut it. Not with cars or with guns.

This is why those on the side of liberty have to be extremely careful about supporting ANY government behavior, even on things they agree with. It can lead to the statist side so easily.

I realize people don't like to hear that. They want to believe "laws" help.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Hanging on

To be perfectly honest, I feel like I have been barely hanging on these past few weeks.

Today is the second anniversary of Cheyenne's death, and for some reason it is hitting me harder this year than it did last year.

Maybe it is because other bad events have happened in the past few months. Maybe it's other things.

Whatever the reason, I'm going to try to take the day off.

.

Copblocked

A week or so back I was trapped in a parking lot; blocked in a space by a cop car while the badge-scum who arrived in it molested some guy parked next to me.

The guy he was bothering may actually be a bad guy. Who knows. It's irrelevant. That is no excuse to park in such a way as to block people in and then stay there 10 (or more) minutes after the blocked in person gets to their car. Cop-guy had to perform the "cuff, hassle, release" dance, and then have his victim sign something, and that took a lot of time.

How would the tax addict have reacted if I had blocked him in? You don't even have to answer because we both know.

Cops are worthless vermin. I despise them. So do others.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Could I be wrong?

Yes, I could. How might I be wrong? This is a question everyone needs to ask of themselves now and then. And, it's a question which needs to be considered carefully enough that the answer makes itself known to you. Making sure you know how you might be wrong isn't self-absorption. It's self awareness and a recognition that you can be wrong. Anyone can.

So, take the things you know and make sure they hold up.

Considering my own knowledge, might I be wrong about some things I take for granted? Things I have tested and decided are true?

Could it actually be OK to take things which don't belong to me? Does my need come before your claim of ownership?
Could it be fine to attack people who are minding their own business, but are doing so in a way I don't like?
Might government actually be something other than a gang of thugs?
What if taxation really is voluntary, and is therefore not theft? What does voluntary mean?
What if cops really are the good guys, and they are only doing their job by enforcing the laws that my neighbors want them to enforce?
What if it really is everyone's business if a person chooses to do things to themselves that could cause harm? What if you don't actually own your body?
What if property really is theft?
What if guns are too dangerous for regular people to own or carry, and banning them would actually be OK and would work?

Of course, each time I examine these ideas, no matter how carefully I pick them apart and consider them, I decide I'm not wrong about them, no matter who disagrees. NO matter how strongly they disagree, or how angry they get at me over the disagreement.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit