Sure it exists, but don't promote it

One of the most common excuses for statism is that we have to accept "The world as it really is". As if I've ever said otherwise.

Lots of bad things exist. I accept that they exist, and can do so without embracing or using them.

The whole "The world as it really is" thing is a cop-out. It doesn't justify evils. It doesn't work with statism, nor does it work with other bad things.

Rape exists, so according to this type of "thinking", we'd better not speak out or rally against it. That would be Utopian. Embrace rapists and work to make them safer and more efficient. Don't you dare point out that rape is a violation of someone's rights; that nothing can change this fact or make it OK. Just accept that it exists, will probably always exist, and find ways to use this fact to your advantage to get what you want.

Right?

Yes, statism exists. The majority even seems to like it. That doesn't make it right. I can accept that statism exists without contributing to it. Refusing to voluntarily participate in something harmful-- even if you can't necessarily stop it from happening-- is better than justifying propping it up, helping it continue, and criticizing those who won't go along.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Regulation of "Social Media"?

I'm not in favor of state regulation of private businesses. For that matter I'm not in favor of the state. How could I be in favor of the state regulating anything when it is the thing which most needs to be controlled?

However, I'm not sure how I could consider the big "social media" platforms or data controllers "private businesses" anymore.

I've never been convinced that a corporation is a private business. They chose to get in bed with the state for special favors. They frequently use government "laws" to stifle competition. And, recently, they sell out their users to the state. They look, feel, and smell state-like to me.

No, this doesn't mean I want government to "regulate" them. Nor do I want them "taxed". It just means I don't trust them. That some of them are agitating to be regulated by the state makes me trust them even less. It's a dirty move.

So far, I still have the option to not use their "services", although in many cases it means crippling myself "socially" to some degree. I recently put several social media sites on indefinite suspension for violating my terms of service and scaled back my use of others. I don't see them as friendly institutions. They aren't on my side. They collude with my enemy, so doesn't that make them my enemy?

Yet, as always, I don't want my enemy subjected to "laws", even if they'd happily subject me to the same because a more powerful state is always worse than the alternative.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

I love scofflaws

A conversation was happening around me about a woman who had no "Social Security" [sic] tracking number to provide as I.D. for cashing a check. The consensus among those discussing the matter was that she was an "illegal immigrant".

In my mind she was heroic.

Anyone who doesn't comply with counterfeit dictates from the state-- as long as they aren't archating-- is a hero in my eyes.

I want as many people as possible refusing to comply. Gum up the works. Sabotage the gears. Bring the Beast to a grinding halt, resulting in its death. This benefits everyone (other than the archators who work for government, that is).

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Gun laws far overstep their bounds

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 17, 2019)

"Validly enacted laws". This is how New Mexico attorney general Hector Balderas deceptively characterizes the new anti-gun "laws" he wants enforced against you.

They aren't validly enacted. They violate the Second Amendment, so they aren't even laws. You might imagine they don't violate the Constitution, based on cowardly and dishonest opinions of Supreme Court justices over the decades, but they do. The Second Amendment is clear. It's even clearer once you've read the discussions which surrounded writing the Bill of Rights. There was to be no question-- no laws concerning guns were to ever be allowed under any circumstances whatsoever.

The Attorney General claims to be the state's chief "law enforcement officer", yet he orders others to break the law which guides all legislation. He is entitled to his opinions, but not to making up his own facts.

No actions of a rogue governor, representative, or attorney general can make an anti-gun law constitutional, legal, or valid. They can make threats, send letters, or hold meetings to try to force their will. They can bully other government employees and the residents of the state. It doesn't make their lies true.

You and I both know government will do whatever it can get away with. The solution is to not allow these out-of-control officials to get away with any violation of liberty. This violation of their oath of office should result in the immediate loss of the position; dragged from their offices in chains if they won't leave peaceably.

If you believe I'm only passionate about gun rights, I'll remind you I am equally opposed to prohibition, border controls, and all other violations of natural human rights as well. If you value the Constitution you should join me. If not, you should join me anyway since anything which violates a natural human right is wrong, even when the Constitution allows it. It's a criminal act when public officials impose their wishes in defiance of what the Constitution allows.

Back in the 1920s, those who advocated alcohol prohibition at least passed a Constitutional amendment to make their laws Constitutional. They were still wrong, but they made the attempt to play by the rules. Those who target your liberty today don't even go through the motions. They do what they want, secure in the knowledge that the courts will not bite the hand that feeds them. Gang loyalty is powerful.

If government won't, or can't, control its appetites, it needs to be taken to the woodshed. It's past time.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Triggering a debunker

Diorama at International UFO Museum, Roswell, NM.
Photo by me.

I've had an interest in UFOs since I was a kid. In fact, I know exactly when my interest started: in 1973.

That year-- and I know what year it was because I moved a lot as a kid and know where I lived when this happened--  a classmate told me and others that his grandfather had told him of the time he saw pieces of a crashed "flying saucer" when they were brought to the military base he was stationed at in Ft. Worth, Texas, following its crash in New Mexico.

This was my first introduction to the story of the 1947 Roswell UFO crash... even though the kid never mentioned Roswell, but just said: "New Mexico" (I knew of the town of Roswell for other reasons).

Recently, including on Quora just a few days ago, the standard debunking approach has been the claim that after the initial buzz and headlines, the Roswell "crash" was satisfactorily explained and forgotten until the late '70s or early '80s. when it was revived and sensationalized to sell books and TV shows.

Back to the Quora "debunking". An ex-military guy was explaining away the story and dredging up the tale about it not being spoken of again after July 1947, for 30 years or so.

I replied that I knew, first-hand, that this wasn't true, and told what I knew from 1973.

The guy almost flipped out on me. He said this wasn't "first-hand knowledge" at all, that I had been fooled by the conspiracy theory like everyone else.

Never mind that I clearly stated that I wasn't saying the debris was extraterrestrial or anything, just that I knew when I had heard the story and it didn't match the debunkers' claims. Maybe it was a weather balloon test dummy mishap Project Mogul balloon. Or not. That wasn't part of my claim.

My first-hand knowledge is that I heard the story before the story was supposedly revived and sensationalized, so that specific claim can't be true. That's all. I have no first-hand knowledge of any other part of the event (or non-event). Yet this one small point triggered him.

I saw in his over-the-top reaction the same reaction I get from statists when I point out the errors in their thinking and claims. Any reality which doesn't match what they are desperate to believe is met with hostile denial.

Of course, the guy's Quora profile says he is "ex-military" so he may have an agenda to promote.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

No expectations; no disappointment

It happens all the time. There's someone I really like, but out of nowhere, they do something that disappoints me.

Believe it or not, that's not all bad.

One of the best compliments I can pay a person is to be disappointed when they don't live up to my expectations. If I don't expect anything of you, I can't be disappointed when you fall short of my non-existent expectations.

I don't expect anyone to be perfect (in my eyes) just as I hope no one expects perfection of me.

But if someone never disappoints me, they aren't really living. They must not have any opinions and must not be doing anything. What a sad life. I would be disappointed in them in that case. Oh, wait...

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Experimental anarchy

All science is anarchic.

Science follows rules, but not rulers. If there is a ruler controlling it, dictating what the results must be, it's not science.

Those who want you to think of anarchy as chaos and "everyone doing what they feel like" are denying reality.

Actually, they are lying. It might not be their fault; they have probably been lied to and didn't question what they were told. But it's still a lie. And they are perpetuating the lie instead of questioning the assertion and putting it to the test.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Free speech

I support completely free speech.

That doesn't mean I'm going to agree with-- or like-- everything people have to say.

If you own or control a platform and you ban people, rather than just having problems with certain specific things they've written or said, I'm not going to trust you.

I've lost trust in all the major "social media" platforms and all the data gatekeepers due to their bans, even when they've banned someone I despise.

I support free speech for statists, Nazis, ISIS, racists, everyone. Let them speak... and then use their words against them. Their words are the best argument against their beliefs. Shutting them up helps them hide. It lets them look like victims. Let them speak.

If someone makes a credible threat, then warn the target of the threat, but don't prevent anyone from speaking. Doing so makes you look weak and dishonest.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"He hates government"

Somewhat related to my post about people describing me as "hating cops", I've also had people say about me "he hates government".

I hate theft and aggression-- archation-- no matter who does it. No matter what "reasons" they give for doing it. I don't make an exception if those doing it call themselves "government" and make up their own rules saying it's OK if they do it. Or that it's OK if they do it for this or that reason.

I don't "do" exceptions.

I don't care if you form a group you call "government" as long as the members don't archate. I have no hate for your group in that case.

But if you form a "flower club" and the members rob people-- people who want no part of it-- to fund your club, and send out goons to attack anyone growing flowers without your approval, I'm going to hate your flower club.

It's not government I hate, necessarily. It's anyone who hides behind a label to archate and expects to have that archation excused because of the label.

Is that really so hard to understand? Or, would they just rather not understand?

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Just one exception...

So many people are great at respecting and advocating liberty, with just one exception. That one exception varies from person to person.

One thing which bewilders me is why those who support "just one" Big Government program don't simply admit it.

It's what you support, it is what it is, admit it, accept it, and move on. Stop trying to make excuses.

Are they ashamed? Do they feel guilt over a painful inconsistency based on feelings? What is the reason they don't just accept that what they advocate is what it is? Embrace what you like and stop demanding others embrace it, too.

I won't accept any exceptions. I won't force you to give it up, I just expect you to not saddle me with the expense and liberty violations that come with it. Live and let live.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Arbitrary legality makes bad laws

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 10, 2019)

Recently, out of curiosity, I scanned the daily jail log for Curry County. I had never done so before and probably won't do it again. Afterward, I felt guilty and was ashamed of myself.

I learned something interesting, though. Half of the people-- five out of ten-- booked into the jail that particular day weren't even accused of having done anything wrong; only things which have been arbitrarily declared illegal.

What's the difference?

An act which violates an individual's life, liberty, or property is wrong; a real crime, whether or not the law considers it a crime. These acts are wrong in and of themselves. The Latin term for this is "mala in se".

Those booked into the jail that day and accused of having actually harmed someone were claimed to have either harmed others physically or to have violated someone's property rights. Your main responsibility as a human is to respect the rights of others, so I have no sympathy for anyone who chooses to violate others.

This is assuming they actually did what they are accused of, which isn't necessarily a reasonable assumption to make these days.

The other half of those jailed weren't even suspected of harming anyone. The only justification for caging them was that they had offended the government in some way. Either they refused to identify themselves to a government employee, didn't have the required permission papers, had forbidden substances, or tried to avoid being apprehended and kidnapped by an armed government employee. This makes these inmates political prisoners, not criminals. Even if I believed in punishment and imprisonment instead of justice, I wouldn't believe these people deserved it. They are the real crime victims.

I understand why government would like for you and me to think of those things as crimes, but they aren't They can't be. Instead, these acts are "crimes" only because someone wrote legislation designating them so-- a made-up rule with no ethical foundation. "Crimes" only because government employees say so. The Latin term for these acts is "mala prohibita".

If you get aroused by punishing others, you probably don't care. "It's the LAW! It has to be obeyed", you might insist. Still, if you want your laws to be respected, you'll first need to make them respectable. A good beginning is to get rid of all those laws based on nothing but the empty opinions of politicians. This would eliminate all of your counterfeit mala prohibita "laws".

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

A pointless protest?

Artwork by my daughter, Emily

Personally, I don't think you should spit in anyone's food. Probably not even if the person is a cop. Some Florida teens disagreed (I hate linking to that site because it's a disease).

I'm in favor of fighting back when the other person is currently archating or making a credible threat to do so. There is an argument to be made that even wearing a police uniform is a credible threat, as well as evidence of a history of archating, plus an ongoing willingness to continue doing so.

If a cop doesn't understand why someone might be tempted to do something spiteful toward them, they don't understand what policing has become. They don't realize what they've come to represent to a large minority (at least) of the population. Their lack of accountability and their brutality keep getting worse. And their cluelessness about how this makes them look to others certainly doesn't help anything. Act like a gang and people are going to treat you like a gang. Like it or not. You're going to be seen as a legitimate target, no matter how draconian the consequences.

But, what good does spitting in their food do? Whether it is a cop or an MS-13 member. Does it defeat them on some level? It's like giving those vermin the digitus impudicus. Might make you feel good for a moment but it accomplishes nothing and gives them an excuse to molest you.

If they are currently violating you, you have the right to defend yourself. Then, in the case of cops, they or their gang will murder you for doing so, but you've accomplished more than by pointlessly spitting in their food.

But, do what you want. I can't get too worked up either way.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Rattling the cup

I'm in desperate need of a monetary infusion. I was trying to stretch things out enough that I wouldn't have to ask, but it didn't work. So... if you can, and if you want to, and as long as it won't put you in a bind, my Paypal could use some love: PayPal.Me/Dullhawk

As always, if you are a subscriber or frequent donator, you've already done your part. These are not the droids you are looking for.

If I could even get an aggregate of $50 or so it would relieve a lot of the pressure.

Thanks again.

.

A "border" compromise

Cows protected by borders

Many of my readers lean heavily "conservative" when it comes to "borders". I understand their reasons, even as I reject them on ethical grounds.

But I'm not unreasonable and I'm willing to compromise with them. In fact, I'm offering the borderists a better compromise than I've been offering the anti-gun bigots.

If you can find a realistic way to have the "national borders" you crave without:

• violating the property rights of people (through "taxation") to fund, enforce, and manage the "border",
• without violating the property rights of those who live along that "border",
• without violating the right of association,
• without complicating trade or travel for Americans, and
• without delaying or inconveniencing Americans crossing the "border" in either direction

...then I'll support your efforts in a lukewarm way. I'd rather not single out Americans like I did in those points-- that's why my support would only be lukewarm, but that's my compromise point. Give me more and my support would be stronger.

Until you can do that at a minimum, no deal. Anything else is unethical and I can't support it no matter how "necessary" you claim it is and no matter how you try to justify it.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Cop fears; guy dies

Screenshot

The video from a local shooting by cops has been released. The shooting was ruled "justified" long ago, not that there was ever any doubt it would be.

I have no sympathy for thieves and have no real issue with them being shot and killed, but I also "fear for my life" every time I see a cop. If it's OK for them to act on that fear, then it's OK for me to do the same. Right?

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

National Fingernail Policy

Why doesn't government have a plan for fingernails?
They don't tell the citizens when to trim them or clean them. They don't have rules about fingernail decoration-- paint, sequins, protective coatings, shapes.

What about the danger of extra-long or sharp assault fingernails? No one needs those on our streets! 

What of nail-biting? And hangnails? And what about toenails?

Why? Why doesn't my government tell me what to do? How do I know if I'm doing it right? I can't! I'm on my own. There's just chaos! DOOOOM!!!

And this is EXACTLY how stupid statists sound when they whine that they want government to have a plan for other things-- health care, "immigration", trade, climate-- too.

If it's important to you, come up with your own plan and follow it. Don't rob the rest of us to silence your bonnet-bee.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Sides"? My side is liberty

Received in an email

No, I will NOT choose either of those false "sides". I resolutely reject both. There's a majority of garbage there. So many of those are clear archators and nothing else, and most of the others are collaborators with those archators. Pure vermin.

There are a couple of things represented there which I would support... as long as they aren't asking government for favors.

But I also recognize that those I would otherwise support do (usually) ask government for favors. They generally want special privileges, "tax" handouts, or they beg for "laws" to be used against others. I can't support that.

My side is liberty. Period.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid. Pretty please?

"Our leaders"

Don't you just love it when you run across the phrase "our leaders"? That phrase lets you know exactly what kind of person you're dealing with: a gullible one.

First of all, I seriously doubt I share a leader in common with that person. On those rare occasions I have a leader, even.

Second of all, they are usually referring to politicians, not leaders. Politicians are rulers-- or wanna-be rulers. They don't lead, they push or drag, so they can't be leaders.

"Our leaders" is an especially dumb example of the world's dumbest phrases.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Respect boundaries

"Borders" are a boundary violation. Supported by people who don't understand their boundaries and don't respect the boundaries of others.

This isn't to say that those who cross "borders" understand or respect boundaries any better. Many of them don't; trespassing on private property, littering, stealing, and otherwise archating. But how can boundary-violating hypocrites preach respect for boundaries at anyone else with any credibility?

They can't.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Personal emergency prep critical

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 3, 2019)

Never before have I needed my emergency preparations twice in so short a time. For the second time in just over two weeks, I'm glad I make a point to prepare for the unexpected.

First, it was the power outage from the wind storm. I was ready, so it was only a minor inconvenience.

Then, this past week a broken water main meant I, along with most of Farwell, had no running water for several hours. When the water was restored, we were under a 72-hour boil order. Again, a small inconvenience which could have been a real problem if I weren't prepared.

Because of where we live, water is the most critical emergency supply you can stockpile for your family.

This is a dry area without much surface water. All the usable water is deep underground. You can't just take a bucket to the creek for water. Even if you aren't on a town water system, if your water source depends on the electric grid to bring it to the surface, you could be in trouble.

Water is important for drinking, washing, and cooking, but also for flushing toilets. If you aren't careful, toilets can quickly use most of your water.

I won't claim to have enough water stored. I don't believe such a thing is even possible since you can't live without it.

You don't need to buy a water tank-- but if you can afford one and have a place for it, why not? Two-liter soft drink bottles, cranberry juice jugs, and other food-safe clear plastic bottles are a good way to store water. Keep them out of the light so they don't become a biology experiment and change them out every year or so. Once you have all you think you need, try living without running water for a day and see how quickly you use your supply. Then store more for next time. This would be good for you, and that's important to me.

The next time there's a disruption to the water supply wouldn't you rather pull out some jugs of water instead of wondering when the water will be turned on again, and when it will be safe to drink? Sure, maybe you can visit someone who still has water and fill your jugs from their faucets. I prefer to not be a burden on others, and I'd rather not feel the anxiety from not having what I need when I need it, on hand, at home.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com