See what you can build on your own

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 5, 2019)

There's a sense of personal accomplishment, of self-worth, when you make something with your own hands through your own efforts. Even if you seek guidance from someone with experience, you've learned more than you knew before. You'll probably value the results more than if you had no part in making it.

If, after you do the work yourself, you decide you'd rather pay someone to do it for you next time, at least you now know what's involved. You will probably have a better sense of whether someone is doing a good job or not. You might be able to tell if they are trying to scam you or overcharge for their services.

To prevent someone from making things on their own is bad in two ways. You show you don't trust them to be competent, and you keep them from becoming competent; from learning how to do things they'll value. If you never allow someone to succeed or fail on their own, always doing everything for them, they'll never really grow up. They'll never learn responsibility.

Self-government is the same way. Until you try to govern yourself, without any laws or representatives to fall back on, you're not a fully competent human being. You may even surprise yourself when you discover you don't need those things, nor do you want them imposed on others. I have more respect for myself than to look for someone to govern others-- even my enemies-- on my behalf.

To me, insisting that others must be governed for my benefit is a sign of weakness and immaturity.

People tend to live up or down to your expectations.

So how do you govern yourself with your own two hands? Be responsible. Don't pawn your responsibilities onto others. Don't expect others to take care of you, or to protect you from threats you should be dealing with on your own. Mind your own business and expect others to mind theirs. If someone violates you, deal with it yourself. Only seek help if absolutely unavoidable, and then only from truly voluntary sources. You aren't entitled to other people's time or money, so don't act as though you are. Governing yourself isn't achieved through voting or expecting representatives to fix anything. If you want to do that anyway, don't stop there and think you've accomplished something.

See what you can build with the effort of your own mind and hands. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

"Never again!" The fireworks stand

I spent the past couple of weeks working a fireworks stand. It was hot, dusty, boring work-- except on the 3rd and 4th when it was frequently crazy.

And it wasn't hot, dusty, or boring the two times it rained and the leaky fireworks stand threatened to drown all the fireworks. Only by great effort did I save all but a couple from the water.

The stand wasn't in the best shape. The electrical wiring was all wrong and tried to electrocute my dad during the first rain. The lights wouldn't all work and even after an electrician came and put it all in order, there still wasn't enough power to run my parents' RV A/Cs. This meant some of the less hardy individuals working the stand demanded the RV generator be run during the day, costing a lot of gas.

The phone line for the credit card machine had been ripped out since it was last used. The phone company had assigned the stand's phone number to someone else, and the credit card machine was messed up and wouldn't work even after the phone situation got solved-- until after a 2-hour phone call got it cleared and ready to go.

The stand was inside the city limits by about 20 feet (the other side of the street directly behind the stand) so we couldn't sell anything which would launch or explode. This lost us about half our potential customers-- they were looking for bottle rockets, Roman candles, firecrackers, "ladybugs", and artillery shells, none of which we were allowed to sell.

Since we were in a different state than most of the company's stands, there was confusion over "permits" and such. My dad had to go wait for hours to get a couple of permits the company was supposed to have already taken care of for us. Have I mentioned how stupid permits and licenses are?

The fireworks market was also saturated-- there were at least 7 fireworks stands within a quarter mile of us. And I think this isn't counting the small independent stand in a family's front yard.

The first week there I stayed awake all night watching the stand. Unfortunately, I could only manage to sleep 3 or 4 hours during the day, so I would go ahead and sit in the stand the rest of the time. The second week I had a baby monitor inside the stand with the other end in the RV so I could nap at night, and sit in the stand during the day. That was better.

We had a 160-mile round trip to get the opening inventory, then we had a 110-mile round trip to turn in the unsold inventory.

Sadly, it was "the worst year for fireworks sales in 30 years" according to the people who convinced us to sell fireworks. If I clear $5 per day I'll be shocked. It might be a lot less... if I end up getting anything.

I have already put my foot down and said "Never again!" to a family fireworks stand. It was probably unnecessary since no one seems inclined to do it again next year.

But, I guess some people pay hundreds of dollars to go to camps which provide hardship experiences to "build character" and this at least didn't cost me anything. I feel it didn't work; my character may have eroded a little due to the experience.

