Backwards values

What do you value more than liberty? "Your" culture? The nation? Safety? "Morality"?

Do you really value those things if you believe they can't hold their own against others living within the things they have a right to do? Living in Rightful Liberty?

It sure doesn't seem like it to me.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Any tyranny is too much tyranny

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 7, 2018)

How much is enough?

When it turns out stronger anti-drug "laws" don't prevent addiction or tragedies, how much are you willing to expand prohibition? How far are you willing to have armed government employees go-- on your behalf-- to impose your opinions? Would you approve of permanent checkpoints on all roads? Do you favor banning the manufacture of any and all chemicals which could possibly be combined to make substances you are willing to kill people over?

Are you willing to make dying of cancer even more agonizing than it already is, just to make it harder for people to abuse painkillers? What about chronic pain which isn't fatal? Is it just too bad, but worth making people suffer to push your anti-drug agenda? You might as well encourage people to become rattle-shaking witch doctors, chanting over the sick and injured, hoping it helps.

When your current wish list of anti-gun "laws" fails to make Americans safe, what next? Do you demand the government suppress any knowledge or technology which could allow people to invent or build their own guns? Do you send armed government employees door to door searching for guns or gun-making supplies and information, killing all who resist? Welcome to the new stone age, where murder still occurs.

What do you propose when "securing the border" doesn't magically "make America great again"? When crime still runs rampant in the same crime-ridden, socialist cities. When the economy doesn't heal just because you prevent someone from taking a job you don't want, for pay you wouldn't accept? When it turns out border walls and a 100-mile wide "Constitution-Free Zone" all around the edges of America don't make you more prosperous, happy, or safe, what next?

What will you propose when each of your endorsed attacks on liberty only creates more of what you claim to not want? Because this is what will happen if you get your way.

What do you hate or fear so badly that you are willing to destroy society in order to stomp it out? Have you taken into account all the unintended consequences your enforcement fetish will unleash? If not, you aren't being responsible.

It's time to consider just where are you willing to draw the line between tyranny and liberty. How much tyranny will it take to satisfy you?

I already know where my line is. For me, any tyranny is too much. I wish I saw some limit on the amount others are willing to endorse.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Smart people unwittingly embarrassing themselves

I feel embarrassed for people who assume that governing of others is legitimate and necessary.

They'll be speaking right along, making good sense, and suddenly they slip. They'll say something in support of some theft-funded government program, or democrazy, or some politician. Or even more likely, they'll randomly bash a politician or policy that goes against how they think humans should be managed, robbed, and controlled.

Their credibility takes a hit, and I suddenly feel embarrassed for them. My daughter would call this kind of gaff "cringeworthy".

They don't even realize they goofed. They'll believe they stayed consistent and rational and smart, even while expressing their belief in an ancient superstitious belief in "authority" or government.

If you're trying to impress others by how smart you are, but you don't see that theft is wrong when you like where the stolen money will go, your "argument" falls flat on its face.

Sometimes their lecture or article is otherwise pure gold, but then they feel the need to insert these air pockets of absurdity-- voids of statist "woo"-- which take away from the value of the rest. The rest of what they say might be based on firm facts and evidence, but they sneak the statism in there so it will be mistaken for fact, too. It's not. It's opinion. Very weak and baseless opinion. That's all that excuses statism.

I shouldn't be embarrassed for other people when they say stupid things. But I am. I can't help it. I want to help them stop saying dumb things and embarrassing themselves. But when they refuse to see that what they said is dumb, due to being blinded by their superstition, they won't believe they need to change. It's sad. And painfully embarrassing.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

"Obey the nice monster, Dear"

"Might makes right" is a mighty powerful belief.

I am reminded of this whenever I point out that a cop ordering you to drop your gun (or whatever he believes might be a gun) is no different than a rapist holding a knife to your throat and telling you to do what he says.

The comments never seem to vary.

I'm told "If you want to be dead, don't obey the cop" or something along those lines. I've never disputed that fact. I am just saying that cops are bad guys, not that they can't kill you.

