Yes, rights can be violated. So?

In a recent podcast, Dilbert's Scott Adams claimed rights are not inalienable because "we can make a law against anything we want".

Partly true, but mostly wrong. You can make a law against anything you want, but if that law violates natural human rights, that "law" is counterfeit. Rights can either be respected or violated. There is no third option.

It is obvious he sees rights as something coming from government; as privileges. Subject to the whims of the majority, or of a minority with deadly power.

Yes, rights can be violated, but that doesn't mean that violating them is a "collective right".

If your desire is to make up laws which violate natural human rights, then of course you are going to promote the idea that rights can be created, doled out, or canceled by law. But this is a lie.

He hates analogies, but one which illustrates the absurdity of his position is that in his world, murder can't be wrong-- you have no right to not be murdered since a murderer could kill you anytime he wants.

"Can" doesn't dictate "should".

His is a superstitious belief about laws and what they are. This is why you judge ideas on their merits, not by who came up with them.

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

Maybe it's time for libertarian countries

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 25, 2018)

Why have there been no libertarian countries? It's a popular question from those skeptical of libertarianism.

On the face of it, it seems a reasonable question. Until you understand what they're asking; then it makes less sense.

How can there be geographic, forced collectives based on voluntary associations and unanimous consent? Coercively voluntary? Enslaved freedom? Where one exists, the other can't. It's like asking why there are no frozen fires.

While libertarianism is essentially personal, there is a political version of libertarianism which would allow government to exist, as long as it is vastly less intrusive. In this case, some historians would dispute the claim of there never having been libertarian countries.

The more individuals respecting life, liberty, and property in an area, the more libertarian the country, regardless of government. Early America, as one example, was pretty libertarian, but inconsistent. Too few residents sufficiently respected the equal and identical rights of all people. The Declaration of Independence is a reflection of better intentions, but just over a decade later they messed up a good thing by writing a constitution; imposing an anti-libertarian government on America. There went the potential.

Libertarians are responsible and don't try to govern, or otherwise violate, their neighbors. When enough people are this responsible a tipping point is reached where the country is largely libertarian. The more libertarian a country is, the more resilient it becomes. Fewer things can go wrong enough to damage it. Alternatively, the less libertarian a country, the more brittle. A foreign or domestic bad guy only needs to seize and use the institutions of governance already in place to defeat the entire country. When none exist to be taken over, every individual must be defeated. It's not worth it.

Contrary to the fears of the skeptics, a libertarian country could provide anything people want. There could be roads, parks, and libraries. The poor could be cared for and people kept safe. Everything provided voluntarily instead of at the barrel of government guns. If you want to make sure only those who paid for a service use it, charge user fees or sell memberships. It would be more ethical, and probably cheaper, than the current system.

Why have there been no libertarian countries? Why have there been no cities on Mars? The time wasn't right. The technology didn't exist. Times change. Whether or not they've existed before, maybe it's time for libertarian countries to happen. I don't know about you, but I'm ready.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Holy Pole Quilt or else!

A guy who lives across the street from my parents assumed I would be on his side.

A new convenience store/truck stop in the area apparently doesn't fly Holy Pole Quilt. This offends the man.

He told me he's going to go in, fill up a basket with expensive items, and when he gets to the register, ask why they aren't flying "The Flag". Then when the cashier says they "aren't allowed to", he's going to leave the full basket and say he can't spend money with them if they can't fly the flag of the country he "fought for".

Ugh. Seriously? Does he only spend money with businesses which prominently display Holy Pole Quilt? I don't remember one flying over most of the grocery stores in the area, Walmart being the exception.

This guy is a die-hard statist and militarist. He was sent to Vietnam as a youngster to murder (or support murderers) for the US government's interests. Unlike many others, this experience only deepened his worship of The State. He has a flagpole in the middle of his front yard, with Holy Pole Quilt illuminated by lights at night. He told me he's making soldier cut-outs to put in front of the pole, along with a big sign of statist propaganda about soldiers and "freedom". There's no doubt where his loyalties lie. And yet, he assumes I agree with him?

He reads my newspaper columns and often tells me how much he enjoys them. Is he reading into the columns what he wants to see, or am I really that bad at communicating?

Just so you know, I don't go around looking for fights. I didn't say a word to the guy about his misguided assumptions or horrifying religion. I may not have even rolled my eyes. I also didn't encourage him or agree with him in any way.

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

Public service notice

If I cuss, you'd better run.

😜

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

Karma? Nah

I don't believe in karma nor anti-karma (what some express as "no good deed goes unpunished").

This frees me to do the right thing for the right reasons without the taint of selfishness or unnecessary fear.

I'm not expecting reward or punishment for doing the right thing, and if I do the wrong thing any punishment is deserved. It's somewhat liberating.

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

Wrongness is wrong because...

Murder is wrong because it violates an individual's rights.

Rape is wrong because it violates an individual's rights.

"Gun control" is wrong because it violates an individual's rights.

There is really no difference in the wrongness of those wrongs.

These things aren't wrong because they are illegal and aren't right when they are "legal".
They aren't wrong because people agree they are wrong.
They don't stop being wrong if a majority stops believing they are wrong, because individuals are still being violated.

If an act violates the rights of an individual, then you have no right to do it. If you do it anyway, you did wrong. You committed evil. That you believe your act is "necessary" changes nothing.

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

I am not a sitting duck

Does having a gun with you in the event of an attack guarantee survival? Of course not. Nothing can. But it doesn't matter.

I'd rather have a fighting chance than be a sitting duck.
Even if I don't survive. I'd rather go out fighting for my life than cowering in fear.

At least do the decent thing and don't get in my way with "laws" and other nonsense.

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

"Gun control" is collective punishment

Collective punishment. I've said before how much I dislike it, and why- here, here, and here.

Your fear, helplessness, or anger doesn't justify collective punishment. Nothing does; nothing can.

Anti-gun "laws", anti-gun bigots dishonestly call them "gun control", are nothing but collective punishment. Punishing innocent people for something someone else did-- something they didn't do and wouldn't do-- just because it's too hard to do anything about what happened. And just because the solution isn't what they want to do.

It's just another reason (in a large and growing stack of reasons) I despise anti-gun "laws".

I recently saw a question asking whether gun owners felt guilt over the latest school shooting by an evil loser. No, I don't. I didn't do it, and I wasn't there to try to prevent or stop it. Whether or not I have a gun has no bearing on any school shooting-- my guns were irrelevant. Disarming me wouldn't make anyone safer, except bad guys in my presence. How can anyone be stupid enough to see that as a positive thing?

How can anyone be stupid enough to advocate or support any anti-gun "laws"?

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

Statists are welcome to listen and learn, or not

I don't really expect statists to listen and learn from anything I write. Yes, it has occasionally happened, but it's not something I count on.

They don't want to hear that "taxation" is theft, or that anti-gun "laws" are slavery, that nothing can give anyone the right to prohibit others from using drugs, or that if you punish someone for something that "might" happen, YOU are the attacker.

They don't want to hear that no matter how many people agree, those people can't make a right out of thin air, and they can't transfer an imaginary right created in this way to someone else to put it into action on it on their behalf in the name of "authority".

This kind of news makes them very unhappy. It puts a monkey wrench in almost everything they want to do to others.

But I know it's true, and I suspect you do too.

So I speak to you while I speak to myself. Statists are welcome to listen in, but I'm not going to water down the truth to spare their feelings. Watered down truth is just a lie. Too many have been coddling them in this way for far too long, to be "nice", and look where it has led. Those clowns now believe they are the reasonable ones!

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

Americans don't need another war

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 18, 2018)

Is Syria worth dying over? No. It would be a tragedy for you to die-- or to kill-- over Syria, North Korea, Russia, or any other country the U.S government is trying to goad into war.

Americans don't need another war in some country which can never be a credible threat to Americans at home. A new money pit, because apparently your money isn't being shoveled into the other U.S. government money pits fast enough to satisfy the military hardware pushers.

I understand some people are very excited about policing the world and spreading "democracy" with perpetual war. I wonder how their democracy missiles work. By spraying Truth, Justice, and The American Way shrapnel with each hellish explosion?

These "compassionate" wars give a new generation excuses to hate Americans. Their problem isn't really with Americans, but with the aggressive, war-addicted U.S. government. The people might not want their tax-stolen money used to create more terrorists abroad, but government gets what it wants.

I know Russians aren't synonymous with the Russian government, the Chinese aren't the same as the Chinese government, and Syrians aren't the Syrian government. Few people are able to see the disconnect between a people and the criminal government which claims to operate on their behalf. For the record, I am not the U.S. government and if you have a problem with them, your problem isn't with me.

People rarely behave so badly as when they group with like-minded psychopaths and call themselves a government. If everyone refused to join them in their psychopathy, they would have no one willing to die or murder to promote governmental interests. Military aggression isn't a good thing; it's never healthy for the people of either country-- not for the aggressors nor for the defenders trying to defeat the invaders. Yet people fall for the propaganda. They always have.

Hermann Göring, Nazi leader and founder of the Gestapo said it like this: "...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists [sic] for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Does it work on you? Do you mistake opposition to aggression for "pacifism"?

The regime posing the greatest credible threat to your life, liberty, and property is not in Syria, Russia, or North Korea, but in Washington DC. Are you their willing sacrifice?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Skeptical kids

There's a phenomenon I've noticed with kids. When I tell them something they didn't already know, they often respond with "No!" They don't even take time to consider what I've said; just reject it automatically.

I suspect most adults respond the same way, but maybe not always vocally.

I've seen it happen when I've told a kid that the Sun is a star, or that birds are dinosaurs, or anything else they either didn't know or had been taught incorrectly. One kid responded that way when I told her all cops are bad guys, even if she likes one.

It might be a mental self-defense reflex. Maybe it protects the mind from uncomfortable information, whether the information is correct or not. Probably a kid would be as skeptical if I told him trolls live under his bed and cut off his tail every night so that he never has a chance to grow one. Or maybe kids would find that more believable.

I really don't go out of my way to tell people things they may not know. Things just come up in conversation if I'm not careful about where my mind goes, with my words close behind. I don't usually press the issue when I'm not believed. I'm just observing reactions and collecting data.

I think it's a good thing that kids don't just accept what they are told. I hope they'll be curious and try to find out more, somewhere. I'd rather kids be skeptical than gullible. Even when it's me they are being skeptical of.

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

Don't let loved-ones become cops

If you love someone, don't EVER support their desire to become a cop.

They may have been a good person before they became a cop, but they can't be good once they are a cop. A cop in the family is nothing to be proud of-- almost anything else (including a crackhead or a $5 hooker) is better.

You might actually believe your son or your niece is too good a person to become a vile murderer just because they become a cop. Before they become a cop you're probably right. They probably have the best intentions. They may really want to help people, and may not realize that every cent they are paid as a cop is stolen from others.

The problem is, ignoring the stolen money, the "police culture" will make them come to believe they aren't doing wrong no matter what evil they participate in. It's a ratcheting effect-- each little act of law enforcement they commit will make it easier to commit the next. And it will make it easier and easier to commit slightly worse acts of enforcement. Every traffic ticket issued will bring them closer to murdering a person for not complying with a nonsensical demand fast enough. Each "property code" excuse to rob someone will inch them that much closer to murdering a person for selling items without a permit.

Even if they make it through their whole career without becoming a murderer, they will justify the murders committed by their fellow Blue Line Gang members. They'll look the other way instead of defending the victims with deadly force from their gangmates. This is just as evil as committing the murders personally. You become what you defend and excuse.

If you care about someone, DON'T support their descent into the vile, nasty life of law enforcement. Encourage them to be a good person who contributes to society instead. No good can come of choosing to commit acts of law enforcement in exchange for stolen money.

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

Anti-gun bigotry will not prevent it

Another post on Medium.
If you go read it, please remember to "clap" so I can get paid. Thanks!

.

Government explained

Picture from here (worth reading)

Is it OK for me to go into your house and take your stuff?
What if I first write on a piece of paper that it's OK for me to go into your house and take your stuff? Does that make it OK?
What if I get a lot of people to agree with me that the permission slip I wrote for myself makes it OK?
What if, instead of using the permission slip for myself, I hire someone (with the proceeds gained by taking stuff from houses) to go into your house and take your stuff? Surely it's OK now. Right?
What if this began long, long ago, with the permission to go into your house and take your stuff passed along to individuals (in the guise of a collective "right" or "social contract") in each new generation... and that's how it has always been for you, your parents, grandparents, and so on for hundreds of years? Does that make going into your house and taking your stuff OK?
What if you call the paper a "law", those passing along the permission a "government", taking your stuff "taxation", and the guy going into your house a "police officer", IRS agent, or some other government employee? Is it OK now?

-Or-

Is it OK for me to tell you how to behave when your behavior isn't hurting anyone else and isn't any of my business?
What if I write a note, outlining what I won't allow you to do, and giving myself permission to take your money, physically hurt you, or force you into a cage if you do the things I don't want you to do? It's OK now?
What if lots of people like the note I wrote and agree with me that you shouldn't be allowed to do those things, even though no one else is harmed? Does that make it OK?
What if people have been giving themselves permission to write those kinds of notes (and then use force against those who ignore the notes) for thousands of years, so that few people can even imagine another way anymore? The notes have been stacking up over the centuries so that no one even knows for sure what they all say now. This must make it OK... right?
What if I call myself government, my meddling opinions "laws", my aggressive thugs "police", taking your money a "fine", hurting you "correction" or "officer safety", and caging you "imprisonment"? Does that make it OK?

If you believe it is, you don't have sufficient ethical character to be an anarchist.

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

Reason is the enemy of statism

Most people are content to believe without reason. Instead of reasons, they have a stack of excuses; this is not as good.

They'll simply assert "cops are good guys", but if pressed for reasons for this belief, they have feelings, fears, laziness, and cowardice-- which they imagine constitute reasons for their belief. But they'll provide no actual reasons based on reason.

When I say there is no such thing as a "good cop", I can show the reasons and the reasoning behind that reality. Copsuckers probably won't like it, and will counter with their feelings and excuses, but the facts stand.

It's the same on topic after topic.

This is why statists would rather rely on belief, and why they hate facts so desperately. Facts are the archenemy of those seeking to justify statism.

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

Anti-gun bigot gets educated

No, he won't listen.

But here it is anyway: Anti-gun dishonesty on display

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

"We’re going to have to rescue ourselves"

This was kind of a cool mention in a very good column: We’re going to have to rescue ourselves

Thank you, Bryan Hyde!

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

Gullible vs Stubborn

There's a fine line between being gullible and being stubborn. You don't want to automatically embrace every new idea you are exposed to just because it sounds nice, but you also don't want to automatically reject every new idea just because it's different from what you currently believe or is uncomfortable.

And that's a hard line to walk.

When I hear a new idea, if I just turn around and repeat it because I like it, it's not my idea. I'm just parroting. I might be demonstrating gullibility because I haven't really thought it through enough to know whether it makes sense. So I don't usually just repeat ideas.

When exposed to new ideas that sound good to me, I take them in, rip them apart, see how they work, put them back together, see if there are any leftover pieces that don't fit anywhere, and then if they pass the test I consider them my own to share or to keep considering. This way I am less likely to be mindlessly parroting other people's ideas. And, I hope, less likely to fall for nonsense.

Sometimes the process takes years and sometimes it takes minutes (which can seem almost like mental years). It also means that by the time I've gone through the process I may have completely forgotten where I ran across the original idea so I may not give proper credit. My brain likes to believe good ideas come from inside, without any outside influence. Selfish brain!

Even if I don't like an idea it sometimes takes root. It won't go away until I put it through the same paces as the ideas I like. If it passes the test I need to accept it regardless of whether I like it. This helps me avoid being stubborn.

I'm not saying this is the right way to consider ideas; just explaining how it works inside my own head.

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

When you're wrong

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around how wrong people can be, and how they can stay that way. Without being bothered by it.

After all, I was once just as wrong, and I fought my way out of it. Now I can see how I was wrong, and why I was wrong. It seems obvious.

Then I remember that back when I was wrong, there were others who knew I was wrong and could see it clearly when I couldn't see it at all.

Now that's where I am when I see how others are wrong.

But it's ongoing. The things I am still wrong about are obvious to someone else who can see how I'm wrong and why I'm wrong, yet I don't yet see it. I hope I eventually do.

I'll write about something related tomorrow.

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

Government involvement not helping

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 11, 2018)

It's a wonderful thing when someone decides to help the community. I might even join them if their efforts align with my values.

I'm somewhat less thrilled when someone mistakes running for office, getting a government job, or passing a law for helping. A government position or job is nothing to be proud of. It's not honorable or praiseworthy. Everything is better without the threat of law or punishment, and when funded voluntarily. Worthwhile ideas don't require arm twisting.

Lampreys aren't helping the fish they latch on to, nor is government helping the society it feeds on.

At best, government is like the wrapping paper covering a gift. It may be beautiful, flashy, smooth, and neat. Or it may be ugly, greasy, or sloppily applied. In either case, the wrapping shouldn't be mistaken for the contents. The wrapping paper needs to be ripped off and discarded no matter how it looks. Then you can get to the important matters hidden below.

Often, government is like black mold growing in the heart of the community; bringing corruption and disease to everything it touches. You shouldn't protect the mold, pretending it is necessary. Nor should you bleach and kill it only to infect the area with new spores, causing the filth to return.

To really help your community, find things others can join voluntarily. Don't impose your ideas of what would be helpful through laws and taxes.

It's not charity if you have no choice, or if you are giving away other people's property. Socialism is the radical idea of sharing, at gunpoint, things which are not yours to share. Calling it democracy doesn't make it better.

When you violate others, it doesn't matter how pure your intentions are; you are doing something wrong. This is the fatal flaw behind most laws.

If you notice a problem, think of what you could do to fix it. Think of people who might be able to help, and ask them. You may be surprised at the response. Many people would like to help, but haven't noticed a need they can take action on. Convince them yours is the one they've been waiting for.

If no one will help, do what you can on your own. Or accept that your idea may not be as good as you believed.

As long as you aren't violating anyone else's right to life, liberty, or property with your good intentions, give it your best shot. If not you, who?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium