Identify reality

Just because you don't like what I say doesn't make it any less true.

Of course, the opposite is also true-- just because you agree with me doesn't mean I'm right.

This is a hard thing to grasp. I want to believe those I agree with are right, and those I disagree with are wrong. And, it's still possible that this is the case most of the time. But I have to be careful to not be so happy to agree with something that I don't examine it.

As is the case in so many areas of life, the more you learn to identify the plants and wildflowers, the fewer weeds you'll see. Fewer... but there still are some.

I can see why others embrace certain paths (and people), and in learning to identify some of these things, I see fewer acts as truly evil. But evil still exists.

No matter how you wrap it and put a bow on it, it is still evil to cause intentional harm to life, liberty, or property. It is evil and it doesn't matter what names you give it. It doesn't matter how much you appreciate or love those who do it. It doesn't matter that the alternative scares you or you feel you have no choice. And, even if I can identify your specific weed, I know it's still a weed. It needs to be pulled out by the roots and burned-- and it's your responsibility to do so.

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

A response to Bruce the Anti-libertarian

I ran across a letter to the editor written in response to a libertarian's letter. (I have a screenshot in case this letter goes away.)

This raving statist's letter was a treat to behold. Rarely have I witnessed this much dishonesty in such a small space. Kudos to him!

Now I'll address just a few of the lies promulgated therein.

"[R]egulations (and taxes) exist for the public good, and protect the public from bad actors"
That's simply not true. You can't rob the "public" for its own good. It's not possible.

There are only two kinds of regulations- the useless and the harmful. You don't need regulations (or "laws") against things such as murder, robbery, kidnapping, etc. to make it OK for people to defend themselves and others from those acts. And "laws" against victimless acts are harmful to society because they harm individuals. You can't harm all your body's useful cells and claim it's beneficial to your body. Well, you can, but you'd be lying.

The worst of the bad actors are those who seek positions of political power, from which they can rob and molest people (mostly) without consequence-- because it is "legal", and people like the author seem to believe that's good enough.

"Libertarians believe there is no such thing as 'the public interest' and deny that altruism exists."
More lies.

It can not be in the "public interest" to systematically enslave the individuals who make up the public. This is the reality government extremists such as the author seek to sweep under the statist rug.

Altruism exists. No libertarian denies that it does. I have performed altruistic acts of my own free will, and I have benefitted from the altruistic acts of others-- just very recently in fact. It would have cheapened the act if someone such as the author (or his hired thugs-- government employees) had stuck a gun in the face of those he felt should "help" to convince them to be "altruistic". If you have no choice, due to "laws", it's NOT generosity. It is not altruistic to rob people and claim it isn't robbery because you call it "taxation". It's not altruistic to give "the less fortunate" money or other property which is not yours to give away. That is the opposite of altruistic.

"Everything is seen through a lens of naked self-interest."
Nope. He's lying again! How many lies can he squeeze into this one screed? LOL!

"...they believe all politicians and all bureaucrats are simply out for themselves, and have no other motive than grasping self-interest."
I don't care about their motives, I care about what they actually do. Their acts harm innocent people, and even when they see the harm they do, they "do it harder". That's wrong.

"Therefore, every regulation, and every tax, is a coercive measure of oppression intended to deny libertarians their 'freedom.'”
I care about your "freedom" as much as I care about my own. Otherwise I wouldn't be a libertarian. All those acts of statism the author supports deny him his own freedom (and liberty), too. And I care even if he doesn't. I don't want to see someone robbed and raped, even if they're OK with it. But even more than that, I don't want people like him making the decision that others have to be OK with it just because he sees nothing wrong with it. That's just evil.

"Of course, the same daily 'coercion' experienced by most people in the corporate world goes unremarked, because employment is voluntary, and you can always quit."
Another lie. This guy's going for a new world record!
Corporations are an instrument of government, which only exist by crawling in bed with government, and which get government favors out of the deal. They are just as wrong when they initiate force or violate property rights as government.

It's not about government, after all; it is about not having the right to attack others or take their stuff, no matter who you are or what your excuse. Yes, you can usually quit a job without being forced to move away like you're forced to do if you want to quit a particular government. That doesn't excuse the aggression or property violations committed by government's bosom buddies, the corporations.

"Libertarians believe that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work for the benefit of us all."
Haha!! No, you've just stated your own side and blamed it on libertarians. That may be the most dishonest thing you've said here, but it's a close contest.

Bruce, I hope for your sake no one ever characterizes you and your position half as dishonestly as you've just characterized the libertarian position. If they do, you'll probably fang yourself in frustration. You should really get a bit more informed about a topic before you dive in and put your foot so deeply into your mouth.

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

Be a Jedi-- understand force

You, as an abolitionist-Voluntaryist-anarchist-libertarian, are a real-life Jedi. You understand the power of force. Not The Force, perhaps, but force. In fact, you understand it's (almost) all about force.

Force is neither good nor bad. It's all in how you use it.

Defensive force is the light side.

Initiated force-- aggression-- is the dark side.

If you start looking for ways to justify initiating force, out of "necessity, it is a path which leads away from the light side into the dark side. Follow this path often enough, and despite your best intentions, you'll become a real-life Sith.

And sometimes it is with the best of intentions that you take steps down that path. You may do it out of concern for the less fortunate. Or for the children. Out of fear of what "might happen" if you don't initiate force against someone who hasn't actually archated yet, but you are sure they will if you don't use force against them first. It's a seductive path.

This is the path followed by cops, politicians, and all government employees. They may see themselves as the good guys, but they can't be. Almost all their force is initiated force. Aggression. The dark side of force. Even if they sometimes use force defensively, it's not where their power comes from. They put on the kindly Palpatine act, while secretly they are Darth Sidious.

And this is what you're up against. You didn't choose the battle, but it chose you. Ready or not.

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

Why try to justify slavery?

Recently, on Quora, someone asked why anyone would be opposed to (government) research on "gun violence".

My response was that I'm against it for the same reason I'm against using stolen money ("taxes") to research ways to justify slavery.

I don't believe stolen money should be used for research of any kind. Ever. Nor do I believe anything can justify slavery/"gun control".

One guy replied that he is "pro-taxation and pro-research". I didn't read the rest of his response-- I didn't need to.

Admitting to be "pro-taxation" is shameful. What other types of slavery and theft does he support?

I'm not "anti-research", there are just some topics where research is pointless.

Nothing can give anyone the right or the "authority" to prohibit guns or to otherwise enslave people, so there's no reason to seek justifications for either act. The money thus spent is wasted, and the money was stolen to begin with.

I'm against this kind of "research" on principle, not because it is research, but because it can't tell me anything I need to know. But you know what does tell me something important? When someone admits supporting it.

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

Government not designed to help

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 9, 2018)

How can anyone watch every form of government fail, over 5000-plus years of history, and still have faith it can work if done right; if the right constitution is enacted; if the right people are given power?

Not only do they keep the faith as it fails, but some want to give government even more power over our lives. Enough is enough!

Government is powerless to help, but is specially suited to harm.

People act surprised when the true nature of politician after politician is revealed, but what kind of person do they imagine seeks to have power over the lives of others?

Those who make up government crave power. It's why they sought the job. For their victims to clamor to give them more power-- before such power is taken by force-- makes no sense.

Even if you imagine the true purpose of government is to protect your life, liberty, and property from others, so as to free you to pursue happiness, you're trusting your protection to those most likely to be the ones you need protection from.

No government has ever protected life, liberty, or property when it meant scaling back its own power.

Expecting government to do so is like hopping in your family SUV expecting to drive it to Alpha Centauri. That's not what it was designed to do, and not in the realm of possibility, no matter how much you wish it were.

As has been pointed out, without government some people might choose to rob and kill; with government it's guaranteed. Since the robbing and killing is then done "legally", it must be OK in most people's eyes. Not in mine, however.

It's not right to take property from others. Calling it taxation, property codes, or eminent domain doesn't change wrong into right.

It's not right to pretend you have the right to tell people what they can ingest, whether they are allowed to run a business, drive a car, carry a gun, or any of the other things people calling themselves government regulate, nor is it right to require licenses or permits to do those things. It's wrong to use violence against anyone who ignores such rules. It's also wrong to support those rules from the sidelines.

I don't know what the future holds. Perhaps we stand on the verge of a new Dark Age, where government "helps" people into a benevolent slavery "for their own good". In such case, I may be on the losing side, but not the wrong one.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Write to learn

Yeah, this is how I do it. Frilly sleeve and all.

Want to really learn something?

Find something you care about and write about it. Don't worry that you don't know enough; be open and learn along the way. You can learn along with your readers, and they can help you understand things you might be missing.

When you discover a question, see if you can find the answer. Or an answer... or two.

I've found writing things down, to communicate them to other people, is about the best way to get the concepts clear in my own mind. It also helps me discover gaps in my own understanding which I can then fill.

It's not even necessary for other people to read what you write, although their comments can help you figure some things out.

It may not guarantee you'll get it right, but I'll bet you'll get closer that way than by just about any other way.

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

Believing or thinking

Believing is like accepting and eating a stranger's casserole. Hopefully whoever made it had good intentions and was honest. You trust they didn't use feces as an ingredient.

Thinking is like knowing exactly what went into making the casserole, and how it was put together and cooked. You might have even made it yourself from ingredients you chose and combined, then cooked.

Making your own casserole is no guarantee that you didn't use a contaminated ingredient, or undercook it. But, at least any problems can be traced back to the source: you.

I am not comfortable believing but vastly prefer thinking.

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

Butterscotch the cat

I know it will seem trivial, but I need some donations so I can take my daughter's cat to the vet.

She's sick and my daughter is upset, and I don't know what else to do.

I really hate to ask, because I know it's annoying. If you care to help, thank you.

Added: I started a GoFundMe, just in case you want to follow the updates.

Don't assume others are so pathetic

If you don't like liberty-- if you're scared of it, don't trust it, or don't trust other people with it-- that's fine. Go your own way.

But don't for one second believe that your shortcoming gives you the right to violate the liberty of others. It doesn't. Don't project your flaws on others who may not share them.

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

The cost of dependency

Apparently 5 NYC taxi drivers have recently committed suicide. This is being blamed on Uber and other ride-sharing innovations.

Instead of dropping the taxi business and its precious "medallions" like a rotting gopher, the drivers are killing themselves. Can they not imagine a way of life without their expensive government monopoly? If liberty is killing the taxi monopoly, as they claim, why not adapt and start driving for one of the other options? Why demand a place on the sinking ship?

Government tries to outlaw liberty, but liberty finds a way. You can either adapt or die. And, in some cases, I guess those who don't want to adapt will kill themselves.

"Waaaa! Our government-promised monopoly is dying! I might as well kill myself instead of giving up the teat!"

One of the whiners demonstrated his lack of ethics by saying "... [Uber, et al] should be regulated like taxi cabs." Yep. "I had to do it this way, so I want everyone else violated in the same way I was." It's the statist faith in action.

How about this instead: taxis and ride-sharing services should both be unregulated, except by customer choice.
Anything less is pathetic and statist.

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

The truth about forest fires and Smokey

It seems I have confused or bewildered some people with my comments about Smokey Bear.

The problem is that through Smokey Bear people came to see forest fires as only bad.

And it's simply not true. In fact, this bit of ignorance almost destroyed forests.

Small, frequent forest fires help clean up forest debris. As long as the debris is cleaned out regularly, the fires stay small, fast, and relatively "cool". The bark of healthy trees would get scorched, some dead branches would burn away, and the loose branches and dry underbrush would burn. But the fires wouldn't get hot enough, or stay burning long enough, to burn through the bark of healthy trees to seriously injure or kill them. The fires would keep infestations of tree pests under control, as well, plus many other benefits. Forests evolved under pressure from frequent fires, and recover quickly from the natural renewal process which naturally frequent fires represent.

Then the Forest Circus came along, with Smokey Bear as their anti-fire spokescritter. By focusing on human-caused fires, they convinced people that all forest fires were bad. ("Only YOU can prevent forest fires!")

Well, the truth is human-caused fires serve the same purpose as lightning-caused fires. Not only that, but the Forest Circus actively fought all fires, since "Forest fires are bad, Mmkay?".

So forest fires were artificially reduced in number, but nature finds a way. This allowed flammable debris to build up on the forest floor. Fewer in number meant greater in intensity. When the inevitable fire started, whether caused by humans or something else, the fire raged. It burned hotter and longer due to more fuel available. It burned through the bark of healthy trees, killing them and often adding them to the fuel. The forest fire fighters then airdrop chemicals on the fire and bulldoze firebreaks.

This is all quite a bit worse for the forest than what would have happened if they had just minded their business and let forest fires occur naturally as needed.

Also, pests were able to attack trees unchecked, so more chemicals were used to try to save trees.

The "solutions" are worse than the original problem.

Now, because bureaucrats are so wise, they set prescribed burns, and sometimes let forest fires (which are more deadly due to bureaucratic policies) burn, in the name of healthy forests. Too little, too late.

If they had simply stayed out of it to begin with, it would have just been a lot better.

As always, the solution involves property rights, not government policy or "laws".

This is why Smokey Bear is a government propagandist, not a friend of nature.

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

Navigating around the robots

It's your responsibility to not violate anyone's rights, but beyond that, your responsibilities aren't my business. Certainly nothing I should be lecturing you about. I can't make anyone else accept what I imagine to be their responsibilities no matter how much I might wish to.

If I'm out riding my bike it is my responsibility to not let the cars run over me. I can say it is the other drivers' responsibility to watch out for me, but where will that get me? Dead.

It seems smarter to just imagine all the cars are robotic and unaware of my presence; just moving randomly in some unpredictable way. So I'd better watch out for myself. This is what I try to get my 10 year-old daughter to understand, as well.

It's the same with the rest of life, too. I know I have the responsibility to not archate. I also realize other people have the same responsibility, but may not be aware of it. Even if the knew they might not care. They might enjoy being a mugger or a cop or a "public" [sic] school teacher [sic] and place their feelings, or the money, above their responsibility. I can either get upset that they won't live up to their responsibility, or I can accept it as it is and do my best to navigate around these mindless (from my perspective) robots. Which is likely to enhance my life more?

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

Smokey Bear- enemy agent

When I was a kid I loved Smokey Bear. I had a Smokey Bear pillowcase (which my parents donated to the Smokey Bear museum a few years ago). I had a Smokey Bear bendy rubber toy with a mediocre paint job, probably bought in a tourist trap in Colorado.

I also fell for the propaganda Smokey Bear was created to spread. I love animals and nature and wanted them to be protected. I didn't yet know the forests were being "protected" to death by preventing a natural, essential process. A process that when interfered with makes the problem worse and more destructive. It was quite a shock when I learned the truth.

Smokey Bear and his propaganda campaign illustrate the danger of government perfectly.

Use a memorable way to promote bad policy. The bad policy then causes damage which makes the original problem worse, which causes people to believe government (and its bad policy) is necessary to protect from the consequences of government policy. It's a snake swallowing itself. But it remains effective.

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

Anti-Trump posturing gets old

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 2, 2018- I promise it's not pro-Trump; it's actually anti-anti-Trump while being anti-president in general.)

How can anyone ever be disappointed in a president? It shows unrealistic expectations. Don't people realize that getting to the top of the political heap takes a certain kind of person, and it's not a particularly good kind?

Some presidential actions irritate me more than others. It is the same with anyone, president or not, who believes he has some mystical authority to tell others how to live and backs his opinions with the threat of violence. I won't tolerate such behavior in friends or acquaintances, why would I tolerate it in people I don't even know?

Presidents matter so little to my day-to-day life; I have to go out of my way to notice the new political threats being made against my life, liberty, and property this time around. Each new law or policy is just another link in the "long train of abuses and usurpations".

Still, the posturing of those who make an effort to signal their elitist disdain for President Trump gets old. Especially when they haven't shown every other president the same disdain. It is terribly hypocritical when they screech about the liberty-crushing agenda of one while fawning over the liberty-crushing agenda of the other. You've got to crush liberty in the politically correct way, I suppose.

The "progressive" Trump haters want you to believe they are the sensible ones, while in their minds, the "yokels" who voted for Trump, many of whom still support him, are "ignorant rubes". This is their mantra, to be chanted until they get what they want.

I chuckled recently when I heard a self-identifying liberal refer to liberals as society's "intellectuals". When it suits them, perhaps, but not so much when it doesn't. Supporting bigger, more powerful and intrusive government, in spite of evidence, doesn't reflect well on a person's intellect. It's even worse testimony against their ethics.

I'm also amused at liberals' reactions to Trump's behavior. The "progressives" suddenly became Puritans.

I'm hoping the "get Trump at all costs" crowd has opened a can of worms they'll never be able to close. One good thing which might come from this melodrama is a whittling away at the illusion of legitimacy which has too long surrounded the office of president. If every future president gets the same treatment, or worse, maybe people would stop wanting the job. It could be a path to better times ahead; where people stop looking to politicians as role models, and start taking responsibility for themselves.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium

Let them think what they will

Someone recently asked a rather personal question about a particular form of resistance, and whether or not I pursue that path. I'm not going to be more specific.

I foolishly answered, but then immediately deleted the response (I know- too late).

I doubt the person is a snitch. Maybe trying to find something to criticize me on. Or testing to see whether I "walk the walk". Those are valid reasons to ask, but that's no excuse to answer. Let people believe what they want about you-- it's nothing to you.

The question made me stop and think, though. I don't generally consider my "contributions" beyond writing, and I simply don't talk about such things in public.

I do my best to live as I believe I should live. Why would I put it out there, trying to make others see why such a course is the right one, then go off and live some other way? I have room for improvement, but I expect that to always be the case.

But don't go around answering questions that shouldn't be answered just because you don't want someone to think you might be a hypocrite. There's no benefit.

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

"Reasonable" statists

It amazes me how reasonable some people can make slavery sound.

They can play the part of the "adult in the room" while advocating mass murder conducted "constitutionally". All they have to do is to mention that it's the law, or that we are obligated to follow the "social contract" or "pay our fair share" and gullible people will nod in agreement and praise them for being so reasonable and responsible.

It is frustrating to me because they aren't being reasonable at all.

No matter how sensible statism sounds, no matter how many people accept it without question as "how the world really works", no matter how "adult" they pretend it is, it is the opposite of reasonable.

Statism is insane. Statists who seem reasonable are like the serial killer who seems rational and calm when they befriend you-- but then makes a stew from your skin and eyeballs.

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

When you mix your religions

It seems to me there is an unacknowledged religion being widely followed in America. It's actually a combination of a couple of very popular religions.

Just as African slaves in the American south may have combined native African religion with Catholicism to create Louisiana Voodoo, all over America many people are combining Christianity with statism and practicing the hybrid religion which results.

It's not really a pure form of either religion, but a horrifying chimera with features taken from both.

I know many of the adherents personally, and see many more of them online and in the media. They are the ones praying for "the troops", with Holy Pole Quilt on display in their churches, urging respect for the police, and excusing any manner of tyranny with Romans 13.

My first instinct is to call this hybrid religion "Patriotic Voodoo", but maybe it should just be shortened to Poodoo.

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

"Rights are just a mental construct"

People who claim rights are "just" a mental construct without any external reality often use that idea to lead into a lecture-- with their very next breath-- promoting their ideas of responsibility; often based on their interpretation of morality.

It goes both ways. If rights are meaningless because they are a non-real mental construct, then so are responsibilities.

Humans are-- more than anything-- the mental animal. That something is a mental construct doesn't mean it isn't real. For humans, nothing is more real. In fact, physical things which people can't fit into a mental construct are often ignored; having no "reality" for most people.

So, yeah, rights are nothing when removed from the human mind, but the same is true for responsibilities. Neither a rock nor a corpse has any rights or responsibilities.

I understand why some people are so opposed to rights while being so adamant about responsibilities, but, like it or not, your primary responsibility is to not violate the rights of others.

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

The Missing Link

If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself.

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

Falling short and missing the mark

I fell short.

In frustration I called a statist a parasite. 

Really, he is much much worse than a mere parasite. I was being gentle. But I still shouldn't have lost my composure with him.

He was making the argument that a cop was right to ticket a man who didn't have a front "license plate", and that the guy deserved it because he broke the "law" and was being a jerk to the nice cop- who then lost his temper.

I had nicely pointed out that such a "law" is counterfeit, and I asked where the cop got this supposed right to stop and molest people over a bit of metal, and where the State got the right to require you pay for and attach this piece of metal.

The guy started in with saying "we" have a Constitution and "laws" that we are required to follow, and ... "we"/"our" "society" "social contract" blah blah blah. He was justifying every kind of law, and any amount of violence to enforce them, with his superstitions and collectivism.

And this was in a liberty-oriented, individualist group.

I should have just walked away and ignored the vermin. But, no, I called it a parasite. Which is true: all statists are parasites to some extent. But it's probably not helpful (in most cases) to point this fact out to them.

So, yeah, I failed. I strive to do better next time.

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