Where does the hallucination that I ever said otherwise come from?

I suspect it comes from a desperate attempt to see police as legitimate. A way to excuse obeying cops no matter what they demand.

You have every right to kill a cop in self-defense the moment one confronts you. And you WILL DIE if you do so. His gang is big and powerful, and has the delusional support of almost all of your friends and neighbors. Saying "No" to a cop is suicide. Accept it and choose your path with informed awareness.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

"Statistics" are irrelevant

Chart swiped from here

I don't know if the above chart is accurate. It probably is, but the thing is, it doesn't even matter.

Even if anti-gun "laws" would save some lives (without costing other lives) you don't have the right to impose those kind of "laws".

Even if some former slaves die after being freed (and the evidence is pretty clear that a lot of them did die as a direct result of "emancipation") you still have no right to enslave anyone for any reason. Not for their own good, not "for the children", and not because the cotton won't be picked otherwise.

It doesn't matter if you claim their lives matter, so to keep them alive you need to keep them enslaved. Liberty is dangerous, but it is essential anyway.

It's the same with "gun control" [sic]. You simply don't have the right, and if you don't have a right, you can't transfer a right you don't have to someone else on your behalf.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Scott Adams on guns

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame wrote a post about the "gun debate" a few days ago. It's worth a read, even if you won't agree with his conclusion. Here's the link to it, if you are interested.

Now I'll point out where he's wrong.

"The persuasion filter sees individuals with different risk profiles favoring policies they feel will keep them safer even if it makes someone else less safe."

Maybe some people do that. Especially the anti-gun bigots. But I don't. The only people truly less safe around guns are those intent on archating. And I don't care about their safety, and I don't believe you should, either. After all, how much do they care about anyone else's safety?

"...no one involved in the gun debate, on either side, is engaged in honest, rational debate."

Yes, one side is. You just want to spin it to be nice to the anti-gun bigots; to not make them feel bad.

"...you see people who are pursuing their own self-interest as they see it at the expense of other people."

At the "expense" of who, exactly? Rapists, politicians, muggers, home invaders, etc.? Since when are you obligated to protect the feelings of those who want to molest you? It is in every decent person's self-interest to encourage gun ownership for everyone. Even if I go crazy and try to kill an innocent person, and they shoot me in self-defense, I completely support their right to do so. Maybe knowing they are armed would help keep me sane, or scare me into not attacking them even if I go nuts.

"...gun ownership is a freedom granted in the Constitution"

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And this is the foundation of just about ALL anti-gun bigotry.

Gun ownership (and the carrying of guns and all other weapons) is not a freedom granted by anything. It is a fundamental human right which predates the first government. It exists now, everywhere, whether the ruling gang of bullies respects the right or not. It will still exist long after the final goverment is forgotten in the mists of time. It would exist if the Constitution had never been written, and will exist if the Second Amendment is abolished. No "laws" can touch the right, although they can give bullies excuses to murder and cage those exercising the right.

"...the unspoken part of those preferences includes the knowledge that some number of innocent people, including children, will die because of current gun laws."

Yes. Gun "laws" kill. The answer isn't more anti-gun "laws", resulting in more innocent deaths. It is more wrong to "do something" that results in innocent deaths, than to fail to do something that might trade some of those lives for others. In other words, it is more wrong to shoot an innocent person than it is to fail to jump into the path of the bullet to save the life.

"We humans can’t say aloud that we prefer our position on guns (either pro or con) even though we know that getting our way will mean certain death to innocent people."

Innocent people will die even if guns had never been invented. More innocents will die if you manage to take guns away from all the good people, leaving them only in the hands of criminals, police, and the military (and all the other government goons who would be exempt from the prohibition). Why make it even harder and less likely that those innocents will have the proper effective tools available for self-defense when they are attacked? That's just evil.

"...we live in a political system that allows (and maybe encourages) people to vote for their self-interest, as they see it, even if the outcome would lead to the death of other citizens."

And this is why rights and liberty are never legitimately up for a v*te. It is wrong to decide against human rights for other people, no matter how many people agree with you.

"...for some types of political decisions, people will die no matter which direction you go. And that means people will vote in a way that makes it less likely they will be the ones dying and more likely it will be some other class of people doing the dying."

I will gladly help people of other "classes" learn to safely handle and use a gun. Again, this is why "politics" is a horrible thing to allow to meddle with a society. To me, there are really only two "classes" of people: those who archate and those who don't. Or maybe it would be better expressed as those who make a habit of archating and those who avoid it. I want all innocent people to prevail against their attackers every time, no matter what their bank account, skin color, ethnicity, place of birth, religion, sex, or orientation. It's not a difficult thing to explain, but apparently it is difficult to accept.

Honest Pro-gun argument: “I realize the right to own guns will result in the death of thousands of innocent people. But owning a gun lowers the risk for my family, in my opinion, because of my specific situation, and so I favor gun rights.”
or…
Honest Anti-gun argument: “I realize that some forms of gun control could result in the deaths of people who would otherwise be able to defend themselves, but I’m okay with that because my family’s risk would be lower if there were fewer guns in circulation.”

Well, I question the use of the word "honest". Why are the words "thousands" and "innocent" omitted from the anti-gun argument? And how would the anti-gun bigot's family be safer? They might feel safer, if they are oblivious. But if they don't archate, the good guys won't be shooting them, and not having a gun won't protect them from the bad guys who will still have guns or another way to impose their will on unarmed victims. The anti-gun argument is based on wishful thinking. A belief in magic. 

I want to do what I can to prevent the deaths of innocent people. Making sure it is easier for them to own and carry a gun is part of that. Making sure they don't feel so hopeless they want to kill themselves is an even bigger part. Getting rid of anti-gun "laws" doesn't result in innocent deaths-- existence results in innocent deaths. 

"I’m pro-gun, with a preference for a national no-buy list."

Who gets to create this list? The bullies of government who want to find any reason they can manufacture to say as many people as possible are prohibited from having a gun? No thanks.

"Private gun owners stand no chance against a professional military"

Tell that to a growing list of private gun owners who have humiliated professional militaries all over the planet. But it sounds right if you don't actually think it through.

I understand Adams wants to look balanced on the issue. But there is no balance to the question of slavery vs liberty. The appearance of balance is a deception.

Added: Please read Jim Henshaw's excellent comment below.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

The Denial is strong in this one

In the past I have pondered whether it is ethical to accept "welfare" from government, but I have never doubted that it is dangerous. I have compared it to milking a grizzly bear.

Over on Medium some poor woman said that my characterizing welfare as "the cruelest slavery" is a lie. Her evidence: when her family had their welfare cut off, they went through "hell".

...?

Then she scolded me for my "conservative mindset". Strike TWO!

I should have left her alone, but I pointed out that she only proved my point. Her family went through "hell" when the welfare was cut off precisely because they had been enslaved by it and didn't know how to make it on their own. She'll never admit it; probably not even to herself.

If I were cold, heartless, and didn't care about people, I'd encourage them to become dependent on handouts which can be used to control and manipulate them-- and to punish them when they aren't sufficiently controlled and manipulated.
But I do care, so I warn people instead. Even when they shove their fingers in their ears and scream so they can't hear me.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium, and please CLAP for my posts on Medium, because they say I'm not allowed to remind people to do so, and even those who want to usually forget.

So, you don't want a gun...

Here's a shocker: If you don't want a gun, I don't want you to have one. Why would I encourage you to carry something you don't want, and may not want to learn to handle safely? That doesn't help anyone.

If the reason you don't want a gun is based on lies told by anti-gun bigots, I will probably try to set you straight, but if you still don't want a gun after being shown the truth, that's fine with me. Go in peace.

But don't imagine that you not wanting a gun in any way obligates me to not have one. It doesn't.

My gun will never be used to harm you unless you attack me (or someone else) or make a credible threat to do so. In other words, if you don't want me to shoot you, don't archate. Funny thing, though-- I see the advocacy of government violence against gun owners (you might call it "common sense gun laws") as a threat. It might rise to the level of a credible threat to attack me if you're not careful.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Common sense gun deregulation needed

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 28, 2018)

It's time to take a hard look at America's gun laws. In fact, it's over a century past due. How many more innocent lives will be snuffed out before people demand change? Before they demand politicians stand up and do what's right?

I'm talking about common-sense gun deregulation.

Anti-gun "laws" can't make anyone safer-- except those who prefer victims who can't fight back effectively. Every gun regulation is a violation of the rights to life, liberty, and property. America has compromised its way into this problem.

No one has the right to regulate guns (or other weaponry), nor can anyone invent this right through power or popularity. Attempting to do so anyway is ethically as bad as shooting up crowds.

Put government back in its tiny box through common-sense gun deregulation.

It's time to end background checks and to get over the idea that some people can be prohibited from owning guns.
It's time to abolish every "gun free" zone.
It's time to get rid of "laws" controlling who may carry what weapon, where, and in what way, including licensing schemes. Slaves depend on others for defense; free men and women don't.

It's time to stop pretending anyone has the right to decide what type of gun, which gun accessories, or how many rounds of ammunition someone else needs. It's no one's business unless someone is making a credible threat to harm innocent people.
It's time to stop pretending my rights are up for grabs whenever someone other than me commits an act of evil.

It's time to stop acting like liberty is subject to the opinions of emotionally immature and intellectually deficient protesters.
It's time to stop pretending you want to outlaw guns when you are willing to let the police and military keep theirs. You aren't against guns, you just want government to have them all. How would you enforce any gun ban, if not with guns?

It's time to abolish the BATFE. It's a criminal gang from the ground up and has been from the day it was established. End it, without transferring its "job" to another criminal gang like the FBI.

It's time to encourage everyone to accept their sacred responsibility to be properly armed every day, everywhere they go. It's time to fire and sue any government employee who questions any person for exercising this absolute, universal human right.

Get government out of the scam of making up rules concerning guns. The cost of ignoring this problem one more day is too high.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Presidential Derangement Syndrome

I didn't v*te for Trump. Or anyone. I got over that tail-chasing spasm a while back, and I refuse to consent to a ruler of any sort. And I'm certainly not going to endorse one!

That being said...

Donald Trump was not the dawn of the corrupt, disgusting president. I get tired of statists of the "left" pretending he was. Their most recent darling, Obama, was just as bad, but he was corrupt and disgusting in ways they liked so they ignored it. And still do.

And, really, every president, congressvermin, mayor (except Mayor Stubbs- RIP), councilcritter, etc. is the same. Corrupt to the core, because corruption is built into the "system" and can't be eliminated without abandoning government (the only sane and ethical choice, really).

I also get tired of statists of the "right" pretending Trump is somehow OK, because he's doing what they want (even as he doesn't, but that's another story).

The statists of the "left" love to moan about how awful it is that anyone could have v*ted for Trump. I agree. I also think it was awful anyone threw their support behind Hillary, Bernie, or whatever else was running for the job. Including Vermin Supreme-- the only honest candidate.

Elitist "leftist" statists love to show how elite and enlightened they are by trashing Trump. Let Trump trash himself; he's doing a good job of that. But admitting you supported one of the other parasites doesn't really show you in a good light. And Trump-bashing, while acting as though someone else would have been preferable, is downright delusional.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

"Leave it"? To where?

"If you don't like the government move to Somalia!"
"Love it or leave it!"

Supposedly government gains the imaginary quality known as "authority" through "consent of the governed". But you aren't allowed to not consent without pulling up stakes and moving somewhere else; somewhere which will be claimed by some other gang of thugs.

If that were the only way to withhold consent, then you aren't allowed to refuse consent to a rapist depending on where you happen to be. If you are on his property, or on property he claims as his own whether or not he actually owns it, you aren't allowed to refuse consent. You "owe" him, according to this way of belief.

Do you only have the right to not be raped if you are not on property owned or claimed by the rapist? Does that make any sense? No.

