Defending the castle

My first house was eight-hundred and twenty square feet, in a "working class" neighborhood beyond the city limits at the edge of hundreds of acres of woods.

I was home alone one day. My days off were Thursday and Sunday, so this would have been a Thursday afternoon.

My (at-the-time) wife had the car with her (the other one must have been in the shop) so it looked like no one was home.

I was back in the bedroom and heard the front door open and someone come in. I glanced out the window but the car wasn’t there so it wasn’t my wife getting home early.

I grabbed the .22 rifle sitting in the corner and walked to the living room and the front door.

There, in the middle of the room looking a bit shocked, was a boy of around 10 years old. I wasn’t pointing the rifle at him, but I had it ready and asked what he was doing in my house. He stammered that he was looking for me. I said “Well, here I am. What do you want?”

He couldn’t come up with a plausible story and I told him to get out and to never set foot on my property again. As far as I know, he didn’t.

 A couple of weeks later I heard that several houses in the neighborhood had been burgled— with TVs being the most commonly stolen object. This kid wasn’t big enough to carry most TVs of the era (mid to late 1980s), but he was big enough to scope out houses for an older sibling or a parent. I was glad I was paying attention and glad I looked scary enough that I didn’t seem worth the risk.

But I did start locking the door when I was home alone.

My yard eventually became scary enough that no one wanted to come near my house, anyway. Not even the meter readers for the electric utility, who told my dad-- their boss-- that a Satan worshiper lived in that house. They came to this conclusion because there were skulls and strange "ritual objects" in the yard.  It turns out they were scared of my tomahawk block and my sling target (which was a cow skull on a crude tripod). Plus, I didn't mow except for a narrow strip right around the house (I've never believed in mowing or lawns). Whatever works, right?

Some defense is active and some is passive. I support the use of both.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

"Human-made weapons"

I recently saw an anti-gun bigot on Quora make the desperate claim that there can be no right to human-made weapons because those weapons didn't even exist until a few hundred years ago. He doesn't believe anyone has the right to own and to carry a gun, and is apparently ignorant of human prehistory, as well.

What is so different about a human-made weapon or any other human-made artifact? How does its history bear on this issue?

And does he mean all human-made weapons, or only guns? Does the fact that it is carried instead of being a physical part of the body make the difference?

Does a rock count since it can be used as a weapon without being altered? What of pointy sticks? Or fire? What if I carry an antler with me all the time?-- it's a deer's weapon.

Humans don't (generally) grow horns, antlers, claws, hooves, or fangs. People of his sort believe we should be punished for "only" having a brain, instead. A brain that allows us to design, make, and use weapons which don't grow on our bodies. He's insane.

Want to bet he still believes there's a right to health care or justice? Both of those only exist because humans created them-- just like guns.

Does he believe you have the right to not be a slave? The recognition of the right to not be enslaved is a relatively recent discovery. Would he toss that one, too, because it's not "old enough"?

You know he'd whine it's not the same thing.

And, the fact remains, the real issue is that there is no right to forbid weapons to anyone under any pretext. That "right" doesn't exist and can't be created. Not by legislation or majority opinion.

You just can't reason with bigots. They hate what they hate because they hate it. Politics makes people stupid.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

I can't care when politicians kill politicians

photo by- hosein charbaghi 

Maybe I should be ashamed, but I just can't get worked up over politicians killing other politicians.

The only bad thing is that other people get caught up in the pre-teen drama that is politics. If politicians can get you to behave like a fool in reaction to the things they do to each other, that's on you.

Yes, I realize this sort of thing could cause an overreaction that would harm innocent people, but politicians aren't ever innocent. They asked for whatever they get. They are reaping the fruits of their labors. Their chickens have come home to roost.

Make no mistake, generals (and other military officers) are politicians just like presidents, muggers, rapists, police, congressvermin, or anyone else who uses the political means. Scum of the Earth.

If they all killed each other until none were left, but left the rest of us out of it, I wouldn't shed a tear. It's just too bad they are able to affect the rest of us out here in the real world.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Was a crime committed?

Click to embiggenize

Someone I know was told to show up for grand jury service this morning (Edit: She didn't make the cut). So this seems like a good time for a link-heavy refresher on what is and isn't a crime.

No victim; no crime.
Unless there is a "somebody" who can be pointed to (or specifically named) who had their life, liberty, or property harmed, there is no crime. There is nothing to take to court regardless of the legislation alleged to have been violated, and no matter how much evidence there may be that the legislation was violated, or how "serious" the employees of the state seem to think the violation to be. Somebody was murdered, somebody was raped, somebody was robbed, somebody was intentionally hurt, somebody was kidnapped, somebody was archated against-- crime. Otherwise, no crime.

With a bit of a qualifier I'll get to momentarily, accidents can't be crimes even if somebody was harmed. There has to be intent for it to be a crime. The courtroom is not the place to decide on restitution for accidental harm done.

However, negligence which accidentally results in harm to somebody might be a crime in some cases, depending on how likely the act was to cause harm and how easily that harm could be foreseen by rational people. Hypothetical example: If I'm shooting at a paper target on the other side of a crowded room at my house and just as I squeeze the trigger someone steps into the bullet's path, I was criminally negligent. Shooting the person might have been an accident, but any reasonable person could have foreseen the result of my action. It would be different if I were shooting at a target outdoors, having made sure of my target and the surroundings, and a time traveler suddenly materialized in my bullet's path. In most cases, it's not that obvious, though. Since this is subjective, tread carefully in this area. It's always more ethical to let the guilty "get away with it" than to punish even one innocent person. And restitution instead of punishment is always the ethical choice, especially in the case of accidents or negligence.

Being offended doesn't qualify as being harmed.

The State isn't a "somebody" and neither is society.

Possession of anything, absent someone besides the someone doing the possessing being specifically harmed by that thing, can never be a crime.

The State's courtrooms are probably not the proper place to seek justice even in cases of actual crimes.

To be better informed, learn from the Fully Informed Jury Association.
And this is why they'll never let me on a jury.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Obey! Comply! Or else...

"Do what I say and you won't get hurt."

In rare cases, this is what an armed good guy says to a villain who has been caught in the act.

However, it's more often the threat a person engaged in evil makes to get you to comply long enough that he can hurt you without risk to himself. That's why members of the Blue Line Gang say this in the furtherance of "officer safety".

If you have done nothing wrong, to be threatened in this way is a mortal threat and deserves immediate, decisive self-defensive action (when possible)-- no matter who is making the threat.
If you have done something wrong... well, you shouldn't have.

-

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

Still a sentimental fan of holidays

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 4, 2019)

It's the holiday season! This is the time of year when people can celebrate-- or not-- however they like. It's also when those who feel they are better than you and assume the moral authority to dictate how you should be allowed to live decry what they see as the rampant consumerism.

I'm glad I live in a time and place where "consumerism" is possible, whether I participate or not. Most of human history has been a struggle to barely survive, with a low chance of surviving long enough to die of old age. The choices and options we have today are beyond anything even royalty could imagine just a lifetime ago.

Besides, other people's consumerism doesn't hurt me at all. Buy what you want and can afford.

The reality is: no one is forcing you to buy anything-- unlike those who use politics and will force you to "buy" what they are "selling"... or else. You may feel obligated to buy gifts, and I understand wanting to give gifts and make people happy, but it's still your decision.

Of course, the height of the scorned consumerism-- "Black Friday"-- is already past. I hate the name "Black Friday" and wasn't surprised to find out the name originated with armed government employees in Philadelphia who were contemptuous of the shoppers heading to the sales on the day after Thanksgiving. Those shoppers were apparently an inconvenience to their self-styled overlords.

Businesses tried to redeem the negative connotation by saying "black" referred to the fact they could get their finances "in the black" if they sold enough that day. This was better, but I still won't use the dark term in conversation.

I want businesses to thrive but I have no desire to fight the crowds or participate in a shopping frenzy. Even though it's not for me, I can see how some people might find it exciting. Different strokes for different folks.

I like giving gifts. It's fun to find the perfect thing for someone. Especially when it's something they don't know exists or would never buy for themselves. It's a wonderful feeling.

I also enjoy seeing how people decorate their homes and businesses, and I like the Christmas music which seems to be playing everywhere during this season. Yes, I'm a sentimentalist. It can be a fun time of the year if you let it. You can even enjoy the opportunity to "Bah, humbug!" the whole thing if that's what makes you happy.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Superior numbers, but still wrong

The number of people who agree with you has no bearing on whether you are right or wrong. It might be correlated in some cases, but probably not very often. You've got to go deeper than numbers. This is also a HUGE flaw with democracy.

Look how often in the past "everyone" believed such-and-such and it turned out to be completely wrong. This is still the case.

Of course, that the majority disagrees with you doesn't make you right, either. Some people fall into the trap of believing it does.

Statists have superior numbers. They also have a set of beliefs which are demonstrably wrong. They won't listen to the reasons those beliefs are wrong, except in very rare cases. When they are exposed to the reasons, I notice they can't really refute them, but they can refuse to accept them. They'll generally fall back on the excuses that it doesn't feel right to them, they can't imagine any other way, or they don't like it.

Sure, everyone does this to some extent (even those who believe they never do) but this is a universal trait of statists. Almost a defining characteristic of statism. Statism can't exist without this trait being in full-force all the time. And they still mistake their belief that "everyone" agrees with them for evidence that they are correct.

They aren't. I'm almost embarrassed for them.

-

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

The Modifier

If there's one trait which characterizes me, it's that I modify things. I can't help it. If I see something that I believe could be better, and modifying it to make it better seems to be within my abilities, I try.

When I was a kid this often meant I broke things and then felt ashamed.

Now I'm more likely to recognize when something is beyond my abilities-- but not always. I still break things.

This trait is why my flashlights all have LED bulbs in them now. It's why my vehicle has Fischer cup holders (not an affiliate link), why I made litter boxes for the cats, why I made myself a standing desk years ago, and why I can never seem to leave "well enough" alone.

Most of my former bosses seemed to appreciate this quality as I was good at solving problems with what I could scrounge up and modify.

But I don't stop at physical things.

When the English language seems inadequate to a task, I coin a new word. "Archate" is not the first by any means, nor was it the last, but it is the one I most hope will eventually catch on.

The reason I coined "archate" is that I really like the Zero Aggression Principle as worded by L. Neil Smith, but I knew it could be better. It was essential, but not sufficient because it didn't cover everything humans have no right to do-- everything which violates the equal and identical rights of their fellow humans. Yes, some people try to define theft, fraud, etc. as "aggression", but it's a stretch.

The ZAP, in my opinion, needed modification so I searched dictionaries for a word which suited it better than "aggression" and found none.

So I coined a word and modified the ZAP to become the Zero Archation Principle. Did I break it or make it better? I can't know the answer to that, but I can say with complete confidence that I don't feel any shame over my modification this time.

-

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

Impizzament

If I decide to order a pizza, choose the toppings and crust style I want, and go through all the motions of ordering it and paying for it-- but for some reason, the pizza place never gets my order, did I order a pizza?

Even if I can explain all the evidence and technicalities that show I did order this pizza, will I get the pizza I ordered? Will I be eating pizza soon or will I just be arguing with people that I really did order it?

Is there any point in arguing over whether I really ordered a pizza, or should I come off my high horse and place the order again, making sure it gets to the right person-- the person who can actually fill my order-- this time?

Do I want the pizza or do I want to debate who's right?

Politics makes people stupid.

-

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

Unshakable faith in The State

A couple of nights ago, an odd confluence of things made me consider my statist family members.

I'm currently watching The Man in the High Castle after I accidentally subscribed to Amazon Prime for a month, and then I ran across this piece of fiction in The Voluntaryist, and that combination started some wheels a-turning.

Had Germany won WWII, would my parents have grown up to be loyal Nazis? Believing the Bible told them that God had put that government over them and it was their duty to obey and be good citizens?

It really seems as though nothing can shake their faith in the U.S. feral government and its escalating police state. They may oppose certain policies or even most politicians, but they never question the institution of political government itself. They refuse to consider that the U.S. government might not be ethically superior to all others or that perhaps political government isn't necessary at all. And, of course, they are enthusiastic supporters of the State's reproductive organs. They are good Americans in all the ways the U.S. government wants.

So, had they grown up immersed in a slightly different political environment, would they manage to question its legitimacy when they can't seem to do that with this one now? Would any "patriotic American" be able to do that?

I wonder...

-

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

Happy 2020!

One last post for the year 2019...

Happy New Year!

And, for everyone who isn't hung up on the fact that there wasn't a Year 0, Happy New Decade!

Yeah, I realize that since there wasn't a Year 0, technically the '20s don't start until next year. But the only reason there wasn't a Year Zero is that they didn't think of putting it in there when they numbered the years. (Besides, other people use a different numbering system altogether, making this one even more arbitrary.)

