Three topics big deal to libertarians

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 14, 2018)

There are three topics which come up frequently in libertarian writings: guns, drugs, and national borders. The reason is those three areas are where the people of America seem willing to let government do the most damage to Rightful Liberty, just to punish other people.

All three are hot buttons for almost everyone, with people on each side screaming at those on the other.

It's why those three topics keep coming up, not because I'm a broken record (does anyone still get the reference?).

None of those issues are legitimately subject to government meddling. No one can have the right or the "authority" to control them. None are listed by the U.S. Constitution as something government is allowed to interfere with, with one specifically placed beyond government's reach; not that government obeys the Constitutional prohibition on gun "laws".

Even if the Constitution permitted government to control guns, drugs, or national borders it still wouldn't be right. No document can create a right or "authority" out of thin air. If you have no authority to do something, you can't delegate that which you don't have to someone else on your behalf. It's simply not possible.

Even if you don't care about those issues, you are being violated in their name.

In particular, drug prohibition is used to trample the liberty of everyone regardless of whether they ever considered using recreational drugs. Prohibition is used to justify making it inconvenient to relieve your own allergies. It is used as justification for punishing medical professionals who care when their patients are suffering needlessly. It is the excuse used to track you, kick in doors in the middle of the night, probe you, and to generally treat you as government property-- which is what government employees believe you are.

The fact is, those topics matter. In everything, regardless of feelings I am always going to come down on the side of individual liberty and human rights; against those who seek to violate and control others.

It should be obvious those aren't the only important issues related to liberty. The right to travel without being stopped and questioned by armed government employees is also critical, as is getting government out of medicine, education, and the economy. The proliferation of licensing, for everything from jobs to driving to self-defense tools, is another major problem.

These issues will continue to be important to those of us who value individual liberty. Respecting liberty will always remain the greatest responsibility.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Not a fan

...of government.

"Government is a group of people organizing to hire someone to say magic words at religious ceremonies and write on paper what the people who hired them want everyone within a claimed territory is supposed to be and do, then hiring an army of people in funny clothes with weapons to make everyone within said territory obey what the paper says or be punished with up to and including being murdered for noncompliance. 

That is the definition of a terrorist organization or violent gang." ~ Anonymous

When someone is right, they are right.

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

Dishonest questions lead to unwanted answers

Recently on Quora, someone asked a dishonest question about whether countries with stronger "gun control laws" had "less shootings".

I pointed out that the question isn't an honest one because an attack on the innocent is wrong, regardless of which tool was used.
Someone replied, accusing me of building a straw man for pointing out the flaw in the original question.

He said I needed to just answer the question as asked, rather than changing the question.

I pointed out that this is like asking him if he has stopped beating his wife yet, and refusing to consider any answer other than a "yes" or a "no". If he points out that he doesn't beat his wife, and never has, is that a "straw man"?

But this is how anti-gun bigots operate. It's how they've fooled people into debating how much slavery is acceptable, rather than rejecting it altogether. It's how they've made up ideas such as "reasonable restrictions", "common sense gun laws", and all the other lies they promote. They aren't honest, and they can only "win" if you agree to play by the rules they set (and change when it suits them). I won't.

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

Guilty statists?

How much guilt does the "average statist" have for their beliefs, and how much slack should we cut them?

I've been having an interesting discussion with Jim Henshaw, the former Chair of the Hawaiian LP, recently of regions closer.

He says I "come across as a bit unforgiving at times". And, I can see that. I'm pretty sure this has caused me to lose followers and financial supporters. So, I asked his advice.

"...it throws me a bit when people label [a standard leftist bleeding heart] as the enemy, or as evil, or whatnot. It doesn't comport with my observed reality that someone can be loving and have wonderful intentions and be, from my standpoint, dead wrong. They're not the enemy, they just haven't had their noses rubbed in the consequences of government coercion enough to overcome the programming and cognitive dissonance."

So, I wondered what level of guilt the teen anti-gun activists have. They aren't lawmakers or enforcers, after all, and many people see them as having "wonderful intentions".

His response:

"I'd say the teen anti-gun activists are arguably almost as culpable as the people making policy, since they are stridently expending enormous energy to try to change public opinion and policy."

In his reply, he expressed that he considered there to be degrees of statist guilt. His rankings of statist actions is:

"...on a scale from making policy, to implementing policy, to huge expenditures on a mass scale urging changes in policy, to making contributions in time or money to statists when asked to do so, to voting, to trying to force one's opinions upon individuals they meet in ordinary life, to volunteering opinions only when asked, to quietly keeping one's thoughts to oneself, to thoughtfully considering the point of view of people urging one not to violate the NAP, to thinking the NAP is morally correct but in the action at hand an exception is warranted, to actually consistently living by the NAP to the best of one's abilities and trying to detect where one has a blind spot about the NAP that needs to be fixed ... to you."

It was funny, because after I sent him the question, I started thinking how I would answer if I had been asked the same, and that's similar to the conclusion I had reached.

