State of the "union" in 2018?

There is no union. It's a big lie.

Are prisoners held in the same cage necessarily united? Do they share goals beyond getting out of the cage? Is that enough to make them a cohesive group? Not really.

The people of the formerly "united" states of the late America are no more united than those prisoners. In fact, they are probably less united because most former Americans have been brainwashed into not even considering escape as an option. They can't even conceive of liberty from bondage anymore.

If there ever was a union, it's been gone for some time now. Good riddance.

It's time to move on. To do what you have a right to do and to reject and shun those who want to molest you. It's time for liberty. For externally imposed government: Time's up. Get out of my life.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The nature of government

All governments are evil and corrupt. All of them. Every single one of them which has ever existed or ever will exist. It's the nature of the State and no amount of wishful thinking or justifications for its existence will ever change this harsh reality.

Pointing this out hurts people's feelings, especially those who work for government in some capacity but still want to believe they are a good person. And, for that, I'm sorry. But denial isn't healthy, and the truth is the truth and it needs to be acknowledged and accepted.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

OurobSoros

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com
I could definitely use some donations or subscriptions right now.

Follow me on Steemit

Cage fight!

The wider an area you wall off, the less sense it makes if your goal is protection from your enemies.

I don't want to be trapped in an enclosure with the Clintons, the Bushes, Obama, Chuck Schumer, Joe Arpaio, or any other large-scale archator.

In fact, there are very few people I would want to be kept in the same box with.

House walls are a positive thing because it is fairly easy to be sure you're not trapped inside with people you hate, and you can effectively keep those types of people out. If they get in you can throw them out or leave pretty easily.

The same goes for fences around private property. Fence off your yard, and control who you let in.

Walls around cities are less optimal, even if you ignore property rights, because you are going to be inside with some people it makes no sense to share a controlled space with, but it would be doable to move to a different city if you found yourself locked in with your enemies.

But walls around a country? It's absurd! Most of the people inside with you want to violate you, as do those who build and control the wall. You are trapping yourself with people who are just as bad as those you want to be protected from. Often, even worse.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Government still dividing America

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

As the year 2017 draws to a close, it is disappointing to see America more divided than at any time since the 1860s. The main cause being government. Almost everyone complains about government, at least sometimes. It's a natural thing to do.

The reason is, with political governance, one side only wins at the expense of the other side. This leads to a fracturing of society, where the winners and losers-- the Right and the Left-- hate each other. It really is that bad.

Government is collectivism at its worst, so everyone is going to be unhappy over many of its actions, even if they like some things it does.

As a libertarian, I am constantly amused by people who complain about the inevitable results of politicized government, while thinking they can have the parts they like without the parts they don't like. Sorry, but that's not the way it's set up to work. But it could be.

Even if you got exactly the type of governing you want, just about everyone else would be unhappy. If the tables turn so someone else gets exactly the sort of governing they want, you would be the unhappy one. It's a disastrous system. This is what happens with one-size-fits-all schemes. The one mandated size actually fits almost no one. Square pegs are hammered into round holes, or round pegs get wedged into square holes; either way, no one is pleased with the result.

This is the result of pretending there can be a right to govern people other than yourself.

There is a reasonable solution: replace violence-based political governance with consumer-controlled governance. This way you, individually, choose whether you want a service, choose whether it is worth the price, choose who to get it from, and if they don't meet your expectations, you can unilaterally fire them and try something else. Without being told to move to Somalia.

No one else is bound to your choices; they make their own. Your choice in services never denies others the parts for which you have no use. They are perfectly free to choose them. You don't have to partake in everything, you just have no right to impose your choices on anyone else. It's the civilized way to live among others.

Maybe the coming year will see more people decide to give liberty a try by rejecting the obsolete system which is tearing America apart, right down the middle. I will always hope.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Long month, short money

The money ran out before the month did, and if anyone can (and wants to) donate or subscribe so I can have some gas money, it would be greatly appreciated.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Take me where I cannot stand..."

I've always thought that if I had my own spaceship or space station-- at least until or unless artificial gravity is invented-- I would prefer (all else being equal) to hire crew who had no legs.

In such an environment legs seem like trouble. They just fly around knocking into things and taking up space. Sure, you can use legs/feet to anchor a person in place by strapping them in, but there are space-saving ways to anchor a person in place when you don't have to take those useless (in microgravity, at least) appendages into account.

I think all the government space-access prevention agencies, like NASA, have missed a great opportunity by not encouraging the legless to apply. Just think of the public relations coup (assuming no "flight anomaly" resulting in crew loss).

It's a blind spot I hope liberated market spaceflight will notice and fix.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The Trump wall

No, not that one.

Trump is like a high wall with a narrow walkway along the top. On one side of the wall is irrational Trump worship, and on the other side is irrational Trump hate. You only stay rational by not falling off on either side.

It must be hard to walk along that path without falling off on one side or the other, even for liberty lovers, because so few manage it in this time of Trump. It makes me appreciate those who stay sane.

Trump has probably done good things, and he has done bad things. No one should be president, ever, but a president Trump isn't an excuse to join the borderist insanity on one side OR the antifa/SJW madness on the other. Keep your head, stop acting like an idiot, and stay on the narrow path of reality on the top. And stop letting politicians occupy your brain so much.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Women shouldn't be allowed to v*te

And neither should immigrants, or felons, or government employees, or men, or Bonobos, or any other living thing. Robots, either.

There is very, very little that is legitimately up for a v*te, and liberty and rights are never among them.

If you want to v*te on pizza toppings, while not being forced to chip in for a pizza you won't eat, go ahead.

If you want to v*te on how much of your neighbor's money will be stolen, or what people will be allowed to do with their own property, or whether self-defense tools will be criminalized, or how to punish those who ingest things you don't approve of-- sorry, but that's not within your rights. No matter who or what you are. No one has the right to v*te to archate against others. Not ever. The "right to v*te" doesn't exist and can't be created.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

"Good cops" and other imaginary beasts

"Police officer" or "cop" are words used to describe people who commit specific acts. Just like "rapist", "child molester", or "mugger" are words to describe people who commit specific acts. It's not really about the person, but about the acts the person chooses to commit.

Objecting to those acts being committed or to those who commit them isn't at all similar to racism or sexism, because it is based only on actions and the individual person who commits them. Nothing else.

To say "not all police officers are bad" is a nonsense statement. You are denying the description and the definition.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "sheep" is defined as "a white, hoofed mammal with wool". In that case, a black sheep wouldn't fit the definition of "sheep"; you'd need to make up a new word to use for it. And, a tuna clearly wouldn't be a sheep.

Well, a "cop"/"police officer" is a person who enforces laws-- both the unnecessary and the harmful-- and violates property rights while claiming to be protecting them, with violence or threats of violence, on behalf of a government. That isn't a good person, by definition.

To pretend there is something you would call a "cop"/"police officer" who doesn't do the above is to describe someone who doesn't fit the definition of a cop or police officer. You are talking about a completely different set of acts the person commits-- as in the case of a free market "police" analog. You are calling a bald, black unicorn a sheep.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Fixing government?

Here's a truth which seems to be agonizingly painful for a lot of people: You can't "fix" government by electing principled people.
That's like arguing that you can make child molestation "better" by only having principled molesters.

If the person has principles that are worth anything, they won't commit the act at all. If they will commit the act, then how are things "better"?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Misdirection by anti-liberty bigots

It doesn't matter if "gun control" [sic] actually prevents murder. That's the wrong question, because no one has the "right" to forbid others from owning and carrying guns. That "right" can't exist and can't be created.

This bothers a lot of anti-liberty bigots. So they keep focusing on the wrong question-- and I suspect lying about the data in order to get others to come to agree with their conclusions. But, either way, it really doesn't matter.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Christmas good holiday for outlaws

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

Christmas is a good holiday for outlaws.

No, not for criminals. For outlaws. What? You don't know the difference?

Let me explain why outlaws are not your enemy and why Christmas is a great outlaw holiday.

The difference between an outlaw and a criminal is that the outlaw breaks bad laws, never throwing the first punch and never taking or damaging anyone else's property. Everything is through mutual consent. Criminals, on the other hand, attack the innocent and steal, vandalize, and trespass.

Who is an outlaw? The public school principal who has the assembly stand to be led in prayer at an official school function is an outlaw. So is the neighborhood drug dealer who peacefully ignores prohibition. The preacher who feeds the homeless is an outlaw in many parts of America. As is the activist who educates jurors about their responsibilities-- against the wishes of the court.

I would argue that Jesus was an outlaw, although those who desperately want to legitimize government might claim he only pushed the envelope-- going as far as he could without technically breaking any laws. Which is a very "outlaw" thing to do.

In the classic Rankin/Bass Christmas special "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town", Kris Kringle is an outlaw who violates the Burgermeister's toy prohibition.

Christmas is a wonderful excuse for "strawman purchases", where you buy something government wants to track, then give it to someone government didn't scrutinize and approve as worthy to own it.

People get sneaky around Christmas; hiding gifts, being "secret Santas", snooping under the tree.

It isn't mandatory to celebrate the holiday any specific way, or to celebrate at all. It's anarchy! That's what makes it fun, and what makes it work.

As mentioned above, some people use the holiday season as an excuse to feed the less fortunate-- without a food preparation permit or a restaurant license. And somehow, no mass poisoning occurs. Sometimes, arrests do result, though. Such arrests are an example of a much greater wrongdoing.

Author and founder of The On Line Freedom Academy (tolfa.us), Jim Davies, refers to government employees who impose and enforce these harmful laws as "kriminals". They are a special kind of criminal. Their harm may be legal, but it's neither right nor ethical.

In various times and places, even Christmas itself has been outlawed, which seems to mean only outlaws would have been the ones celebrating it.

This Christmas, if you feel so inclined, be a good outlaw, not a criminal or a kriminal. Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Collective ownership

There is legitimate collective ownership, and there is illegitimate "collective ownership".

The difference is consent. Not "implied consent", which isn't a real thing, but actual consent.

If I join together with some people and we all chip in to buy a plot of land, and understand explicitly how the land will be used (or choose to not be involved in that decision), then the land is collectively owned. Great! There is Unanimous Consent; this makes this collective ownership legitimate.

However...
If I am told that because I live in a certain place, being born there, I have a share in the collective ownership of the whole region, including other people's private property, but that no one can opt out of the rules imposed on the land without moving away, this is not legitimate collective ownership. If someone I don't like, don't trust, or don't respect claims to have the "authority" to administer the land on my behalf, against my wishes, this is illegitimate. Nothing can make it legitimate without Unanimous Consent. This is a violation of property rights, not a way to express them.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Delusions of godhood

What should be the qualities of water?
How should DNA be built?
How should snowflakes be designed?
Who should be in charge of flocks of birds or schools of fish?
How should ecosystems be run?
How should the market be controlled?
How should society be run?

All the above is meaningless drivel.

Yet, a majority of people seriously consider the last two and debate them. Society and the market are emergent systems. They can't be "run", designed, or controlled, and trying to do so harms individuals, which damages the health of society and destroys the market.

Only the pathologically evil would keep trying.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Turning your back on your supporters

I admired Bradley Manning's bravery in exposing U.S. war crimes.

I opposed Manning's unjust imprisonment for exposing the evil crimes of others.

I supported Bradley's choice to become Chelsea.

I cheered Chelsea's release from prison.

But I can't support Manning's entrance into politics-- for more than one reason. First of all, she is advocating "universal basic income". I asked her whether the money to be distributed will be stolen through "taxation" or be counterfeited and she didn't respond. (I did get one response from a guy who posted that I was "too stupid to understand taxation".)

But, anyway, it appears Manning is just another statist. Happy to use the state to violate individual rights, as long as she doesn't feel it is her rights being violated at the moment.

Nope. My support ends here. Sorry, Chelsea, you've stabbed an awful lot of your supporters in the back with this move.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

I'm offensive; not offended

I recently attended a social event. I know-- I can hardly believe it myself. But I had a lot of fun.

One of the activities was a game of Cards Against Humanity. Before the game started, someone was concerned about me, asking if I'm easily offended. A guy there laughed and said "Have you ever read his newspaper columns?" Then another guy piped up and said "He's the one who does the offending".

Ah, yes. They have me figured out. And, no, I wasn't offended in the slightest, but thought the whole thing was hilarious and great fun. I hope we can do it again.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

#NotMe

What do I mean by #NotMe?

I mean that I am neither a victim nor a victimizer.

Have I been victimized? Of course. Sometimes, badly. But I moved on. I don't dwell on it, and I absolutely refuse to get any part of my identity from it. To want to revel in past victimization is a serious weakness of character, if you ask me! It looks to me as though you are saying you are too weak to stand up and keep walking. That you can't stop reaching back to touch the terrible events in your past.

Even though I have been victimized in the past, I am not a victim.
Even though I have had broken bones, I am not broken.
I've had Rat Bite Fever, but I'm not sick.
I have scars, but I am not injured.
I've cried tears of emotional agony, but I'm not sad.

#NotMe

If you are being victimized now, you have an absolute human right to defend yourself with whatever amount of force it takes to stop the violator. You have every right to expose your victimizers and to refuse to associate with them ever again. They owe you restitution.

But to become an eternally broken victim just for the purpose of being a victim? That's just sad-- you have decided to violate yourself perpetually just because someone else violated you in the past. It's like you have decided to stay bogged in the mud, just because some archator once shoved you into a mud pit.

And, if I victimize you, shoot me. Do whatever it takes to stop me. It is your right. I'll probably fight back, but everyone has the right to do so, even the most vile monster. It's part of being alive.

Your past makes you what you are. You can decide to stagnate there, or to let that past make you better and stronger. Yes, it is YOUR decision. I want you to make the choice that builds you up, rather than the popular choice that holds you down.

If you don't feel you can do this, for whatever reason, I feel sorry for you.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Triggered into statism

I hope there's never an issue that is able to trigger me to the point that I start believing it's OK to archate-- freelance or through government. If it were to happen, I believe it would be a strike against me, not a real justification for initiating force or violating property.

I see so many people who develop a big "but" after years of seemingly advocating liberty-- until one thing comes up. For some it is some sort of sex; for some it's "borders"; others find a different trigger.

I try to understand. I really do. But I can't help but wonder why it was so easy for them to abandon liberty. And I want to make sure I am never in that same boat.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Avoid outrage fatigue this season

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 13, 2017)

To get the most out of this holiday season, and to finish out 2017 on a high note, I recommend avoiding outrage fatigue. What is outrage fatigue? It's the exhaustion, cynicism, apathy, and hopelessness which comes from exposure to too many outrageous crises at once.

Whether your outrage is over your belief that President Trump has been caught plotting with Russians, yet faces no consequences, or from your belief that the politically motivated investigators probing him are simply grasping at shadows of straws in a desperate attempt to destroy someone they despise. It depends on your perspective, but either view can make you crazy.

And what of all the recent accusations of sexual misconduct among the political and entertainment elite? True or not, it can be overwhelming to try to keep up.

The world can look like a terrible place if that's what you focus on.

How many of those problems are new? None of them; they're just recycled crises with interchangeable actors, getting people worked up when noticed.

I'm not saying you shouldn't pay attention to world events, or that some aren't horrible, I'm suggesting you notice whether they impact you, personally. And if they do, how much? If you hadn't heard about it on the news or on social media, would it affect your life in any way? If not, maybe it's not as important as you believe. Certainly not important enough for you to make yourself unhappy over.

There are more important things closer to you. Things like friends, family, and community. Your pets probably have a bigger impact on your life than happenings in Washington D.C. or Hollywood. And certainly bigger than people or events in Great Britain, Syria, or Iraq.

Yes, those things matter to those who are personally impacted, and I empathize with them. But if you spend all your energy getting upset over those things, what do you have left for those who are around you every day? For the people and things your attitude affects?

If you waste your time and energy being outraged, even over outrageous things, when will you find time or energy to enjoy the good things in your life?

Yes, bad things happen. Politics can't solve them, but only magnifies them. Humans shouldn't rule others, and should never be in positions of imagined authority over anyone but themselves. When people are put into the foolish position of political authority, bad things are inevitable. It's not selfish or "isolationist" to focus on your personal sphere; it's being responsible.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit