Making waves

It is odd that I am expected to have no issue with people who want others to molest me at gunpoint. In fact, it's considered rude of me to notice that they are asking others to molest me at gunpoint. They might cry "That's not what's going on-- there are laws. There have to be! It's just how civilization works!"

Yet, being quite honest, that is what's going on.

Any "law" which violates life, liberty, or property is a threat to molest you at gunpoint-- and murder you if you don't comply fast enough. There's no other honest way to look at it. And that's the vast majority of the "laws" today.

It's not considered polite to notice what's going on and to point it out to others who prefer denial.

It doesn't matter that very few of those "laws" actually affect me. I would be a self-centered monster if that were the only reason I object. I don't want my worst enemy molested by "laws" because I know those same "laws" can also be used against people I like. Or even me. But, even if they aren't, those "laws" are still not right.

Silence in the face of those "laws"-- and the people who support them-- is socially acceptable (but kind of wishy-washy and cowardly).

You'll never be widely well-thought of by standing up for what's right when wrongness has so many fans.

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

“War is Peace”, “Net Neutrality”, and other lies

A post from me on Medium.

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

That's not honor

Why is the word "honor" now tied to people (and their behaviors) that it doesn't fit?

Why is being a cop or a military pawn now conflated with "honor" when the concept so obviously doesn't apply?

Neither "job" is any indication of

honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a source of credit or distinction: high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: such respect manifested: high public esteem; fame; glory (source) 

good name or public esteem: reputation: a showing of usually merited respect: recognition: : privilege: a person of superior standing: one whose worth brings respect or fame (source).

So why use the word "honor" when referring to those people who embody the opposite qualities?

Real honor is a virtue. But you can't be an honorable archator.

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

All bad guys are politicians, and vice versa

In the interest of calling things by their proper names, it is time to apply the label "politician" to everyone who employs the political means to get what they want from interactions with other people.

Yes, presidents, congressvermin, judges, and mayors are politicians. But so are cops, muggers, DMV drones, rapists, government school "teachers", burglars, border control/ICE agents, kidnappers, trespassers, troops, home invaders, livestock inspectors, armed robbers, forest rangers, code enforcers, Somali pirates, tax collectors, and everyone else who uses the political means rather than the economic means. Yes, Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump are politicians, but so was Jack the Ripper and the guy I once saw rob someone in a parking deck.

There are only two ways of interacting with others: the economic means, where both of you come out ahead, and the political means, where one "wins" at the expense of the other. The political means is acting through archation rather than respecting the rights of those with whom you are interacting. Politics is cheating.

It seems many politicians already understand this, since the word "politician" is often treated like a bad word, with many politicians wanting to distance themselves from the truthful label. They want to be politicians while pretending they are something else (which still uses the political means).

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

Fundraiser time

I need some extra donations or subscriptions right now because of an upcoming medical expense in the household. The after-insurance cost will be $250. 

Enough extra to cover a tank of gas or so would also be really nice. (Even though I bike as much as possible.)

Any purely voluntary help would be greatly appreciated. 

Thanks.

.

"Welcome to our future"

A friend recently told me something scary and ... sad. Something I am still trying to digest and ponder. Something which haunts me.

He recently participated in mock "job interviews" of some college journalism students. One of the questions he asked them was "What's the purpose of government?".

Unsurprising, considering the years of pro-government indoctrination they've endured to get to this point, the students mostly answered that the purpose of government is to "help people". One of them even said government's purpose was to "control people"; she considered this a good thing. She believes society has become so dangerous government needs to control everyone in order to "protect" us all.

My friend told these students he thought government's job was to ensure life, liberty and the individual pursuit of happiness; they all scoffed.

One even said "we do not need too much freedom because we can't handle it". Well, him maybe...

My friend went on to say:

"I understand that most people feel government is too big to fight, or they're afraid of the consequences sure to come when fighting government ... But these kids seem to feel government really is their friend, that [being told] what to do is in their own best interest.
Welcome to our future."

The choice really does come down to educate them out of their delusion, or... well, you know what Anonymous Commenter will say.

Yeah, Scary!

I will have a response to this sort of thinking in my newspaper column to be posted Wednesday morning. Stay tuned.