I tried to press the issue back around the years 1999 and 2000, but it was a losing battle. And it really didn't matter.

Since the years were numbered retroactively, 525 years (or even 800 for the numbering system to be widely adopted) after the date they chose as the beginning, it's completely arbitrary anyway. Insisting that the new decade, century, or millennium doesn't start until the year ending in a 1 feels like insisting that January doesn't start until January 2.

Enough of that.

Being the year 2020, maybe it would be a good year to focus on having 20/20 vision. Maybe not physically, with our eyes (mine are crap anyway) but with our mind's eye. A good time to focus on seeing things as they really are.

Cops are a nasty gang of criminals.
Political government is a crime syndicate.
Elections are an advance auction on stolen goods and an attempt to beg for a slightly less harmful ruler-- which never works out that way.
Anti-gun legislation is a bad-guy protection racket.
Prisons are Criminal University and only benefit the State.
Socialism is already the American "system", and it is as unethical as you can get.
The State is the enemy of civilization, the enemy of society, and the enemy of the individual. It is my enemy and it is your enemy. Even if you don't like to face this fact.

See it clearly in 2020.

-

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

Statism is depraved

Right-Statists are big on condemning "depravity", which they see all around them... but never in the mirror. Strange...

What is depraved? Really, only archation is truly depraved.
If you imagine anything else is depraved, you are probably trying to justify archation, and you are thus acting depraved,

If you are proposing legislation to fight depravity, you are promoting depravity.
If you support the State, you are supporting depravity.
If you are minding other people's business, when they aren't violating anyone else's life, liberty, or property, you are being depraved.

Right-Statists prefer to call behaviors they don't like "depraved" regardless of who is harmed. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it's depraved-- it has to violate bystanders (their life, liberty, or property) to really qualify as depraved.

-

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

Plenty to be grateful for every year

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 27, 2019)

How can Thanksgiving Day be here again? Has it really been a year?

Yes, it has, and this means it's time again to remind myself of the things I'm grateful for on this Gratitude Day.

You'd probably expect me to say I'm grateful for the scattered bits and pieces of liberty left in America; those fragments which haven't yet been regulated out of existence, and I am.

I'm also grateful for my family, especially because in the past year my son has moved within visiting distance.

I'm grateful to have the chance to share my thoughts here, and this means I'm grateful for The Eastern New Mexico News and also for the subscribers and advertisers who keep this newspaper going, and I'm grateful for all my readers.

I'm grateful for the smiles and hellos from strangers I pass. It's nice that strangers can be potential friends instead of seeming like automatic dangers.

I'm grateful for the local businesses who are happy for my trade, however little I might spend. I appreciate those who make it their mission to meet needs and serve their customers. They are true heroes.

I'm grateful for modern conveniences. As much as I enjoy practicing primitive wilderness survival skills, I am grateful to have a solid house to shelter me. I may feel guilty when I use a butane lighter rather than a more primitive method to start the fire in my fireplace, but I'm grateful to have the option. I'm also grateful I can have heat without lighting a fire, and that I can have air conditioning in hot weather. You don't realize how nice those things are unless you've done without.

I know how good I have it compared to most humans throughout history and over most of the world. Medicine, sanitation, clean water, civility, and many other things society has provided, in spite of the parasitism of the political element all around us. I'll even ignore that this political element wants me to confuse it with the society which provides the good stuff. Let it have its delusions. I'm grateful I don't fall for the trick.

There are things I'm grateful for which can't be put into words; things I feel but can't properly describe.

Last but not least, I am also grateful to know things can always be even better. None of us has arrived. Each individual can be better, and one person at a time, society gets better. Happy Thanksgiving!

-

-- Private to my blog readers: This is the fourth Thanksgiving since my daughter Cheyenne was killed. I have a really hard time not hating Thanksgiving now. But I give it my best shot. Fake it 'til you make it, they say. I'm sincerely trying.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Your lonely intersection

Collective condemnation based on trivial things which weren't chosen and can't make a difference to whether you violate others-- "race", sex, age, IQ, etc.-- is dumb. As is collective coddling based on those same sorts of things.
Collective condemnation based on things voluntarily chosen-- beliefs and behaviors-- can be legitimate.

That's why Statism is a legitimate thing to condemn, collectively. If someone has chosen to believe that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor, and they act on that belief, that's on them. That matters.