Now, I wouldn't place myself at the end like that, even though that's where I strive to be. I have many flaws. But my whole life has been an attempt to think about the "blind spots" I had. And I've found plenty of them over the years. When I find them, I try to get rid of them, and by doing so, I move closer to the "anarchy" part of the map. That has been the one constant.

But, back on topic, he offered:

"I would distinguish between people who are unaware of the immorality of their actions versus people who are aware of the immorality but persist in doing evil acts."

I try to do this. It's why I insist that people aren't evil; actions are. But, of course, people who keep choosing to commit evil are going to appear evil. And once you've pointed out the evil they are supporting, if they refuse to listen, but continue to promote evil, does their opportunity to claim innocence end? I am not certain.

He shared a couple of specific examples from his own life.

Regarding "taxation":

"I've tried time and time again in political discussions with my GF to show that there is no distinction between taxation and theft, and she just keeps saying they just ARE different and then shutting down the topic when I ask in what way are they different. She can't defend it, but the cognitive dissonance has not reached the point where she will change her mind."

And "borders":

"I've gone a bit out of our way to drive her to where she could see the border into Mexico, and she was horrified at the physical evidence that we live in an open air low security prison. I think I also sowed some seeds of doubt when we headed back to Austin, hit an immigration checkpoint around 100 miles from the border, and I pointed out that we got sent to the cursory single question lane to the left, but that anyone looking latino was almost certainly being sent to the much longer and nastier line to the right, that the federal government was stealing her money to implement racist discriminatory treatment, which I think resonated with her since she's black and had ancestors who were owned by plantation owners."

So she's not ready to accept the reality of what she promotes, but she has been exposed to the horrors and did seem to feel something about them. That's a start, at least.

I'm probably always going to seem unforgiving toward statists, or at least toward any of their acts or views that are statist. I'm much "nicer" in person than online. I have to be considering I'm surrounded by statists every day, as you probably are, too. I don't think I'm obligated to excuse statism any more than I'm obligated to look the other way when someone is being bullied any other way, but... maybe I could be nicer to convince them to stop advocating government violence against non-violent people.

And, on any given topic a person can be either in favor of statism or liberty, with the vast majority of us holding an unexamined jumble of such views -- being nicer might help in filling up each person's "Bucket O' Freedom™", drop by drop.

On the other hand, some people aren't going to respond to coddling and need a figurative slap in the face to snap them into the reality of what it is they promote. Maybe this blog isn't the place for those who want to be coddled (despite their Bucket O' Freedom™ being as shot full of holes as a beat-up rusty bucket in the desert that has been used for target practice with an unregistered machine gun).

What do you think?

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

Concealed carry or revealed carry?

What part of "concealed" do people not understand?

Seems the first rule of "concealed carry" is that you don't go around yapping that you carry. And yet, I've encountered so many people who do just that. Usually bragging about their "permit" and wanting to show it off. I'm underwhelmed.

If you want to reveal that you carry, then open carry.

Yes, I want everyone, with few exceptions, to own and to carry firearms. I will assume you are doing so because I assume liberty. I'm probably interested in what you carry, how you carry it, how you like both the gun and carry options, and so on. But I'm probably not going to want to hear you talking about it in "mixed company". For your own protection. There might be an anti-gun bigot statist nearby. No need to tip them off.

I used to know a guy who would start talking about the gun in his boot as soon as he'd get drunk. Assuring me that if "anything goes down", he'd have it under control. He showed me his “permit” multiple times, as if it meant anything to me. If anything went down, I'd have been as worried about him as I was about any attackers. Not sure what he thought was going to "go down" at karaoke, anything can happen anywhere, but he believed he was ready for it. I always had my doubts about that.

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

Anti-gun societies are not "civilized"

How many times have you seen the claim that America has more guns (and fewer anti-gun "laws") than other civilized societies in "The West"?

It's a nonsense claim.

Countries with anti-gun "laws" are not civilized. They may be domesticated, or not. But "civilized"? No way!

One non-negotiable mark of a civilized society is that it doesn't interfere with the liberty or rights of those inside it. Anti-gun "laws" do interfere. They treat the residents as bad, stupid, helpless children.

All else being equal, the more anti-gun "laws", the less civilized a society. No matter the claims made about it by its fans.

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

Patreon problems?

I still haven't gotten paid by Patreon this month. It's never been this late before. I've always had the money by the 6th of the month.
I got charged right on schedule for the people I support. I wonder if they got their money.
I wrote Patreon yesterday, asking if there's a problem, but haven't heard back from them yet (other than the automated reply with links to answers which have nothing to do with my problem).

.

The Sound of ... the cage door closing

"The borders have just been closed." ~ Uttered by a nun to the von Trapp family in The Sound of Music

It wasn't said in celebration, but as evidence that the bad guys had done something evil. Something which would put the good guys in greater danger.

This is what borderists refuse to see. Those who "close" borders might fool you into believing it's to your benefit, but it isn't. It is a trap. A cage. Yes, it may keep some of "them" out, but it can also keep you in.

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

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