Voluntary-- even when it's frustrating

It's frustrating to know how to help someone, but not be allowed to help.

Saturday I went to a relative's house to see what was wrong with her dishwasher. I'm pretty sure I found the problem and I offered to order the part and install it. I'm not a great handyman, but it wouldn't have been stretching me beyond my competence level to replace that part. The problem is, I don't have a good way to be certain the part is defective-- although through a process of elimination I'm about as sure as I can be.

The replacement part was under $30, so to me it seemed like a good gamble. But she decided against it.

Then I went to check out her toilet that she said had broken. A very simple fix. But she didn't want me to, saying her improvised "fix" was good enough for now. Even though she admitted it would quickly rust and fail.

If she hadn't been hovering I would have just quietly fixed it anyway.

She gave me a little money for my time-- an hour or so-- and that was that.

In the long run, she'll probably hire someone to fix her dishwasher for many times what it would have cost to have me do it.
And, I'll probably end up going back to fix her toilet later-- when I could have just done it while I was looking at the problem.

But I won't impose. All human interactions should be voluntary, even if I believe I know better.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Politicians shouldn't be so important

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

President Trump makes people crazy. Or maybe he magnifies the crazy already present in people. It's like a superpower.

His supporters seem desperate to defend and support just about anything he does; even things they would have opposed had any other president done them---- his anti-gun edicts, for example.

At the same time, his detractors foam at the mouth over every little thing he does; always interpreting them in the most negative way possible. It's obvious he knows this and pokes them just to get an overreaction.

His critics see racism in everything he does. Yet, even one of the congressional economic illiterates he recently targeted admitted it had nothing to do with race, She said “If I was [sic] wearing a MAGA hat, if there was [sic] a Somali person wearing a MAGA hat, they would not be deported. But because I criticized the president, I should be deported." You can't be more clear about the real issue than this.

People on both sides-- if you consider them different sides-- are angry. They see the crazy on the other side and overlook their own.

Meanwhile, I watch, bewildered by the craziness I see all around me.

How can people let politicians become this important to their lives? Whether it's a provocative president or a squad of trendy socialists, these people shouldn't have any hold over you. It's embarrassing to see people defending politicians from other politicians. It's as though they take politicians seriously.

The insult game is part of what they signed up for when they decided to abandon the productive sector to become politicians. They knew what they were getting in to. Let them pull on their politician pants and get over it. Don't let them drag you into it and get you upset over a game you aren't playing. There are important things for you to focus on. Political drama isn't one of them.

Politicians can't hurt you with their inconsiderate words about other politicians, but they can and will hurt you with laws. If you get upset over things they say about each other but want them to focus on making up new laws, you're encouraging them to make life worse. They distract you with their infighting while they attack your remaining liberty. This is how they win.

It is said of politics, "it's a big club, and you aren't in it". This isn't a bad thing. You don't need their club, nor to lower yourself to their level. You're better than that.

-
Just so you know, the internet will be shut off at my house until I can pay the bill.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Be libertarian

Be libertarian. Even if you don't change the world, you'll change. You'll be a better person. You won't be part of the problem anymore. So do it for your own sake. 

And who knows... maybe you'll change the world after all.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

An infusion of funds would not go amiss.  And would be appreciated.

Identical where it matters

Things can be different, yet have some identical properties.

Say you are standing around minding your own business, Suddenly, without warning, something falling from a great height lands on your head, splattering you over a wide area. In one scenario it was a massive 1960s era computer and in an alternate reality it was a large boulder. Either way, you are dead. A boulder falling on your head will have the same effect on you as the giant computer if either one falls on your head. They are different in nearly every way but you're just as dead. That's the only property they have that matters in that situation.

All humans differ from each other in so many interesting ways, yet they all have equal and identical rights. Male, female, every "race" or religion, wherever they happen to live (or visit), no matter the opinions of the local gang of bullies, and even if they imagine they are something they demonstrably aren't; their rights are exactly the same as everyone else's. People are different in so many ways but they remain the same in the only way that matters.
Their rights are equal and identical.
Respect that.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Zuckerberg-- human trafficker

Mark Zuckerberg is engaged in human trafficking.
Google is also engaged in human trafficking.
Anyone who deals in your "data" is committing human trafficking.

Yeah, there's all the standard yammering about "private businesses" having the right to do whatever... but corporations are NOT private businesses. They are government. They stopped being private businesses when they made a deal to work with and for government, and to sell you out to government, in exchange for special favors.

Facebook is not a private business. Google is not a private business. They may have started out that way, but that's not the current reality. They are no more private businesses than the U.S. feral government is one. They are all government.

No, that doesn't mean I want them controlled with "laws". They don't obey the Constitution which was supposedly written to keep government in check, so why would any other "laws" restrain them?

I have no choice but to use some government "services"-- such as government roads. And, realistically, I have no choice but to use some "services" provided by these or similar human traffickers-- unless I choose to be a Luddite. Or Amish.

I mean, sure, it would be theoretically possible to avoid government roads. You could learn to teleport or build your own flying machine. Of course, government claims ownership of the skies, too. So if you fly to avoid the government roads you are using "the government's" sky. It doesn't matter if the claim is ridiculous-- they'll enforce it with death.

In the same way, you could technically create your own internet service-- from the ground up, not relying on anyone's hosting or anything else. But realistically? No, you probably can't. Not in any way to really avoid all the government-supremacists and human traffickers.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Scott Adams is still wrong on guns

The vilest anti-liberty bigots are those who pretend to be pro-liberty while misrepresenting liberty (or not even understanding what the word means). Anti-gun bigots who claim to be "pro-gun" are probably the worst subset of anti-liberty bigot.

Scott Adams is a case in point. He's been advocating anti-gun "laws" a lot recently, seasoning his remarks with the phrase "I'm pro-gun". It shows how deep his misunderstanding of the topic goes that he believes he's making sense.

The following is a point-by-point analysis of a recent podcast where he was pretending to be pro-gun while promoting anti-gun bigotry and government-supremacy. He's always blocking people for saying "You're wrong" without providing reasons. Since he likes reasons so much, here are a bunch of them.

"The government should make the decisions about gun policy... The government and the people should decide what our gun laws are."

Nope. That option has been taken off the table by the Second Amendment. And "our" gun laws? I've decided what mine are. No one else has any say. Collectivism is ugly.

"But we get to change the Constitution, too."

Not without abolishing the United States of America. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were a package deal which created the feral, ummm, federal government, and without which it has no existence. Change one word of the Bill of Rights (which, being amendments, over-ride the body of the Constitution where applicable) and the deal is off. I'm actually OK with that. Are you?

"I did not say 'take away your guns'."

Only because you can't be that honest. You've parroted the dishonest claim of almost every anti-gun bigot, that "no one is talking about taking away guns". Maybe you aren't proposing door-to-door gun confiscations, but if you believe government has the power to ignore the natural human right to own and to carry weapons, and the Second Amendment's prohibition on "laws" concerning guns, then you're advocating allowing "laws" to be written which could (and have) result in actual law enforcers taking away people's guns, and murdering them if they resist.

"I'm very pro-gun (...) but..."

That's what they all say. And maybe you believe it. But without a clear understanding of the issue you say things that make you look foolish and dishonest. That "but" leaves you a lot of wiggle room but completely invalidates your first statement there.

"If the citizens of the United States, collectively, with their government, decided to make some gun laws, that I personally, Scott, do not think are the greatest, I'd still be inclined to go along with it, because the system produced that output. And I would trust the system."

As long as a system isn't harming people I'll trust it. Provisionally. But as soon as it starts violating people, I'm out. The slave trade was a system. No one should have trusted it because it violated natural human rights. "Gun control" is a system which violates people's rights. In fact, government is a rights-violating system. None for me, thanks. I prefer my own system which protects everyone's equal and identical rights.

"Some of you are saying 'My Constitution gives me my Second Amendment rights, and the NRA is helping me defend them.'"

Anyone who believes their rights come from the Constitution/Second Amendment or any document is uninformed. The Bill of Rights was written to place natural human rights-- including the right to own and to carry weapons-- off-limits to government meddling. Even the NRA seems weak on their understanding of this point. That's why real gun rights (human rights) advocates call the NRA "surrender monkeys".

As I recently posted elsewhere in response to a similar claim: You seem to have been misinformed about what the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does. It doesn’t give anyone the right to own and to carry weapons; it makes it a crime for government to interfere in this natural human right in the slightest way. “Gun control” is a SERIOUS crime.
The right existed before the Constitution was written— before the first government was a twinkle in the eye of a lazy thief, even— and it will still exist unchanged long after the last government is forgotten in the mists of Deep Time. No law or constitution can alter that right in the smallest degree.

"You love the Constitution. So do I."

I don't. And neither do you. If you did you would try to understand its purpose better; particularly the Bill of Rights-- which is what you're discussing here. The ONLY thing the Bill of Rights was written to do was to limit what government could "legally" do. If you miss that point your claim to love the Constitution is patently ridiculous. It's like if I said I love dogs, but then talk about how beautiful and soft their feathers are.

"Do you know what else is in the Constitution? Well there's something about a representative government and presidents and Congress and all that."

Yep. And that makes placing natural human rights out of their reach that much more important. Because you never know what those people might decide to do. Or what the majority of v*ters might decide to do. Placing natural human rights outside the business of government is necessary if you're going to allow government to exist.

"It gives the control of our decision making to our elected representatives."

Not all of it. Some things were wisely taken off the table (by the Bill of Rights) before the game began. Including guns.

(About the NRA) "If it crosses that line into taking the job that the Constitution gives to the government..."

Again, the government can't have the "job" to make up "laws" about guns. That is one of the things government is specifically and explicitly not permitted to do.

"The first thing I would note is that it's already infringed."

Agreed. That means all those various infringements are illegitimate and need to go away. It doesn't justify more infringements. You couldn't have justified expanding the slave trade with the observation that there was already a slave trade. The slave trade needed to be abolished. Gun "laws" need to be abolished... or ignored into irrelevance.

"Can you own a tank; a flamethrower?"

Ignorance? Yes, you can.

About "Second Amendment rights" [sic]: "98% of it's gone and you didn't even notice."

Rights can't "go away". That the government-- or other bad guys-- violate rights doesn't make them go away. It just violates them. Understand the difference.
And, I notice the violations. So do other people. Just because you don't notice doesn't mean others are that complacent and ignorant.

"Do you think that the Second Amendment, when it says 'arms', was just trying to limit it to muskets? I mean, that's all they could imagine at the time..."

No. The Second Amendment was saying "You shall not pass!" with regard to making up "laws" to violate the natural human right to own and to carry weapons.
And they could "imagine" more than muskets because more than muskets already existed. Some of the authors of the Constitution were inventors. Does Scott really believe they couldn't have imagined anything other than what already existed at the time? Of course, they could. That's what inventors do. They knew how guns had evolved from massive unwieldy things requiring more than one person to set up and use to tools easily owned, carried, and accurately fired by one average individual. They were perfectly aware of how gun development could progress from its current state-- they were already witnessing it.
And it doesn't matter. They placed guns on a high shelf, out of reach of government "laws".

"I see all the gun rights people bristling, but so far I haven't said anything you disagree with."

Seriously? See all the above if you actually believe you haven't said anything an informed gun rights person would disagree with so far.
And, I didn't bristle. I took it upon myself to educate and correct.

"... the key parts are 'militia' and 'necessary to the security of a free state'... "

The militia is EVERYONE capable of using a weapon in defense-- this was made clear by those who wrote and supported the Second Amendment. Using their weapons against whoever needed to be defended against. You display gross historical ignorance here.
Then you go off on a screed about "giving you the right to own guns...", missing the purpose and intent of the Bill of Rights yet again. Government-supremacists seem to love this train of thought, which I derailed above.
Now, I happen to understand what a "state" is, so I also understand "free state" is internally contradictory. I'll forgive you for your ignorance on this one.

"... a created right; a manufactured right..."

You can't create or manufacture rights. Every human who has ever existed has/had equal and identical rights. Rights don't come from governments. Governments can either respect rights or violate them. Those are the only two options. That governments-- states-- always choose to violate rights to some degree says nothing about the nature of rights and everything you need to know about the nature of government.

"Even the experts disagree about what the Constitution said or meant or how it should be interpreted."

Only willfully. If you go back and read the related writings and discussions between those who were writing it, there is no confusion. "Smart people" often find ways to avoid understanding things which would invalidate what they want. That's the most common thing in the world. It doesn't give weight to your anti-gun position.

"My take is the government can do whatever it wants, with guns, as long as it makes sense. As long as the people are with it."

It probably can. But it would be wrong and the US government would be immediately illegitimized by passing even one gun "law". Oops. I guess that bridge has already been crossed and burned. But, again, this is the unethical government-supremacist position.
And "makes sense" to who? Everything makes sense to someone. Theft makes sense to people who want to justify stealing. Rape makes sense to rapists. Serial murderers always believe their acts somehow make sense. Violating your rights can't make sense to me. No matter my feelings, or my wishes. If I feel your rights "need" to be violated on my behalf, then I need to man up and defend myself-- by exercising my rights-- from you. Begging government to do that on my behalf is a loser move.

"If 99% of the people said 'Hey, government, take our guns away'..."

So, mob rule, then. The belief that rights hinge on the opinions of the majority. The wishes of all the people but one can't excuse violating the rights of the one. Not if you call that violation "slavery" or if you call it "gun control". If someone doesn't want a gun in their house there is nothing to prevent them from getting rid of it. I'm completely in favor of allowing them to do so. If, however, they don't want guns in their own home this gives them no right to force everyone else to get rid of their own guns, or else. Not by "law" or anything else.
This is the same loserthink behind rich people who say "Raise my taxes-- I don't mind. I want to support government more." If they want to give the government more of their money, they can. No new "law" is necessary. Just do it. To wait until a "law" is imposed forcing others to do the same is evil.

"...a vague statement in the Constitution hundreds of years ago..."

It's only vague if you try really hard to not understand it. "Shall not be infringed" can't be more clear.

"We can do what we want as long as there's a system we all respect."

Too bad for you, then. Or, do you not really mean "all", but just all government-supremacists and anti-liberty bigots? Because, as I've already pointed out, I don't respect systems which violate natural human rights.

"...'it's in the Constitution!' True, but does it matter?"

Only if you want to keep your government. If not, that's OK with me. I don't need your government and don't feel like supporting it. I can't afford it and don't want or need it. So I'm not going to argue with you on that one. That's just a case of you arguing against yourself.

"To all of you who thought you were disagreeing with me, and were wrong, I say: your opinion I care about... If you disagree with me on guns, I care about your opinion. I might disagree, but I want to hear it... You and I are on the same page."

OK. I'll send this blog post to you, then. I hope other people also forward it to you (@ScottAdamsSays) any time you talk about guns.
But, no, we are not on the same page. Not even close.

I'll close with one final admission on your part:

"I know one topic I don't understand: any topic on gun control"

Yeah, that much is painfully obvious.

So, no Scott, I'm not interested in any system which makes it easier to violate the natural human rights of my fellow humans (or myself) and therefore makes it more likely those rights violations will occur. Just not interested at all. When you're right, you're right. But when you're wrong, you're probably advocating government-supremacy.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The Crimes of Lon Horiuchi

Most years, on this date, I think about Lon Horiuchi.

Not many brutal mob hitmen are so widely known. Do you ever wonder about him and why he's still breathing? I know I do. He's been in hiding for a long time now-- hopefully, he'll never be able to have a single, solitary day of normal, non-paranoid life ever again.

Speaking of which, Ammo.com has published an article on the Ruby Ridge siege where Lon Horiuchi had a starring role in the brazen gang murders of Vicki Weaver and Sammy Weaver.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Questions about anti-gun bigots

Why do anti-gun bigots continue to hammer the idea that if you aren't violating the human right to own and to carry weapons you "aren't doing anything"?

Why do they keep pretending there's a "gun problem"-- separate from the continuing violation of the natural human right to own and to carry them?

Why do they lie and say the problem is "gun violence" rather than admitting the problem would be gun aggression-- by cops/government gangs and freelance archators?

Should there be a "process" for violating people? Does it only matter that they "really believe" they should violate the natural human right to own and to carry weapons?

Do beliefs change an unethical act into an ethical one?

Anti-gun bigots say "it's got to get worse" (more deaths) before anything can be done to make it "better" (more anti-gun "laws")-- that's right, anti-gun bigots are hoping for more mass shootings to advance their agenda. Will they "do something" to make sure they get what they are hoping for. Yep. They will. They already have been, for decades.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Please don't be related!"

Years ago I set up a Google alert on my last name. I did this to keep track of times I was mentioned online-- which was sometimes "interesting". It also alerted me to my newspaper columns being published. Did. Once upon a time. Never anymore. Not at all for the past few years.

Now I only get alerts about highschool sportsballers and whiny, entitled statists around the country who share with me the name "McManigal". But never anything about my newspaper columns. It's weird.

It may have something to do with the newspaper's updated paywall, or with them doing something else differently. Something I may not be aware of.

But it's interesting and disturbing who makes the news, and for what.

Even though I have a very low opinion of sportsball, and an even lower opinion of anything tied to kinderprison, those whiny, entitled McManigals-- looking to someone else to save them from their own choices-- are the ones who bother me the most. Yet these are the people served up by Google?

Even though I ask for subscriptions and donations to keep me going, I never imagine they are owed to me. I put my product out there and people can support it or not. I am not entitled to any support and I'm not going to whine when it doesn't come. (Although I sometimes beg when a special need arises.)

Those people make me glad my dad was adopted, which means I'm probably not "blood-related" to any of the whiney statists Google keeps showing me. What a relief! (Probably for them, too.)

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

I prefer consequences to revenge

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

If your idea of a good time is to vandalize someone's home, I have no sympathy for you no matter what consequences result.

Last year a relative's home near Clovis was burglarized and cleaned out. Through the ruthless determination of his granddaughter, all his belongings were discovered on the property of the burglar (or an accomplice) and recovered.

Now, someone has decided it was a good idea to try to destroy his whole house. The house he built with his own hands more than half a century ago.

If you think this makes me angry, you'd be on the right track.

When a person makes the choice to violate life, liberty, or property they've lost their humanity in my eyes. Their reasons or justifications never matter.

I understand spur-of-the-moment bad decisions, but to make a conscious decision to violate someone? That's where I draw the line.

No, it doesn't mean I want to see the law used against them. In fact, the law does more to protect bad guys from consequences than it does to protect their victims.

Nor am I calling for punishment, which I oppose as revenge. I prefer social consequences. Real justice. Including-- specifically-- shunning.

There are people out there who know these and other criminals who make a habit of victimizing residents of the community. I doubt either they or the violators they know are literate enough to read newspapers or anything else, though. Maybe someone can read this to them.

If you know someone who habitually violates others, and you choose to continue associating with them, you are as guilty as they are. Violators should be left to die alone in the elements, naked and starving. There's no excuse to sell them food, water, fuel, clothing, shelter, or medical care once you are aware of their choice to violate. If you continue to trade products and services with them you are spitting in the faces of all their victims; past, present, and future.

I'd rather see their pictures, addresses, and crimes posted on social media or on public flyers. Let everyone know who they are and what they do. "Innocent until proven guilty" is only the standard for government courts. If you know the truth, share it.

Consequences of this sort would do more to promote civilization than all the laws you could ever write and enforce. Violators survive only because otherwise good people help them, even if it's accidental. Stop enabling them to live to violate again.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

A "productive conversation" on re-instituting slavery?

The anti-gun bigots out there are really upset that you and I aren't willing to discuss "gun control" [sic] with them. I mean, why can't we just sit down for a "productive conversation"?

There's a very good reason: some topics are simply not worth discussing.

Why can't "we" have a productive conversation on how to work out a compromise on slavery?

Because slavery is WRONG. There's no possible compromise between slavery and the absence of slavery. There's no reason to keep rehashing the topic. Nothing can ever change to make slavery OK. Not your feelings and not the behavior of bad people. It doesn't matter how many people honestly believe slavery is necessary or will save lives.

That's the same reason "we" can't have a conversation on "gun control" [sic]. It's wrong. It's unethical. It's illegal-- of course, "laws" can be changed and the Constitution can be ignored. There's no reason to keep rehashing the topic until you come up with the results you want. Nothing can ever make anti-gun "laws" OK. Not your feelings or the acts of bad people. It doesn't matter how many people honestly believe slavery-- in the form of anti-gun "laws"-- is necessary or will save lives.

I'm not willing to "discuss" anti-gun ideas with anyone for the same reason I'm not willing to discuss re-instituting chattel slavery.

Their idea of "productive" is that they get to violate your natural human rights more than they already do. So, no, I'm not going to give you the time of day for that "conversation".

Only anti-gun bigots find this unreasonable. Ethical people with worthwhile principles understand the trap and aren't willing to participate in their own enslavement.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Guns-- Time to try something different

I recently heard an anti-gun bigot saying, in relation to mass shootings, "What we've been doing isn't working. It's time to try something different."

He's right, but I'll bet he doesn't know he's right.

What his team has been doing isn't working. It's never going to work... unless the goal is to make mass shootings more common. It's time to try something different, all right. It's time to stop trying (or pretending to try) to prevent mass shootings with more "laws" which make it safer to be a mass shooter.

Past time. Long past time to get rid of all the anti-gun "laws". All of them. Every single last one. Stop giving mass murderers what they want; what they need. Stop providing them with pools of unarmed-- disarmed-- potential victims.

Maybe disarmed victims are what the anti-gun bigots want. It's not what I want. I want mass shooters to die in their attempt to kill people.

If you advocate anti-gun "laws" you are helping losers become evil losers. You are empowering them to murder more people. If the NRA "compromises" yet again they deserve to die as an organization.

So, yeah. It's time to try something different because what you've been trying isn't working.

Not one more inch.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

American SS: celebrities?

I never thought I'd see the day when uniformed SS officers would go strutting through America and be received as celebrities.

Yet, I've witnessed it myself.

I took my daughter to the fair Wednesday evening. She had a friend along so I stayed out of their way. I wandered a bit, then found a seat and sat to people-watch.

Suddenly I saw what I took to be a group of SS officers marching in my general direction. I felt disoriented by the sight. I wish I'd thought quickly enough to take a photo (I also wish my phone settings hadn't randomly and secretly changed to a lower resolution camera.)

I did manage to snap a couple of pictures (the top two above) when they stopped and milled with the crowd for a bit. I think one of the Brownshirts who came up to chat with them noticed me taking pictures. They were posing for pictures with people (their fans?), and I even think I saw one signing an autograph. And I just sat there thunderstruck at seeing SS officers being treated like celebrities.

I was so struck by the similarity that I did an image search for an SS uniform. Yeah, that's what they were wearing.

Seriously, apart from the red armband and the silly hip flaps, and the fact that some of the uniforms were short-sleeved, the uniforms were standard SS-- with U.S. touches and details, of course. This is the American SS-- what the German SS evolved into.

I know there's a mental trap here. Appearances don't always mean what you think. A coral snake and a scarlet kingsnake look similar, but they aren't the same thing. But the similar looks aren't exactly coincidental. If you don't know the difference you might run away from-- or kill-- the kingsnake because you believe it is venomous. The similar appearance means the kingsnake will be treated like a coral snake because it looks like a coral snake. To know these officers proudly wear something that looks nearly indistinguishable from a German SS uniform also means something.

Police are scum.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

My scary manifesto

(All the evil losers seem to be posting manifestos-- or at least manifestos are posted and being attributed to them. Why do only the crazy losers get to write manifestos? I think I'll take a crack at it.)

--My Manifesto--

You do you; I'll do me.

I accept that I, as a human being, have no right to initiate force or violate property rights-- both those concepts being covered by the statement: I have no right to archate.

You also have no right to archate, but if you do anyway it's your problem.

I believe that if you are doing something you have no right to do, you are doing something wrong. If you make a habit of it you are one of the bad guys.

I don't believe in punishment, which I see as revenge.
I do believe in defense.
I also believe in justice, which is punishment's polar opposite. I won't go after you claiming "justice", although if you violate someone and don't pay restitution I will not lift a finger to help you in any way. I will then advertise the fact and hope you die alone, exposed to the elements and starving for food and water. But it's not my job, nor any human's job, to do what nature will take care of just fine without my help.

I don't believe there's any such thing as a "right to govern" and see all attempts to govern anyway as archation; as attacks on the life, liberty, and property of others. I'm not obligated to stop you-- but I won't step in and prevent consequences from paying you an unpleasant visit. Play stupid games; win stupid prizes. And I may exercise the right to defend myself and others from your violations-- at my discretion. If you choose to violate others, watch your back forever.

I don't recognize your political government nor its "laws" as anything other than thuggery. The reality is that there will always be bad people around. I won't let them dictate the terms of my life. Some bad people aren't somehow "better" than others. If you continually choose to archate you are the same as every other person who continually chooses to archate.

If I try to impose myself or my values on you, you have the right to stop me. Whatever it takes. I have the same right if you are the one trying to impose on me. It doesn't matter if this imposition and violation is called a "law" or an opinion.

Live and let live. Anything less is barbaric.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Jury Duty day

If this posts, it means "my" jury duty didn't get canceled at the last minute and I'm sitting in the courthouse. Hoping I'll be allowed to do some good.

Support FIJA.

Watch for updates below if you're interested in this sort of thing.

UPDATE: Well, the case was settled out of court but they forgot to update the website. The girl who does that was on vacation when they settled and didn't think of it when she got back to work. "You didn't call?" No, I checked the website like it said I could. And these are the people who know better how to run your life than you do.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

A rude and unreasonable demand

From the link on "compromise" below

You can't compromise liberty. There is no compromise between liberty-- doing all you have a right to do-- and someone's unreasonable feelings.

And yet, that's what rude anti-gun bigots demand.

No one has the right to demand someone else "give up some liberty". There is no such thing as "too much liberty", so there's never any conflict.

When you are living your liberty you aren't violating anyone in any way. It simply isn't possible.

Those whose feelings are hurt by this truth just need to grow up and get out of the way. If they are scared or offended it's a sign they are not sensible. If they demand you "compromise" your liberty for their feelings they are the bad guys. You have no obligation to deal with them. You certainly have no obligation to give up some of your liberty to make them feel better.

It wouldn't work anyway. People who demand you compromise your liberty are broken people. They'll never feel better because the problem is inside them. Nothing you give up will ever be enough for them. They'll always demand "just a little more".

No.

I don't want to be mean to anyone, but I'm not going to act as though anyone demanding someone else give up "some" liberty is being reasonable. They aren't. They are being rude, nasty, childish, and irrational. They can't be taken seriously, but they are a serious threat.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Don't become like the evil losers

There are many factors that contribute to a loser deciding to become an evil loser and shoot up a bunch of innocent (or even random guilty) people.

However, the statist knee-jerk reaction to enslave us all with "laws" for the acts of a few is just as bad as shooting into a crowd of innocent people. It absolutely is.

"Laws" kill people, including innocent people. That fact is swept under the rug by those who want to impose "laws". All "laws" are enforced by death, no matter how trivial, but that's not the only way they kill people.

If you are prevented from having the proper tools for defense when you need them, people may well die. Many already have.

If you advocate "laws" you are no better than those who gear up and go into a crowd and start shooting. Yes, some "laws" are less horrible than others-- those are the unnecessary "laws". But the very idea of-- the superstitious belief in-- "laws" is toxic to society. Don't go down that path. You can be better than the evil losers. Act like it.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Limiting liberty never good for people

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

There are few things I enjoy more than helping people.

In the past few months, I've opened a car for a neighbor who locked her keys inside it. Twice. I gave a military-style can opener I was carrying to a guy who was unsuccessfully trying to buy a can opener.

I hold doors for people, I hand them items they drop, and do my best to help whenever I see the opportunity.

I just put in a two-week stint helping my family with a fireworks stand. It was like one of those harsh character-building programs, except it didn't cost anything. There was even the potential to make some money, although that didn't pan out.

Still, I was helpful to those who needed me when they needed me.

The thing is, helping people makes me happy. It's good for the person I help and it's good for me. It bothers me when I miss an opportunity to help because I'm distracted or self-absorbed. I want to pay attention to people's needs and do what I can.

I like people and I like helping. It's why I promote liberty and responsibility. Nothing helps people more in the long run than helping them realize the benefits of embracing liberty; recognizing their freedom to do everything they have a right to do, even if they don't choose to exercise it all. Limiting liberty is never good for people. Even if liberty scares someone, it's the fear which is harmful, not the liberty.

If I didn't like people very much I would convince them their rights come from government and can be limited or lost. I would tell them the Bill of Rights gives them rights, not the truth that it only applies to government by making it a serious crime for government to violate-- in the tiniest way-- any of the enumerated rights plus all unlisted rights which are placed off-limits by the Ninth Amendment. 

I would use collectivist phrases like "our government" and "our president", and dishonest terms like "your taxes".

I would want people to be dependent on government and its handouts.

If I didn't like people very much, I would celebrate laws and those who enforce them.

If you ever see this change in me you'll know I've stopped liking people. I've stopped wanting the best for them and would rather see them suffer. Be afraid!

Otherwise, I'll keep helping however I can, whenever I see the opportunity.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Slavery gaining steam-- Revenge by "law"

"Red flag laws" are becoming all the rage. Or, as I call them: "Bitter Ex-Wife Revenge and Empowerment Acts". Because you just KNOW that's how they'll mainly play out.

Well, Ammo.com has written a piece on where these bad ideas came from, how they "work", and some of their consequences.

Seems to me only a pathetic coward would use a "red flag law" instead of doing the hard work to defend the innocent herself/himself-- if there were a credible threat.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.