I do not consent to be governed (or otherwise violated), and my physical location is irrelevant to that right. As is yours.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

"The right to not be shot"

The anti-gun bigots are busy trying to portray their activism as support for "the right to not get shot". They lie.

Yes, you have a right to not get shot (as long as you aren't archating, anyway) because no one has a right to shoot the innocent. That's not being disputed.

The thing is, your right to not be shot doesn't give you the right to violate other people's rights, and when you do, they have the right to shoot you. They may choose not to, but you're a fool to count on it.

If someone is not threatening to attack you, you have no right to use violence against him, including the violence of government, to violate his right to own and to carry any kind of weapon he wants, openly or concealed, everywhere he goes, without seeking permission of anyone, ever.

His mere possession of a tool doesn't threaten you, and if you feel threatened by it, you are a pathetic, weak coward. You repel me.

The right to violate other people's equal and identical rights can't be created. It doesn't exist if you repeal the Second Amendment. It doesn't exist no matter how many unethical, illegal, harmful anti-gun "laws" get imposed, enforced, or upheld by the Supreme Courtjesters. It doesn't exist no matter how cowardly you are, how loud you shriek, or how much the other anti-liberty bigots fawn over you.

By demanding that government violate your neighbors, you are threatening them with violence, giving them a right to shoot you in self-defense if they determine the threat to be credible. And if they do, I will not grieve over your corpse. I'm done with disgusting parasites like you.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

A cheap way to help

I've mentioned that I'm now also posting on Medium. Here's a little more of how (I think) that works.

For $5 per month you get access to everything I post there (which includes things I don't post here) as well as everything everyone else posts on Medium. All for that $5 per month. It seems like kind of a good deal.

Now, I think that in order for me to make any money off the deal you have to read my posts and also "clap" for my posts (which you can apparently do as many times per post as you want-- but I'm not really sure).
You can also be a "fan" and/or follow me on there, and maybe that also figures into how much I get paid.

It's a pretty affordable way to reward writers you like. The site leans "left statist", but you can help promote those of us who don't.

I do know that for the past month I got $14.86 from Medium, and every little bit helps.

.

Taking make-believe too far

Lawmakers are like authors of speculative fiction. They create imaginary worlds in their minds, then put them on paper for others to read. But their worlds-- their words-- are still only works of fiction.

Nothing they write can create the right to forbid tools of self-defense, or create zones where they are forbidden.
Nothing they write can make it wrong to grow or consume a plant.
Nothing they write can make it OK to require a license for any activity.
Nothing they write makes their fictional world real.

But, there we have a problem.

Cops-- which includes police officers, sheriffs and their deputies, armed federal employees, ICE agents, or anyone who works for a government and commits armed law enforcement-- are like cosplayers who take the fiction too seriously. Seriously enough that they take its cues to commit kidnapping, theft, rape, murder, and any other form of molestation they can get away with.

This is why no matter how bad congress, city councils, judges, presidents, or any other government extremist lawgiver might be, cops are always worse. Cops are the foundational problem-- well, that and the belief in "authority" that allows them to get away with it.

Cops take make-believe too far.

Cops are the real bad guys.
Cops are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face.
Without them, the fiction of the lawmakers couldn't hurt anyone.
Cops can never be good guys, and must always be exposed for what they are.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Points of ignorance

There are many people I appreciate for their contributions in some areas, such as science or reason, while still rolling my eyes at their blatantly ignorant statism.

I actually heard one saying that he discarded his "woo" beliefs one at a time, until he had no more. Yet, he identifies as a "progressive"/"liberal" and he is an anti-gun bigot. So, he still has at least one demonstrably false "woo belief", and probably more (considering the correlation of "progressive beliefs" with other statist nonsense). So, while he may be credible in some areas, he is not credible when it comes to how people should behave toward others. Not in the slightest.

I don't expect a person to be an expert in everything, but when you are completely ignorant in some area, you have a responsibility to not open your yap and ignorantly preach at others.

It's why I respected Stephen Hawking's contributions to science, but discounted his opinions about government. In one area he was an expert; in the other he was as ignorant as any gutter drunk. And I could point out example after example.

If I want to know how to brain tan buckskin I don't go to the guy who is an expert computer hacker. If I want computer advice, I don't go to the guy who knows how to brain tan. I'm not necessarily saying someone couldn't know both, but if the brain tan guy tells me I need to cast the demons out of my laptop to fix it, I'm going to see that he might know buckskin, but he doesn't know computers. You need to evaluate the advice on its own merits, or lack thereof.

It's the same with someone who understands cosmology or any other branch of actual science, but still believes you need to molest each other to have a functioning society. Ignorance is ignorance.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Manipulated by "Russians"?

I am constantly amused by the concerns over "Russians" manipulating v*ters in the last (LOL. I wish) presidential election.

If you v*ted for a ruler, it is clear someone manipulated you successfully. Why is it somehow "worse" if it was "the Russians" rather than Google, FOX, Facebook, or MSNBC? Propaganda and manipulation is the same whatever the source.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Stand up for liberty, not slavery

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 21, 2018)

A defining trait of libertarians is our opposition to all slavery; we are abolitionists.

Libertarians were among the loudest of the Nineteenth Century's voices against the enslavement of people of African descent. Libertarians are the lone voices against slavery today, because most people believe slavery was abolished rather than realizing it was expanded to include everyone.

Slavery violates life, liberty, and property. No one can have the right to own another person. No one can have the right to force someone to work for the benefit of others. Not even if the laborer is allowed to keep a percentage. Even the most brutal slavers of the past fed, housed, and clothed the slaves if they wanted them to survive to labor another day.

Anti-gun laws are slavery. Slaves, not trusted to make their own decisions, must depend on the master for protection. Free people choose to take responsibility for their own defense and are accountable if they harm an innocent person. Supporting gun control-- which is, in reality, people control-- is to support slavery.

Drug laws punish people for exercising self-ownership. You either recognize every person owns her own body, or you don't. If a person isn't free to self-medicate however she wants, she is not free. Freedom is dangerous, and people will make bad choices. Sometimes their choices destroy them, and sometimes their choices destroy others. You can't have the right to control other people because tragic things might happen. This is slavery.

Taxation forces people to work for others; to hand the fruits of their labors to someone who didn't earn them. It doesn't matter how much the worker is allowed to keep if armed government employees place a prior claim on the earnings. Slavery and theft can't be made right by writing laws.

Those who supported slavery in the past justified their position by claiming the slaves wouldn't survive without masters. Those who advocate government intervention today make the same claim. They are still wrong. One tragedy of slavery is that, without practice, people lose their ability to think, plan ahead, and make good choices. Removing the chains might mean some people will make choices which will lead to disaster. This gets worse the longer their liberty is violated "for their own good".

Slavery of any amount is wrong. No one ever has the right to enslave another, no matter how they might justify it. Be an abolitionist and stand up for individual liberty, even when it scares you. End slavery now.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Common sense gun laws (on Medium)

Trying to "trick" the Medium anti-gun bigots into reading something sensible.

.

School indoctrinates and promotes ignorance

If you still need evidence of how harmful kinderprison ("public" [sic] school) is, the recent anti-liberty activism by "students" should convince you.

If you need more evidence, look at the percentage of former inmates who are die-hard statists.

Kinderprison kills minds. Of course, this is what government needs.

The lack of skepticism about kinderprison shows how damaging it is. Belief in the legitimacy of governing others is more clear evidence. You don't need anything else, but you still have the overwhelming ignorance (about every critical subject) and lack of literacy as icing on the cake.

Kinderprison prevents education and it needs to die. It is hundreds of years past due. Civilization can't afford to allow it to continue.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Follow me on Medium

Help me earn money while countering the anti-liberty, anti-gun nonsense being promoted on Medium. Follow me there and give me claps (plural... the good kind only, please!) And do the same for other pro-liberty writers who are struggling on the site.

Thanks.

.