It's like any other religion. If you follow it, you chose it-- even if you originally just followed your family's or culture's beliefs without thinking-- and you bear the responsibility. For good or bad.

Many people try to find victims and villains. They use nonsense notions like "intersectionality" to make sure certain people are considered to be as thoroughly victimized as possible. At some point, add enough "intersections" (and they add more every day) and you would single out each person as an individual. Which is what Left-Statists seem to hate the most. Strange how their perverted strategy would lead back to that, but it does.

For example: I am a heterosexual Caucasian male of a specific age, born and living in Occupied America, who is taller than average, not attractive, with a big nose, bad eyesight, and long hair (my choice). All those things have an "individually specific" value and no one has my exact combination.

There's more.
I have an aversion to clothing styles that most people require to be adopted for acceptance into their clique (my choice, again). I have no knack for making money and feel strongly that I am out of place and stuck in the wrong time period (which is ridiculous, I know. It couldn't be other than it is.) There are many other similar "roads" coming together at this particular intersection which defines me that I can't even think of at this moment, but which affect me just as much or more.

That's a lot of roads which intersect right at me. Some "privileged"; some not so much. Some are choices and some are quirks of fate. There is no other human being at the exact same intersection I find myself occupying... which is the same situation every other human on the planet is in. Each intersection only fits one individual. That's just how it goes. It doesn't make you a victim.

You are not a victim except when someone is currently archating against you. And in that case, you have the right to fight back, and no one has the right to forbid your self-defensive acts.

Using the State is never legitimate defense, just because there's no way to aim it precisely enough to avoid harming the innocent. To choose to use the State and its legislation against others, just because you imagine they got a better deal than you, puts you into the category of people who are choosing to join a collective which is-- by definition-- made of the worst people out there. But then I guess you can whine when you reap the consequences of your choices and can feel like a victim all over again.

-

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

"Higher" indoc... um... "education"

Photo by Ryan Jacobson on Unsplash

I am a big fan of education. Maybe that's why I am not very optimistic.

First, you've got kinderprisons doing all they can to indoctrinate children into the statist religion and wipe out any sense of curiosity or natural intelligence. Slam those pegs of every shape and size into a uniform round hole of antieducation and conformity. And bullying from all sides.

Then, if they survive that, the option they are popularly encouraged to pursue is to subject themselves to more brainwashing through theft-funded universities run by Left-Statists.

Over the holidays I was around one such victim. She's smart, but suddenly, after a few years of college courses, she's saying things like "intersectionality" and "privilege" and ... well, you don't want to hear what all. In the interest of peace, I stayed out of it and kept my mouth shut, even as responses ran through my head like visions of sugarplums... or something.

If that's what passes for a "higher education" these days, society is better off without it. I couldn't, in good conscience, encourage anyone to follow that path anymore. I find that completely tragic because of how much I love and value ACTUAL education.

-

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

Pointless rankings

I like bad colds more than I like nausea.

I like Boba Fett more than I like the Emperor.

I like bone-chilling cold more than I like humid heat.

I like the broken rib I have now more than I liked the kidney stone I had a few years ago.

I like doing laundry more than I like dusting.

And I still like Trump more than I like Hillary or Pelosi-- and I don't like Trump at all.

Ranking bad things like those is rather pointless and is completely subjective.

-

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

Scott's strawman burns to ashes

Ewww! What's that smell? Ah. I see now... Scott Adams has stepped in it again and is tracking it all over the place unaware. It would only be polite to let him know. Right?

Years ago I pointed out that his claim to be "libertarian, without the crazy stuff" simply meant he was inconsistent.

He's done it again, while explaining he only said that back then because it was meaningless. He recently said:

"... Libertarian without the crazy parts-- what are the crazy parts? Most of the libertarian belief system is the 'crazy'. Because the libertarians would say 'get rid of government and let everyone do what they want.' ...The libertarian parts are the crazy parts." 

What's wrong with those statements? Plenty. And I'll explain so he can't whine that I said "You're wrong" without giving the reasons. (He still wouldn't like it, though.)

He doesn't know what the "libertarian belief system" is, so he has no clue what it is he seems to imagine he's criticizing. How do I know he doesn't know what the "libertarian belief system" is? It's not "mind-reading", it is taking him at his word, based on what he clearly said above. He shows he doesn't know what he's talking about; there's no guesswork or mind-reading involved.

Without a foundation in something along the lines of the Zero Archation Principle, it's not "libertarian". Distilled down to the essence, the libertarian belief system is: "don't attack others and don't take or damage their stuff". If he believes that's crazy, he's a monster.

Anything else libertarian grows out of that solid foundation.

As I have pointed out, the ZAP is not a "thou shalt not"; it is really just pointing out that you have no right to do those things, not that you have to accept this truth. And it is a promise from me to you. You do what you want, just be aware of how I will see your behavior and how I might respond when you do things you have no right to do.

Maybe his problem is that it doesn't leave room for exceptions for politics and those who practice that dark craft.

Libertarians don't generally say "get rid of government", they would say "get rid of political government/the State". Politics is antisocial and illegitimate. His wishes can't change that fact. If that's what he wants to waste time on, I wouldn't say he can't, but I won't pretend he's the adult in the room while he plays with his toy Rulers and fawns over legislation.

Pointing out the illegitimacy of political government isn't the same as saying "let everyone do what they want". Remember the ZAP mentioned above? Rulers are nonsense, but rules aren't.

Do what you want, as long as you aren't violating someone else's equal and identical liberty; do what you want and have a right to do. That's a very solid wall between "do what you want" and the rest of us.

But it's so much easier to attack the strawman in ignorance than to address the uncomfortable reality. Well, Scott's strawman just burned away. He'll need to build another one to attack next time.

-

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

Political animosity will only increase

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 20, 2019)

Are you concerned over how divisive politics has become? Do you notice the growing intolerance for opposing opinions? Do you wish everyone could go back to a time when there was civil debate and people could agree to disagree?

Yet, at the same time, do you support using government and its legislation against others in ever-increasing ways?

You can have a civil society or you can have government control; you can't have both. Government has been allowed to get too big, powerful, and noticeable in our daily lives.

The more power you give government to interfere in more facets of life, the more heated the disagreements will be. It will only get worse unless you turn completely around and start taking power away from government.

If you want more "gun control", a border wall, higher taxes, marijuana prohibition, or any other government control, you aren't interested in civil debate. The same goes if you want to ban vaping, plastic grocery bags, carbon dioxide emissions, or pit bulls. You will force others to fight you for the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. And they will fight. They may even turn the tables and use government to stop you from doing things you enjoy.

You can't threaten to use government against other people and then claim the political anger shocks you-- you've caused it.

If people were willing and able to put government back in a tiny box or otherwise rein in its excesses, civil debate could be possible. Until then, political animosity will increase.

A lack of tolerance is self-defense. You shouldn't tolerate those who want to enslave you. Your choices are "fight or flight", and there's nowhere left to flee to anymore. No frontiers remain for those who don't want government regulating every moment of their life and death.

Government should be neither seen nor heard. The more government is noticed, the more people resent those trying to use it against them. It can't be otherwise-- not in the real world.

If you want civil debate, stop looking for things other people do that you want government to regulate. Stop threatening your neighbors with government. It's antisocial.

Politics is based on some people winning at the expense of everyone else. This isn't civil. Political anger will only get worse as long as this trend continues. You can end it by refusing to be part of the problem, or you can keep feeding the political monster like you have been. It's your choice.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Donations for Christmas?

If anyone has any disposable money left after Christmas shopping and wants to dispose of it in an environmentally responsible and very PC way, feel free to make a donation to this blog.

Oh, and if you have a visceral dislike of donating, feel free to buy a handful of Time's Up patches to send to gun owners in the occupied territory of Virginia. Either way.

😇

-

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

"Just people"

I was treated to a movie Friday night. We saw "Star Wars-- The Rise of Skywalker".

There's a minor spoiler ahead, so if you don't want to read it, run away now.

The quotes are paraphrased since I wasn't actually taking notes during the movie, but it goes something like this:

During the climactic battle, the Rebels are outnumbered and it's clear they are going to lose. They are losing. Suddenly the sky fills with an uncountable number of ships, with more dropping out of hyperspace every second. Yes, much like the Reavers in that scene in "Serenity".

The commander of the State troops looks a bit panicked and asks whose navy this is, and his underling says it's no navy, it's "just people".

My thought at that moment was that this State was probably regretting "allowing" the people to keep and bear arms.

This is a good fictional illustration of why the natural human (or other sapient being) right to own and to carry weapons is one that must never be trivialized or allowed to atrophy.

Thank you to my sister and her wife for the nice night out.

-

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