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

Americans need more Robin Hoods

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 4, 2018)

The middle of April is approaching fast; the time of the year when I hear a lot about taxes. Mention of taxes brings Robin Hood to my mind.

I don't think of him with the more recent spin which has been put on the legend, but in the original spirit of the tales.

Robin Hood is a model of an ethical outlaw. He broke bad laws by doing what was right for the right reasons. His story has been misrepresented, as in the original tellings he didn't "rob from the rich and give to the poor", but took back property which had been stolen through taxation and returned it to its rightful owners. Generally, those who collected the taxes were richer than their victims, but regardless, taxing is still wrong.

In later stories, Robin Hood was sometimes changed from a regular guy into displaced royalty in order to tickle the fancy of a government-obsessed public unhappy with the current government. This cheapened the story, changing him from a truly good guy doing right because it was right into a hypocrite who wanted to get rid of one gang of rulers so his faction could take their place. In this interpretation, his outlawry was only a means to a political end. That's much less inspiring.

I prefer the more uplifting tale.

"Taxation" is a dishonest word for theft committed under color of law. The punishments for failure to pay taxes add another level of malevolence to the act of taxing. You can't do right by doing wrong. If something is good and necessary, convince people to finance it voluntarily. If they won't, you need to let it go. Good ideas don't have to be imposed by force.

Contrary to Oliver Wendell Holmes' claim, taxation is not the price we pay for a civilized society, any more than cancer is the price we pay for a healthy life. Instead, civilized society is what we sometimes manage to create in spite of uncivilized antisocial acts such as taxation. Of course, you'd expect someone whose power, position, and wealth came from taxation to mislead you about its nature.

Robin Hood is a hero, completely unlike those who live off of taxation. Americans need more Robin Hoods; heroic outlaws standing on their behalf against socially acceptable wrongs. Perhaps a modern Robin Hood wouldn't stop at correcting taxation, but would also branch out to fight other authoritarian practices.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Maybe cops aren't a disease

Cops are not the problem; cops are a symptom.

That doesn't mean it's OK to celebrate symptoms. They still need to be addressed (and eliminated*, ideally).

Often it's not the disease that kills you, it's the symptoms. That's even the case with something like Rabies. This is also true of statism.

It's already clear statism is a fatal disease, not so much because of the statism itself, but because of the symptoms. They are what kills. And cops, along with troops and other terrorists, are the most deadly symptom.

If not for people depraved enough to enforce The State against others, the disease of statism wouldn't be as likely to be fatal.

The symptoms need to be addressed.
-

*If you believe killing them is the only way to eliminate cops, you seem to be saying cops can't reason their way out of evil, that they have no ethical principles worth anything, and nothing will stop people from continuing to show up and do the nasty, scummy "job" of policing.

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

Touchy-feely racism

A day or so ago I ran across the most blatantly racist thing I've seen in a long time.

The author was taking it upon herself (I think the author was female, but I don't remember for sure) to instruct "Non-Black People", as she so gently phrased it, on how to "stay in your lane" while discussing Kanye West's support for Trump.

"Stay in your lane"?

That sounds suspiciously like "Know your place".

Fortunately most of us have moved past that. But apparently not everyone has.

Who cares what "race" Kanye is? If you have an opinion on his opinions, does that opinion hinge on what "race" both of you are?

Only if you, like that author, are a racist.

I have to admit, I was a little angry when I commented on that article. I couldn't believe someone is actually promoting racism that openly. Most racists at least try to hide the fact that they are being racist. But not her! She flies that flag high.

When someone tells you to "stay in your lane", or told Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus, it's a slap in the face. An insult. And it was pure racism. Don't put up with it. Your "race" has nothing to do with your rights or your value as a human being. Don't let anyone try to fool you into believing otherwise, no matter how "enlightened" they believe they are.

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

"Theoretical"? "Utopian"?

Anarchy* is neither theoretical nor Utopian.

It's a way to live among others without violating them. Probably the only way. It works in real life, every day, in the real world in which we live.

You already know this, I'm sure. If you don't know it yet, experience will drive the point home if thinking it through isn't enough for you.


*Or you can call it Voluntaryism. libertarianism, or abolitionism. Same deal.

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

Sharing and prehistoric humans

I recently read a book I enjoyed a lot. It challenged my preconceived ideas and made me think. That's always a good thing.

Some of the ideas I was readily willing to accept without much trouble, just because I know myself and human nature. Other ideas put forward in the book weren't so obvious, and I'm still not totally convinced. For example, the authors conclude that pre-agricultural humans shared everything and didn't have private property.

Maybe.

They make a good argument for it, and it makes some sense. I'm willing to ponder it.

I believe, in our present planet-wide circumstances, that individual property rights-- over things and land (never over another person)-- are essential for human life and liberty. We have all seen what happens when those rights are violated.

However, I can imagine circumstances which might make property rights less necessary.

If humans aren't bound to a location, as with agriculture, but move around just about all the time, I can see how real estate property rights would only get in the way; hold them back or tie them down.

After the invention of agriculture, you had to know you had a good chance of being able to harvest what you planted-- thus property rights concerning real estate were discovered. This new lifestyle also necessitated specialized tools, so personal property rights became essential. You couldn't spend days fashioning a tool, only to have someone else walk away with it so that you didn't have use of it anymore.

All this is pretty clear.

But, if there were a way to get past this necessity, without compromising individual liberty and rights, I'd be willing to consider it. It couldn't include taking things away from people who wanted to keep possession of them (because this would indicate they are opting out). It couldn't include punishing people who decide to walk away from the group. It couldn't include treating people as property-- neither property of an individual nor "property" of the group. It couldn't involve initiation of force. Those points are non-negotiable.

I've said before that I'm not opposed to groups trying socialism or communism as long as it is completely voluntary and anyone can opt out at any time. Sharing is nice. Forced "sharing" isn't sharing. And sharing what isn't yours to share, under threat of violence, is just evil. That's why political socialism and political communism are such utter evil failures, and always will be. Politics ruins everything.

If you come up with a workable plan, I'd be willing to check it out and see how it works. Even if it means giving up most modern conveniences. I would not be willing to impose it on others.

-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Check out my special request on the side-bar.
Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Special note

Please notice the donation/subscription request over to the right, in red.

Thanks.

.

Government- the god of statism

People come up with any excuse they can grasp at in order to keep from accepting that the ideas they love are absurd. Show them why those excuses don't hold up, and they'll throw out ever more excuses in desperation.

A lot of "atheists" were deeply offended when I pointed out they are actually atelatheists because they still believe in one god-- the god of The State.

You should have seen the excuses, equivocations, and denial. It was pathetic.

But no matter how much it hurt their feelings, it is objectively true.

One of the dodges they employed was to claim that, even if statism has religion-like qualities, it can't really be a religion because none of them consider government to be a god.

Oh really?

Even if that's true, you don't necessarily need a god at the center of your religion.

AronRa, a popular outspoken atelatheist, whose work (in general) I love, defines a religion as "a faith-based belief system, including the notion that some element of self, be it memories or consciousness ...a soul, perhaps... continues beyond the death of the physical body; transcends and survives that...". I see no mention of belief in a god being a requirement for something to be a religion.

But, do they really not believe in a god?

AronRa also gives the best definition of a god I've ever read. He says a god, reduced down to the lowest common denominator, is a "magic, anthropomorphic immortal".

Let's see how this definition applies where The State, which is what most people mean when they use the word "government", is concerned.

Magic- doing things which go against the natural laws of reality. Or, as Dictionary.com defines it: "the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature."

Those who believe in government believe that incantations ("laws") can change the act of taking property from the rightful owner, against his will, by threat of force, from "theft" to not theft by calling it "taxation". Magic.

Those who believe in government believe that even though no one individual has the right to go to their neighbor's house, kidnap him and put him in a cage for growing a certain plant, they can nevertheless join together with other people (who also lack this right) and hire someone (who doesn't have this right) to go do the same, and in this way magically create this right out of thin air, imbuing their hired gun with this right and making the act something other than a kidnapping. Magic.

Or, if they don't want to create a right to do that, they'll still believe they can create a right to prohibit guns or sex they don't like, or to tell people they aren't allowed to add a room to their house or paint it a particular way, or... well, the list is endless. Magic.

Anthropomorphic- having human traits or qualities. Or, as Dictionary.com says: "ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity."
Such as believing that government builds roads and libraries. The belief that government "cares" about the poor and sick. Believing that government can have rights. Yeah, there is no question that those who believe in government ascribe human attributes to it. Sometimes they even draw pictures of it in human form ("Uncle Sam" or "John Bull", anyone?).

Immortal- something which is alive and can't die. Dictionary.com: "not mortal; not liable or subject to death; undying: remembered or celebrated through all time: not liable to perish or decay: imperishable; everlasting. perpetual; lasting; constant"
Just try to find some way this doesn't apply. Even if government "dies", they expect it to rise again, perhaps in a better form. But, just look at the "Forever stamp"- they believe government to be "forever". Immortal.

So, by AronRa's own reasoning, atelatheists believe government to be a god. Sure, they'll never say those words or admit it. Doing so would expose their hypocrisy.

Statism is a religion, and government-- The State-- is the god of Statism. Any "atheist" who is a statist has a god. He is an atelatheist. Atelatheists are lying when they say otherwise, but I don't blame them. It is a shameful belief system.

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

Preference, prejudice, and problems

I don't think I'm a terribly prejudicial person. Not anymore. I think I've moved beyond that. But I do have preferences, and I do notice problems.

Preference isn't necessarily prejudice.

For example: I prefer girls with dark hair. I am not prejudiced against blondes, and there is no judgment implied. All else being equal, I just like the look of dark hair better. It's not set in stone, though. It's just a trivial preference.

Is it prejudice even if I don't assume hair color makes someone somehow "better"?

Well, what about other things?

Is it prejudice to notice trends?

My neighborhood is probably over 50% Hispanic. I think all the (adult) neighbors I know are fine people-- (not so sure about the people remodeling the house next door). However, the vast majority of the people caught committing crimes (both real and counterfeit) which end up in the news in this area are Hispanic, if you can tell by their names. It isn't prejudiced to notice this, is it?

There may be reasonable explanations for this little statistic that have little or nothing to do with actual archation.

Maybe the local cops are more prone to watch or molest the Hispanic residents. That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest (although I think the police chief in this little town is also Hispanic).

Maybe the local cops are more likely to pursue the "illegal" activities the local Hispanics are more likely to engage in.

Or maybe the Hispanic names in the police report are more likely to catch my attention (although I almost never read it, and I scoff at the fake "crimes" listed when I do).

It may even be something else entirely.

Whatever it means, if anything, it appears that almost no local Hispanics commit "crimes", but almost all the crimes (and "crimes") that end up in the news are committed by Hispanics.

It bothers me to notice this problem. But I do notice. I'm just not quite sure what the problem is that I'm noticing.

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

Keep your nose on your own property

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

Neglecting to understand which things are your business, and which are not, causes many problems.

People spend too much time with their noses in places where they don't belong while ignoring things for which they are responsible.

If there's a guy living in a hole, it is none of your business unless you are the guy in the hole or the owner of the property where the hole was dug. No one else gets to have a say.

It's not your business just because you are law enforcement or a politician who imagines some sort of authority over an area. It's not your business simply because you object to people living in holes. It doesn't justify more laws or more welfare. Don't give government any excuse to be people-botherers.

If the guy in the hole or the property owner wants your help, go ahead. Help with your own time or money, not by deciding other people's money should be confiscated for your good intentions. Not by asking armed government employees to stop people from living in ways you don't like.

Keep your nose on your own property.

Property rights are critical. Even the imaginary problem of immigration could be solved by people minding their own business and respecting property rights. Invite or exclude anyone from your own property for any reason. Recognize that your property rights end at your property lines, and that no one can rightfully control the property of another. Not even if you call yourself a government and pretend your authority extends over other people's property.

Every person is either where they have a right to be, or they are trespassing. Laws don't change this. If someone is where they have a right to be, it's none of your business even if you wish they didn't have a right to be there, or even if you imagine laws can trump property rights. If someone is on property without the explicit permission of the owner he is trespassing and has no right to be there. This doesn't change if he is a government employee going where he wasn't invited.

You are not trespassing if the owner of the property has come to a mutually agreeable arrangement with you, regardless of the government papers which may be lacking. You can't be trespassing if you are on public land.

Respecting property rights, along with knowing what is your business and what isn't, would go a long way toward making society civilized again.

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

Standing up for liberty isn't political

Liberty is the "political" sphere's null set. Politics is the active (rather than passive) attempt to violate liberty.

For example:
Humans have always had the natural right to arm themselves. This wasn't even debated; it's just how it is, always has been, and always will be. Nothing can change it.
Then someone decided to use politics to stop people from arming themselves, and punish those who didn't cooperate with this violation.
Some of those who resist being violated use politics in an attempt to fight back, but this is just playing the bullies' game-- by the rules the bullies set up and enforce. It might get you a temporary reprieve, but in the long run, it's a losing strategy.

Standing up for your liberty, by living it, isn't political. But trying to stop people from living their liberty is.

Anti-gun activists and anti-knife activists (or their supporters) are being political.
Gun rights (and knife rights activists)-- especially those simply ignoring the "laws" and doing what they have a natural human right to do-- aren't.

You have no obligation to tolerate those trying to stop you from doing what you have a right to do. You have no obligation to play politics in self-defense. Why march or v*te for your rights? Just exercise them.

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

Cops: good, bad, or something else?

I say cops are bad guys, but that is not a popular observation. Many people desperately want to cling to their belief that cops are good guys. Yeah, it's kind of pathetic, but that's how they are.

But there's a third position which I've seen hinted at that is about halfway between the two views. It deserves consideration.

It seems these people will almost admit that cops are bad guys. Maybe the best way to express it is they see cops as "tough guys" hired by "us" so they can be bad toward (freelance) bad guys on our behalf. Like a big brother who beats up our bully so we don't have to.

At least it's more honest than claiming cops are good guys. That claim is demonstrably absurd. This halfway claim is still a little sad.

It's an admission that the cop supporter isn't responsible or competent enough to handle his own problems. And that he's OK with innocent people getting hurt as long as he "feels safe".

Cops frequently beat up (or shoot, kidnap, or rob) the wrong person. People who weren't actually doing anything to anyone, but just minding their own business in a way someone else might not like. So beating them up is wrong. Killing them for defending themselves-- or trying to escape-- from a cop is murder.

If cops were even slightly on the right side, they would accept their responsibility when they molest the innocent, and they would take the consequences (rather than allowing their "tax" victims to pay for their crimes). Cops don't do this. Cops are nasty.

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

Ignorance leads to archation by "law"

In general, the more knowledgeable you are about a given topic, the more you will see the "laws" written concerning that topic as harmful nonsense.

In fact, I think that is how you can tell someone knows a particular subject really well, as opposed to faking it.

This is where most of my youthful statism came from. It was a "government of the gaps". I couldn't see how something might work without "laws", because I didn't really know how it worked at all, so I assumed "laws" were necessary. As those gaps of ignorance closed, I began to realize that holding out for the remaining gaps of was not too bright. It just meant I hadn't learned enough yet.

I see this a lot in statists. So I try to help them understand when I can. Most don't want to.

If you feel "laws" are necessary, light a candle in the dark and learn enough to see they aren't. It's smarter than sitting there in the dark excusing the ignorance.

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

Violence

"Violence"- when I use the word I am referring to the ethically neutral use of physical force, typically targeted against an individual or individuals.

As opposed to aggression, which is the use of violence against a person who isn't currently violating life, liberty, or property, nor credibly threatening to do so. Aggression is the initiation of force (or the initiation of violence).

Self-defense or defense of property can be violent but isn't aggressive since the other party "started it" by initiating force or violating property rights.

Violence can be good or bad; aggression is something you have no right to commit. Aggression is a facet of archation.

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

"Pacifism"

It's strange how people misrepresent the meaning of words when it suits their purpose.

Such as "pacifism". It doesn't mean what some people wish it meant.

It isn't "pacifism" to oppose aggression. You can even oppose aggression violently. In fact, sometimes that's the only way you can oppose it effectively.

I oppose aggression in all its forms. I am not a pacifist. The very thought sickens me. I've known people who said they were pacifists, and if that's what they want I'm not going to insist they change. But pacifism seems like a rejection of responsibility. If you won't fight to protect yourself or others from archation, it seems like you are helping the bad guys.

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