The re-education of Kent

The people have spoken: Not all rapists are bad people. I have been shown the error of my wrongthinking ways. I'm sorry!

Some rapists never rape (never mind that the identifier comes from that particular action and nothing else), and besides, I'll alienate the people who love them if I can't see that they can be good people, and necessary for the functioning of society. If I don't allow rapists to do what they do, other rapists-- who might be even worse-- will have free rein to prey on innocent people.
I shouldn't have condemned them collectively, based on the acts a rapist, by definition, commits. Until I've sat down and talked to one, walked a mile in his athletic shoes, I can't know his motivation for doing what he does. He may have become a rapist with the best of intentions- truly seeking to help people who need it.
We probably all supported rapists and what they do at one time-- so I should understand those who support them now, and those who want to praise them for the dangerous job they do. I mean, would you be willing to do what a rapist does? I thought not!
Besides, in a free society, some people would still demand to be provided with rapists.

It's not nice to think of people as only what they do. They shouldn't be judged solely on the basis of the actions from which they get their identity. They are so much more than that. They are individuals first and foremost-- they have families and friends. Just because I don't like what they choose to do doesn't mean they are wrong. It means I was wrong for judging them.

I'm just being unreasonable when I expect people to stand against archation. I'm truly sorry for my hardline stance, and for refusing to think of the children and widows before staking out such an unforgiving position. Rapists are people too, no different from anyone else. Certainly no worse.

But it is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. I have won the victory over myself. I love rapists.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Embarrassing borderism fail

I just read what should have been one of the most embarrassing justifications for borderism I've ever seen passed off as thought. I won't mention the particular thinker who squeezed it out.

It goes like this:

• People have property rights, including the right to invite or exclude whoever they choose onto, or from, their property.

• The State violates this right by prohibiting its full exercise by property owners. 

• The State then substitutes its idea of collective property rights for actual individual property rights via "national borders".

• Therefore, the only way left to defend your property rights is by demanding the State enforce its "borders" even harder.

The 3 points are dead right. The conclusion doesn't logically follow.

He even tries to base his jumping off point (that people have property rights which they have a right to defend forcefully), correctly, on the "non-aggression principle", and then ignores how it invalidates his conclusion.

Apparently "collateral damage" is acceptable.
Apparently, there's no point in striking at the root when it's easier to make the State bigger and more powerful.
Apparently, only "immigrants" can trespass, vandalize, or steal (or, are the only ones you need to defend your property from)-- there's no need to defend your property from US "citizens" or government employees.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Delusional support for cops is EVERYWHERE

Most of my posts of the past few days have been inspired by my frustration over a discussion in a liberty-oriented forum. Where I am the only one apparently willing to admit there can be no such thing as a "good cop".

It's a little disappointing, I'll admit. I expected more.

I can give all the reasoning which leads inevitably to the only rational conclusion. Those who disagree with me give feelings, anecdotes, objections, and whatever else, but have nothing to contribute to make an actual argument to the contrary. They just engage in wishful thinking.

Which leads to one inevitable conclusion: People desperately want to believe cops are good. Even those who are otherwise "pro-liberty".

By pointing out the logical, inescapable reasons why cops can't be good, you threaten their beliefs. By pointing out that "cop" isn't a person so much as a set of behaviors which violate life, liberty, and property-- exactly in the same way "rapist" is-- you offend them.

Not only this, but in order to bolster their "argument" they put words in my mouth, they make assumptions about my motivations, and they leap to conclusions as to what I propose doing about the situation.

Why this childish attachment to a set of destructive behaviors and the gang members who commit them? Is something akin to an "archation culture" being exposed here?

I guess it's a pointless battle, even among the pro-liberty crowd. I'm still right, but I will walk away from the discussion. You can't get through to those who are so desperate to not understand.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Remember 'innocent until proven guilty'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 8, 2017)

The current witch hunt swirling around accusations of sexual misconduct and rape in the entertainment industry exposes the worst in people. Both those who may have done wrong, and those excited to join the dog pile to tear the accused to shreds.

I understand that few people want bad guys to get away with their crimes. Neither do I, although I probably have a different idea of what "justice" means. I probably also have a different idea of what constitutes a crime.

Those calling for the figurative heads of the various accused on a platter seem hysterical in their vindictiveness and in their certainty that all accusations are true.

As for the less vindictive people out there, I see some of them saying everyone is innocent until proved guilty. This is also a mistake.

Innocent until proved guilty is the standard you want any justice system based on. It should be the default assumption of every juror and judge. Unfortunately, the current American justice system has gone astray by assuming guilt. Anyone caught up in the court system is considered guilty of something, otherwise they wouldn't have been arrested. This has rarely been as dangerous an assumption as it is now; possibly only rivaled in legal miscarriage by actual witch trials and in the treatment of recaptured runaway slaves.

If you are on a jury you have an obligation to listen to all sides, to decide who is telling the truth, and also to consider whether the law which may have been violated should even be a law in the first place. If you've already made up your mind and aren't going to consider that your first impressions may have been mistaken, you have no business being on a jury and holding a person's fate in your hands. The seriousness of the charge doesn't change this. Neither do your personal feelings.

For the rest of us, when you know someone is guilty you are under no obligation to pretend otherwise. Expecting people to pretend a person is innocent when they know he isn't is promoting dishonesty. If you are not on the jury, it's also not your job to decide restitution or, heaven forbid, punishment for anyone accused of a wrongdoing .

It's also quite likely you simply don't really know what happened and never will; not having enough information to form an intelligent opinion. This may be the hardest thing for most people to accept, but it's vital.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

There is no "right to archate"

I think most people believe they have the "right" to archate; a right which can never exist.

At least, it sure seems that way to me.

Because of this delusion, they form governments. They let those governments hire cops, bureaucrats, clerks, and so forth. Then they participate in elections to hire even more parasites from the pool of politicians.

But, that's fine with them because they also believe they have a right to share in the fruits of your labors, and don't mind dividing the spoils among the parasites they hired (as long as they also get some crumbs).

All these parasites they hire and elect believe they have a right to assert "authority" over you. They believe this imaginary "authority" comes with the "job".

Cops even believe their imaginary "authority" gives them the right to murder you if they don't feel like you cowered sufficiently before their almighty "authority".

So, yeah, people have a right to believe what they believe, and to live by their beliefs... but only to a point. There is a limit, and that limit comes when they move beyond belief into acting on it by archating. No "job" can move that concrete boundary by even a fraction of an ångström.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Reading minds

Yes, I believe I can sometimes read minds, and I'm willing to bet you can, too.

If you see a guy climbing in your teenage daughter's bedroom window in the middle of the night, with rope and a butcher knife in his hand, do you believe you have a pretty good idea what he's thinking? Or should you wait and ask him before making any snap judgments?

At the risk of triggering those who misapply Godwin's Law, do you have a good idea what was going through the mind of some random guy in Germany around 1940, who joined the Nazi Party, proudly wore the regalia, and enthusiastically participated in the rallies, and never objected to what was being done by other members of his gang (and never tried to stop it and didn't quit in disgust)?

In the same way, if someone voluntarily joins the Blue Line Gang, wears the uniform and other identifying items, do you know his mind?

Do you honestly believe he could keep the "job" without violating anyone, ever. Or, is that a condition of employment? Even if he never commits a traffic stop, never steals money with a parking ticket, never kidnaps or robs anyone over drugs, guns, gambling, or prostitution, is he still guilty?

That's ignoring the fact that the money he "earns" is stolen.

Maybe, when he first decided to be a cop, he had only good intentions. (You'll need to read his mind to see if this is true.) But as soon as the realities of the "job" intrude, he has a choice to make: Keep doing the "job" and remain a member of a gang which only exists because it exercises the power to aggress and violate property rights, or quit and find honest employment. What is going through his mind now? Is he consciously making the choice to remain a cop?

And really, what does it matter what is going through his mind?

Back to the guy climbing in your daughter's window, isn't the fact of his actions enough to make it right for you to defend your daughter from him? What he's thinking-- what he believes about what he's doing-- is irrelevant. Why should cops be treated differently than anyone else on the planet? Why do I have to prove that I know what they are thinking while they are molesting people?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Yes, I'm a "purist"

I don't believe there are any legitimate justifications for believing a person has the right to archate. I am told this makes me a "purist". I don't see that as a bad thing.

Yes, in some cases (pushing someone out of the path of a bus, trespassing to rescue a child who wandered onto private property and got trapped or hurt, etc.) I think you probably need to go ahead and do what you think is necessary under the circumstances, and accept the consequences, but that's different than saying you have a right to initiate force or violate property.

But in many cases, such as with governing others-- personally or by imposing a State on them-- you have neither the right nor a "need" which can excuse you. You need to be shamed if this is what you advocate.

However, purist that I am, I probably won't do much beyond disagreeing with you in most cases. All bets are off if you credibly threaten so that I feel the need to defend myself (or others).

Minarchists give me a sour stomach. But as long as they keep their filthy governing hands off of me and my property, I probably won't lift a finger against them. Most of their victims also believe in governing others, and often, believe in doing it even harder. There are consequences for believing governing others to be a legitimate human endeavor, and sometimes they are unpleasant, but if that's what a person believes it isn't my place to "rescue" him from his foolishness.

So, really, other than hurting minarchists' feelings by pointing out where-- and why-- they are wrong, I won't do anything to them. I don't even believe in punishment. But the way they squeal, you'd think I was proposing setting up re-education camps to make them think correctly. It's kind of funny, considering they, not me, are the ones willing to use violence against the non-violent and against people who are violating no one's property. Projection must be a horrible experience.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Don't act on it

It's a bad thing to hold certain desires or beliefs in your mind, but as long as you don't act on them, bringing them into the real world, they only hurt you.

You can be positive that your "race" is superior to all others, and believe some "races" aren't fully human, but as long as that belief doesn't cause you to violate anyone else, who is it hurting?

Your private desires can be those of a pedophile, but as long as you don't act on it and harm any children, you can't have done anything wrong.

You can be full of authoritarian and statist delusions, but as long as you don't use violence against non-archators, nor send others to do so on your behalf, the malware in your mind isn't violating anyone.

But, can anyone honestly believe something without acting on it? It is hard to hold a belief without putting it into action. It would be best, by far, to purge that kind of thing from your mind altogether.

But, if you can't, the next best thing is to make certain you never act on it.

The problem is, if you truly believe something, you're not going to be very motivated to not act on it. You'll believe you are right and those who oppose your beliefs are wrong. You'll see yourself as the victim if you get caught putting your beliefs into action and have consequences. Your only motivation will be to avoid the "unfair" consequences of being caught.

And this is why criminalizing self defense is always wrong-- it empowers those who believe they are right to violate certain people in certain situations. It is also why no one has the right to violate the right of association for any reason-- if someone holds beliefs you don't like, you should be able to choose to avoid them.

Ultimately, it is why it is best to not hold beliefs that justify violating others in the first place. They damage your mind, they will convince you to act on them, you'll believe you did nothing wrong when you do, and (hopefully) there will be consequences, regardless.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

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