"Otherworldly debris with strange properties"

Mylar confetti litter in my yard

It's not a popular thing to criticize the "public" [sic] schools. No matter what they do. So, I generally don't (too much), especially considering my family are all fans of the abomination.

The anti-educational agenda is the big objection I have to government schooling, but it's far from the only one.

Last week the school across the street from me had a "fun day" for the inmates. They tried to launch Mentos and Diet Coke rockets, and they smashed confetti eggs over each other's heads.

Did I mention that this kinderprison is directly across a small street from my house?

Guess what has been blowing into my yard every day since then, being an eyesore. Mylar confetti. Yay. The picture above has 7 or 8 pieces of the stuff in it, although it's hard to see in the photo (it's all the light spots). I didn't move any for the picture to concentrate them in one spot.

Most of the pieces are an inch and a half or so across. Not tiny, but small enough they are hard to pick up, and so numerous it's probably pointless to try. I wish they were rapidly degradable.

If I went to the school grounds and intentionally littered this badly, do you think I wouldn't face consequences?

Today was windy enough it damaged my new shingles (grrr!!) so maybe some of the trash blew away while new trash blew into the yard from the seemingly endless reservoir across the street.

I suppose I could claim it's "UFO crash debris" and cash in. That would at least make it worthwhile and amusing.

-

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

"Service"

Just, please... DON'T!

-

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

Laws are creating immigration issue

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 24, 2019)

Imagine you have an antique car in your backyard behind a privacy fence. A neighbor climbs your fence, sees the car, and decides something must be done about it. How he decided your property is his concern is a mystery. Clearly, he's a bad neighbor who doesn't mind his own business.

Then it gets worse. He doesn't ask about the car, offer to buy it or to help you get it running. Instead, he hires the local crime boss to force you to build a shed for the car, paint it pink, give it square wheels, and pay an annual ransom for the privilege of owning it. Or else it will be taken from you and you'll be punished.

This is how government solves problems. Very often these problems shouldn't even be government's business, even if it's possible to apply a law or two to the situation.

If you are waiting for government to solve a problem you are wasting time.
If you imagine problems where none exist, you are the problem.

This is why most political discussion is, at best, misguided.

People debate how government should address health care when government shouldn't be involved in health care at all. Don't insist government come up with a health care plan, demand it gets out of the way.

Easily manipulated people panic over "climate change". Even if it's a net negative and your fault, don't ask government to make up laws to violate your life, liberty, and property to fight it. It's not government's business. Don't soil your own nest with pollution or laws.

People argue over immigration, border walls, and sanctuary cities when the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to keep people out of the country. Yes, it outlines steps for people already here to become citizens and regulates the importation of slaves, but those are not what people argue about.

Government laws create the immigration issue. Don't look to government and its laws to address immigration; insist government stop criminalizing private property rights, the right to self-defense, and the right of association. Everyone has the right to associate with-- or avoid-- anyone for any reason. Laws which force people together or apart are the problem.

Anything you ask government to address gives government more power. Government employees feed on this power like vampires feed on arterial blood. You won't solve a problem-- real or imagined-- by involving those who use problems as an excuse to gain power.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Scott Adams defends socialism

On a recent podcast, I noticed a bit of pro-socialism dishonesty from Scott Adams. I wasn't really surprised, because he is a government supremacist, after all. And you can't really have a state without embracing socialism.

It was hard to listen through to the end, but I did because I knew it would be important to refute the dishonest claims he was making.

He was first saying that it's meaningless to be against socialism because socialism is not a thing; it's multiple things and no one can explain why they believe it's bad. He attributed this to people being brainwashed by the "anti-socialist" media (FOX News?) they absorb.

But, no one can explain why they believe it's bad?

Challenge accepted-- Socialism is the attempt to base a "society" on theft (usually, by government); driven by envy and entitlement. Taking anyone's rightfully owned property from them when they'd prefer not to have it taken is theft, even if you like what the property is used for.  Even if the stolen property is used for "good" purposes. I believe this is bad. Pro-socialism people think it's OK. Who is being reasonable here?

Then he went on to claim that socialism didn't destroy Venezuela because other countries do fine with socialism. That it was because Venezuela had a tyrant (who imposed too much socialism) rather than because Venezuela was socialist.

He claimed that America does fine with the "little bits" of socialism the US government imposes, and that European countries do fine with the socialism they have. This is also dishonest.

Yes, the US is socialist. I've been pointing this out for ages. Democrats are openly socialist, and Republicans are socialists in denial-- they still want socialism, they just call it "national security", "border security", or whatever socialist programs they like. Am I OK, or better off, because of that "little bit" of socialism?  I'm more than willing to get rid of it to find out which is better.

But, he's almost right. A little bit of (antisocial) socialism won't destroy a society just like a small robbery won't wipe out an individual. But it's still theft and it still isn't good. You might survive it but you're better off without it. And, socialism and robberies frequently escalate into the thief killing the victim. Not always. You probably won't be murdered as long as things don't go off the rails in directions which shock, threaten, or thwart the thief, but your death is always on the table for thieves.

If you've convinced yourself that ethics aren't a real thing, that being pragmatic is the way to go, you can justify anything. I hope you don't follow anyone down that path.

-

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

A "state" is a failed society

I've seen various places referred to as "failed states"-- Somalia being a frequent example. The term is used in an attempt to insult.

The most insulting part is that anyone tolerates those trying to impose a state on them, or that anyone is dumb (or evil) enough to do it to themselves.

If you have a state, you've already failed. You've failed to find voluntary ways to live among other humans and have decided you're going to cheat.

A state is a failed society.

To fail at something which is unnecessary is a tragedy which can bring disaster where none was inevitable before.

Yes, a failed state can be deadly. Any failure can be.

If a dishonest surgeon performs an unnecessary heart transplant on a patient, and it fails, the patient will die. Even if it doesn't "fail", it was a really bad idea. The patient has been harmed whether he realizes it or not. The heart transplant was not a good idea, nor was the one performing it a good guy trying to help.

A state is the same. It's unnecessary and harmful-- even if it doesn't fail. The state is antisocial; based on theft and aggression. It is your enemy. There will be consequences when it fails.  And it will fail eventually. They all do.

And when it fails, tragedy is likely. Once you've crippled a population-- trained them out of responsibility, competence, independence, and ethics-- by imposing a state on them, how do you expect them to form a functional society if your state fails? You've done the damage; own it.

-

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

The bare minimum

Yesterday was an oppressive, muggy day here on the Llano Estacado. And muggy is rare in these parts.

Plus, I was busy with social obligations that drained me of my life force. The Force doesn't seem strong in this one right now. Not at all.

On top of that, I'm trying to come up with next week's newspaper column and hitting a brick wall there, too.

I was not at my best. So I really have little to write and add to the world today.

But even with all that, I didn't violate anyone's life, liberty, or property. That's something. Some people don't seem able to manage that much even on their good days.

-

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

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.