Most of the customers were great, though. They were fun. My daughter got chummy with some of them and their bikes. I'm grateful she didn't decide to run away with them. The temptation would have crossed my mind.

We only had one customer who was bad; he cheated us out of some money. A cop. He paid, went out and sat in his car, and then came back and told the person who waited on him that she had made a mistake. He had bought a whole box of smoke bombs (oops-- "smoke balls", can't say "bombs" I guess) and claimed they were supposed to be "buy one, get one free". They weren't, but the intimidated cashier refunded half the price anyway. I wish she'd called me over during the "discussion". But, it was a cop; what else would you expect?

There was no wifi at the site, so I had to get things ready to post during my quick daily run home (14 miles one way) for a shower. I'm so far behind on everything, including my writing, it feels like I'll never get caught up. Please be patient while I try.

So that's what I've been up to. I'm exhausted.

Here is the update, including an update to the update.

Since the fireworks stand didn't pay off...

I have little choice but to ask... donate or subscribe?

Maybe not quite "elementary"

Some people just don't do the Sherlock Holmes thing very well.

A few days ago, during a little stroll, someone found a piece of scrap plexiglass, near an old run-down workshop, that was vaguely knife shaped. He brought it to me and told me his insight into it.

He had decided it had been intentionally made knife-like, to be used as a weapon He was convinced some little thug/gangster had carried it as a weapon.

Well, maybe. I saw no evidence of this. No attempt had been made to sharpen it, or even to peel off the protectant layer. Yeah, it had a (bent) point on one end, and a concave shape to the other end that could be used as a handle. But to reach the conclusions he had reached-- and actually seemed to have convinced himself of-- seemed quite a stretch.

It's just interesting to me to sometimes see how other minds work.
That's why I listen to statists.

-

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

When your idol is too big for your god

A family member (during our long hours trapped at a fireworks stand that must be the firework equivalent of Charlie Brown's pathetic Christmas tree) told me about a news story involving a business called Camping World, a giant Holy Pole Quilt, and an appropriately named town's government. It also concerns fines and a threat of kidnapping followed by caging (as long as the victim doesn't resist "too much").

A statist being fought by statists is always amusing to me. How do you like your "laws" now that they are being used against you?

Still, the flag waver is in the right, and the "laws" he is breaking are counterfeit "laws". If a giant Pole Quilt some distance away from the interstate will dangerously distract people, then so will a smaller Pole Quilt right at the side of the road. Or a tiny one on a car's antenna right beside you.

My opinion: The U.S. (not "American") Holy Pole Quilt disgusts me. But if it's not on my property, it's not my concern. Fly a Nazi flag over your home or business for all I care. Yes, I'll view your flag, of whatever design, as an indication of your character, and if your flag advocates archation I'm not going to trust you too much in other circumstances, but still it's your problem, not mine.

History will eventually view the U.S. flag the same way it views the Nazi flag today. (Some of us already view it that way.) But your property, your business. If you want to tattoo "I'm an idiot" on your face, feel free to advertise this message as loudly as you want. You're probably doing the rest of us a favor.

Happy Secession Day.

-

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

Theft

Theft isn't just one thing, It is a broad category of archation. It includes-- mugging, fraud, extortion, taxation, fines, fees, eminent domain, licensing, counterfeiting, burglary, etc.

There's not an OK type of theft.

Some forms of theft are less deadly in practice than others. Sometimes only because of the likelihood of the victim's cooperation in the face of overwhelming force and numbers.

Some kinds of theft are more "honest" than others. Any theft where the thief tries to pretend he's not a thief is the most dishonest kind of theft.

Theft is always wrong, no matter how you try to justify it and no matter what you say you'll spend some of the plunder on.

-

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

Time to roast the Peacock

Years ago I seem to have signed up for email "news alerts" from one of the original old "mainstream news" corporations. I don't remember why. I've never bothered to unsubscribe because until the past couple of years I didn't get that many alerts, but when I did, they were about actual events; news. Things like earthquakes, mass murders, hurricanes, plane crashes, and stuff of that sort. That has changed during the Trump years.

Now I get a few "alerts" every day, and the majority of them are designed to do one thing only: to disparage Trump. Why bother? I don't care one way or the other.

I hate that I have to say this again, but if I don't I will be misinterpreted (I probably will be anyway): I don't like or support Trump or any other president, past, present, or future. I do not respect the office, nor do I believe it is even slightly legitimate.

But what amazes me is the amount of effort this "news organization" is putting towards trashing Trump. The contrast with the way they treated Obama makes this even more obvious. And disgusting. I get it: the mainstream media hates Trump. OK. It doesn't mean you have to stretch to find people who hate Trump to quote. Or report on things you think Trump might have been thinking, or whatever. That's not newsworthy, it's just desperate. It makes you look as bad as you are hoping it makes Trump look. Some days, even worse.

I'm occasionally interested in news. I'm not interested in the "news'" opinions on Trump. Or on the "Democratic candidates" either. Politics isn't automatically news; in fact, it rarely is.

This has finally inspired me to do what I should have done many years ago. I have unsubscribed from their "news alerts". It was past time.

-

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

Don't force your crutch on others

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 29, 2019)

A few years ago I was hiking down a trail in Colorado. Exploring trails-- and off trails-- is probably my favorite activity. After a few hours, I decided I needed to turn around and head back. It was past mid-afternoon, on my last day of vacation, and I needed to pack and get ready for the drive home.

I doubt I had walked even a hundred feet when my natural klutziness struck and I twisted my ankle. Hard.

I was in agony, and the realization that I had miles to walk made it even worse. After I stopped hopping on one foot and finished expressing my immense discomfort, I resigned myself to the long walk ahead. I found a sturdy branch I could use as a crutch and started to hobble on down the trail. It took some effort, but I made it out before dark.

My ankle was swollen and discolored for a month. If not for the improvised crutch, my situation would have been worse.

Crutches were a good invention. Thousands of years after someone came up with the idea, they are still useful. Using a crutch may not be ideal, but it's better than the alternative. It allows someone to get around when they might not otherwise be able to without crawling.

If you need a crutch, use one.

However, not everyone needs a crutch. It's not nice to kick other people in the kneecap just because you want them to use a crutch. Nor would it be right to force others to pay for your crutch. It's different if someone volunteers to provide a crutch when they see a person in need.

Government is a crutch. I don't want or need it. I don't want you to force me to use it, nor to hurt me so I feel as though I have no choice. I don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's government, nor do I think it's nice when those who use this crutch go around whacking innocent people over the head with its laws "just because" they feel like it.

Plus, in every case today, there are better solutions. You could fix the problem so no crutch is necessary. When the underlying problem can't be permanently fixed, there are still better tools to use.

Even if I need a crutch-- or a government-- I have no right to force one on you against your will. Why would anyone do something so antisocial?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Government property

Governments-- States-- cannot legitimately own anything.

Everything they possess or control was either stolen from someone or fraudulently "bought" with stolen/counterfeited money.

A thief doesn't own the stolen goods he possesses or controls.

You can't "steal government property".
You can't "trespass on government property".
But you can be molested, kidnapped, robbed, caged, and murdered for acting on this truth. Thieves are very aggressively protective of what they imagine to be theirs.

-

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

Open-mindedness

You should keep an open mind about most things. Yet, as The Old People like to clarify, "Not so open that your brains fall out".

How can you tell the difference?

You don't need to be open-minded to every obviously bad idea: toward murder, rape, theft, kidnapping or other acts of archation. Being open-minded to these is a sign that your brains have fallen out. Closed-mindedness to things of this sort is wisdom.

But pretty much everything else is a good topic to keep your mind open on. You never know when someone might have a good perspective you never considered before. You might even discover you were wrong.

-

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

The freedom to listen

Freedom of speech is mirrored by the freedom to hear that speech. They are two sides of the same coin.

Freedom of speech is meaningless if no one is allowed to listen, or if listening is made so difficult that it doesn't happen.

Government is prohibited from censoring speech by the First Amendment (which they routinely get away with ignoring). As I see it, this also means they are prohibited from keeping you from finding and listening to any speech you want to hear.

The Bill of Rights isn't generally thought to apply to government-created corporations (which I see as part of government), but if your corporation censors or prevents people from listening, I'll consider you the bad guy.

You have the natural human right to listen, with or without the First Amendment or any other document.

Governments and corporations have no rights; rights are individual only. Don't violate the right to speak or to listen.

-

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

Supporting your abuser

I suppose if you firmly believe your abusive boyfriend protects you from ghosts, demons, and other potentially abusive boyfriends you might otherwise end up with, you're going to accept the abuse. Or downplay it.

It's the same if you believe a government protects you from other governments and "cartels".

Is it Stockholm Syndrome or something even darker?

-

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

Trusting cops to do the right thing

I don't understand those who desperately claim that "at least half of the police officers will refuse to enforce a gun confiscation".

Based on what evidence? The cops who currently refuse to enforce prohibition and all the anti-gun "laws" already on the books?

How's that working for ya, copsuckers?

Just because cops own and carry guns on the "job" doesn't make them "pro gun rights".

-

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

The things I'll do for money...

Just a heads-up: I'm going to be super busy over the next week and a half, working at a fireworks stand (ironic, since I don't really like fireworks). Mostly I'll be providing overnight "security", but probably doing some selling, too. I'm hoping I can find some time to sleep. You know how desperate I always am for money.

I've scheduled posts for (most of) those days (still working on it), but I wanted you to know what's going on, just in case one day gets skipped, or your comment languishes unnoticed a while.

-

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

"Legal" or "Lawful"

Ah. Counting on magic words to save you.

Recently I saw someone make a desperate appeal to their perception of a difference between "legal" and "lawful". They were attempting to make a "founding father" look like something other than the nasty old statist he was, by their tortured interpretation of something he had said about "lawful authority".

The fellow trying to justify the dead statist's words was trying to claim that "lawful" meant "in accordance with natural law", as opposed to "legal", which meant only that someone made up some legislation and called it a law.

Not that there can be any political "authority" in accordance with natural law, but whatever.

Still, I was willing to consider his point, so I looked up the two words in question.

legal-- permitted by law; lawful; of or relating to law; connected with the law or its administration.
appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law.

Oops. That "lawful" in there is terribly inconvenient. But, moving right along...

lawful-- allowed or permitted by law; not contrary to law; legitimate; appointed or recognized by law; acting or living according to the law.

Trying to read any meaningful difference into those definitions is an impossible task.

However, I'm sympathetic. I know dictionaries are often wrong; relying on incorrect (but popular and common) usage for their definitions. Look how often they conflate "anarchy" with "chaos" for example.

So, when there's good reason to stray from a bad dictionary definition, I support that move completely.

But, to try to find a good definition for a word so that you can feel good about an old, dead statist is probably pointless if liberty is something you value.

-

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

Preferences provide opportunities

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 22, 2019)

Preferences are a personal thing. Some people prefer dogs while others prefer cats, and some like both species equally. None of these choices is wrong, even if one choice might make more sense or be more right for some people.

If dogs are preferred, there are those who prefer large dogs and others who prefer small dogs. Some people prefer aggressive dogs while other people want a more sociable dog.

It's all OK unless your preference is to prevent others from making their own choice based on their personal preferences.

If you decide your preference for large sociable dogs means cats should be banned or tightly regulated, and small, aggressive dogs must be confiscated and destroyed, your preference has crossed the line. It is no longer acceptable; it's antisocial.

Even if the majority of people take your side.

Yes, there are acts which aren't the same as preferences. You can't just say your preference is to break into houses and steal what you want instead of earning money with mutually voluntary trade to pay for those things. Well, you can say that's your preference but no one is obligated to sit by while you act on it. Anyone has the right to stop you when your preference violates others.

Very few of the things people choose between harm anyone. You might be bewildered by someone's choice. You might even believe it's immoral. Unless it "picks your pocket or breaks your leg"-- to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson-- it's your responsibility to mind your business.

Differing preferences provide opportunities. If everyone liked the same thing, there would be no need to make different kinds of food. Generic "Human Chow" would be good enough. Everyone could wear the same style clothing, in the same color. All cars could be identical.

Life would never have a chance to improve because there would be no reason to experiment with different things. Look how many innovations were stumbled upon by accident. Often the underlying cause was someone trying to fulfill their own, or a pool of potential customers', preferences; some which are known and others which are a mystery even to those who possess them.

It would be sad if everyone were the same and liked the same things. I'm glad people like different stuff. It exposes me to things I might not otherwise experience, it gives me options and enriches my life. And it might someday introduce me to something I had no idea I was going to love.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Libertarianism is the balance

One objection I frequently see against libertarianism is that it's "too extreme". "There needs to be a balance between the extremes of libertarianism and fascism" (as illustrated by "border enforcement" and so forth).

This misses the reality.

(Of course, the act of governing others won't be referred to as fascism. Statists aren't that self-aware or honest. They'll call it "rule of law" or will conflate political government with society. You can use whatever substitute terms you wish, as long as you keep this in mind.)

The extreme ends of the spectrum are not libertarianism and fascism-- the extremes are nihilism and fascism. Libertarianism is the healthy balance which avoids both of the toxic extremes. It's the only way to avoid ruin.

Libertarianism is not "extreme" unless your wish is to watch the world burn; unless you want to kill off everyone with your chosen politics. If you choose something other than libertarianism you are choosing one of the deadly extremes. You are choosing to be extreme in defense of something indefensible.

-

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

Shooting down drones

If you don't want your drone to be shot down, keep it over your own property. Any drone that isn't over property you own or rent, at a minimum, is fair game.

This doesn't change just because you are a government.

In fact, since governments can't legitimately own anything, government drones are always fair game. I might give the US government license to fly its drones over the Pentagon, White House, or Capitol building, but nowhere else. No, they don't own those properties either, but I'm willing to compromise that much. At least until they are a threat to adjacent property owners, anyway.

If your drone is over someone else's property, it is trespassing and they have the right to shoot it down. They aren't required to... if you are on friendly terms with them maybe they won't.

If your drone is over "international waters", it's not over your property and shooting it down is a legitimate action. Especially if it is a government military drone. This is because drones "owned" by governments are weapons of war, and their presence is a credible threat to archate.

Keep your drones at home and you won't have to get whiney or become a puffed-up bully when someone shoots one down.

-

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

Wrong opinions

There are wrong opinions. An opinion is a belief, and a lot of beliefs are simply wrong.

I know that's not a nice thing to point out, but it's true. Your opinion-- your belief-- may be that "taxation" isn't theft and therefore isn't wrong. But it is, no matter what your opinion on the matter may be.

Your opinion might be that the Earth is a flat disk. But it isn't.

Your opinion might be that anyone who destroys their own copy of Holy Pole Quilt should be punished. That's a sick, superstitious opinion, and yes: that opinion is wrong.

You are "entitled" to your opinion. You can be as wrong as you want to be. However, no one is obligated to behave as though your opinion is valid when it's wrong. They don't have to respect a wrong opinion.

Facts don't care about your opinions. You should care if your opinions don't match the facts, but for too many people, that's hard, and it would invalidate their most dearly held opinions. So they won't do that.

-

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

"One could argue..."

That's a phrase I frequently see at the beginning of some rather strange assumptions and some bizarrely incoherent "arguments".

Well, sure, "one could argue" anything at all. Doesn't make the argument correct.

"One could argue" that there's no such thing as right or wrong; that anything is permissible to do to other people. That's basically the statist argument. As long as government passes a "law" allowing an act, "one could argue" that it's OK. Or, if government makes up a "law" prohibiting something, "one could argue" that it's bad. There's no real right or wrong, just legal or illegal.

"One could argue" that there's no such thing as biological sex (chromosomes = Hate!). It's all about the linguistic term "gender"-- it's just cultural and you can "identify as" whatever you feel like. Today. And you can change your mind again tomorrow.

"One could argue" that rights are imaginary. That you only have the rights you can kill to defend. I guess this excuses those who don't want to stick their necks out and defend people who are being violated and aren't able to defend themselves.

It has rarely been the case that I see the phrase "one could argue" as a lead-in to anything sensible.
"One could argue" it's a phrase that isn't very useful for reaching truth.

-

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

Time again for some random acts of ANARCHY

Yeah, you know what I'm talking about.
But if you need a refresher, you can get that from this link.

-

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