Give 'em enough rope...

Let statists set their own standards, then use those standards to refute their position. This can work with anyone who's inconsistent, but it works especially well with statists.

It doesn't mean you have to openly refute them to their face. Cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, or something else would kick in anyway to keep them from seeing that they've been refuted. Just use their inconsistency to show yourself that their position can be discounted without much effort or concern.

-

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.

Your next excuse for government has already failed

The only excuse for government is either to keep us from killing each other (Hobbes) or to protect our natural rights (Locke).

So what's the next excuse when it becomes obvious government isn't up to either task-- and in fact, is the primary threat and instigator?

When cops are allowed to kill us, government fails on the first point. Ruby Ridge, Waco, wars, 9/11, school shootings, and just regular everyday murders all prove government not only fails to prevent people from killing each other, but is also one of the biggest offenders.

When government allows those killer cops to kill unarmed (and armed) people and violate our rights in various ways with no real consequences-- when government controls our movements, demands we get licenses for exercising all manner of our natural rights, and taxes, fines, zones, and "eminent domains" our property, it utterly fails the second.

The excuses for government don't stand up to the reality of government. The next excuse statists dream up has already failed before it has even been imagined.

-

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.

Gangs fighting over your turf

I get disgusted any time two gangs fight over someone's real estate. It doesn't matter which gangs they are.

Gang Green and Gang Grape arguing over which of them gets to control someone's personal property? Illegitimate!

It's no better when the gangs are called Israel and Palestine, or Texas and the united States, or the county and some other political gang-- when they are arguing (or even negotiating and agreeing) over who gets to rule other people's real estate it's just a turf war. Political gangs are no better than any other gangs which use the political means.

Yes, I understand that some of those people whose property rights are being violated want to throw in with one political gang or another. Let them. But don't let them enslave you or your neighbors to their preferences.

-

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.

Is it my business?

"That's not my business."

It's strange how rarely I hear that admission from people. People will go on and on about someone else's business or drama and demand to know what I think about it. But all I'm doing is thinking that it's not my business.

If it directly affects me, or if someone asks my opinion on their business, I will accept that it might be my business. So often the topic of discussion doesn't rise to that level. It's just gossip or someone looking for reasons to be offended.

If they want reasons to be offended, give them one. The fastest way to offend someone who is trying to get you involved in other people's business is to say "It's not my business".

Your drama isn't my business. Your sex life or relationships aren't my business. What you wear, what you ingest, what you worship-- none of those things are my business. Unless you impose them on me or others.

Several years ago, someone angry over one of my newspaper columns asked how I could think it's my business to write about liberty-- to get in other people business in that way. At least they had the decency to back off when I said: "Because it is literally my business-- it's what I am paid to do".

Yes, liberty is my business. Whether you accept or respect it is yours... as long as you don't try to violate someone in my presence.

-

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.

"Our government" is a lie

There's "my government" and there's "your government", there is no "our government".

My government is me. It is not political. It is not a State. I don't share it with anyone else, I don't impose it on anyone else, nor do I accept anyone else's government as my own.

Your government is you-- even if you don't recognize yourself as such. Even if you imagine you have a spare government lying around somewhere. A political government. Your government has no hold on me or anyone else.

Every time someone says "our government" it is a lie. The lie may be calculated to manipulate-- to hypnotize you. Don't fall for it.

Now, maybe you believe you share a government with someone else. I hope not, but people believe weird things. In that case, you'd need to have a conversation with the other person before you started flinging around the words "our government" to see if you truly do share a government of some sort with them. But don't assume. It's rude at best, and a dangerous lie at worst.

-

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.

Going to work on doing what I should

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 1, 2020)

Happy New Year and Happy New Decade! I know it doesn't really mean anything to say it's a "new year" or a "new decade" since it's arbitrary, but it feels significant-- partly because it's treated as though it is. I like excuses to celebrate so I'm fine with it.

The Winter Solstice is a natural time for a year to begin, as would be the other solar divisions of the year: the Summer Solstice or one of the equinoxes.

The Winter Solstice was originally celebrated as the new year's dawn because this is when the sun stops moving farther south and the daylight hours stop getting shorter. This makes it the time of renewal and hope-- as it was to our ancestors who recognized their dependence on the natural world more than we modern humans seem to. This is why there is a cluster of happy holidays around this time of year. The Winter Solstice is the logical choice for a new beginning, even if we celebrate a little late. Better late than never.

The new year is simply the Winter Solstice wrap-up party.

Regardless of why, when, or how we celebrate a new year, this event gives just about everyone an excuse to reflect on the year past and plan for a better year to come.

This year I'm thinking about one important point I learned since the last new year: that it's better to listen than to speak.

Over the past year, I came to realize how hungry people are to tell their stories. All you have to do is be willing to listen to them. With the rush of modern life, and with everyone's nose seemingly stuck to their phone screen, listening to someone is one of the simplest acts of compassion you can perform.

The flip side of this observation is that it's pointless to speak if someone doesn't really want to listen. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I can explain what I mean, as completely and thoroughly as humanly possible, but I can't make others understand if they don't really want to, nor can I make them accept what I'm saying,--even if they understand-- if it's not what they want to hear.

I don't always do what I know I should, but I'll keep working on it. Next year at this time I'll look back and see how I'm doing and see what new things I've learned. Onward into 2020!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Twisting and weaving through pragmatism and ethics

A lot of people don't seem to believe in right and wrong unless it affects another issue which is important to them, personally.

If you come at them from an ethical foundation which falsifies their statist position, they'll preach pragmatism. They'll maintain it's a losing position to worry about the ethics of a situation when it's not pragmatic to do so.

"You can't be bothered to respect rights when it might be dangerous to do so. Anyway, government has the power to do whatever it wants, so you don't have any rights."

But when it's something they feel is important and they think they can make an ethical claim for it, suddenly they'll find ethics more important than pragmatism (even though they usually get it wrong and use morality instead of ethics).

I watch this happen all the time with certain people, both famous and not. It's almost funny and definitely pathetic.

-

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.

Collision course with government supremacy

If astronomers discovered an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, and it was known it would hit Earth with a 100% probability, would that necessitate "martial law"; government "suspending" (violating) your rights?

No, of course not. They would use it as an excuse, as "justification", but it would be a lie to do so. Government supremacy is always a lie.

Climate change (AGCC) is the same sort of situation.

Even if it is real, even if it is primarily caused by human activity, even if it is a net negative, and even if it is preventable, that's not a real reason to permit government supremacy.

In fact, this kind of oppression limits the options people could try in order to survive or to avert disaster. Limiting choices and experimentation is never a good survival strategy. In this, as in all of life, government needs to stay out of the way.

People thrash at the branches and leaves while ignoring the root issue, but the root is all that really matters.

-

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.

Does Greta need better fake credentials?

Recently some government functionary told angry teen Greta that before she scolds Americans on what she believes we should be doing to "fix" AGCC (climate change), she needs to go study economics.

Well, sure... that might be helpful... unless she studies economics at a college or university where she'll be cheated out of learning economics, but will instead be trained in Keynesian "economics"; fake economics.

Fake credentials-- like degrees in Keynesian "economics" and "political science" [sic]-- are a big problem which seems to be getting bigger with time. It wouldn't be such a problem if people weren't trained to see credentials as automatically valid and "authoritative", even when they are in phony courses.

-

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.

Report from Richmond

(One of my friends-- and a blog reader-- is a Virginia resident. He was there, on the ground, at Richmond, VA, for Lobby Day on January 20, 2020. Before the event, I invited him to write a guest post about the experience when he got the time. All that follows is his report. I hope you find it as interesting as I did.)

Richmond Experience:

I arrived in Richmond at about 10:15am, having passed a bunch of police cars sitting in several places along the highway into the city. I found no available parking on the northern side (all street-level parking was full, all public parking garages displayed "Lot Full" or "Closed" signs). I drove around to the eastern side, where I found a single parking space that another car was just pulling out of, so I took it. The VCU parking lot across the street was almost completely vacant besides a couple police cars and some "lot closed" signs with dire warnings about being towed.

After parking, I walked into the city, dressed in my suit and open carrying a 9mm handgun. It was bitter cold, and I probably should have worn another layer. I followed some small groups of people in the direction of the capitol grounds and struck up a friendly conversation with some of the people headed my way.

As I got closer to the grounds there were a few sparse groups wandering around, with a couple merchants selling Trump apparel. Walking down N 8th St, I was starting to get a little concerned that the turnout wasn't going to be as big as I hoped. However, once I turned the corner at E Franklin St, I saw that the whole street was packed with people, which was a huge relief.

I slowly made my way through the sea of orange "Guns Save Lives" stickers up to N 9th St. When I got there, the crowd thickened and there were times where I couldn't move in any direction. As I made my way past the people carrying all kinds of firearms, from little pistols to AR-15s, I noticed how polite everyone was. People made way when asked, made conversation with other armed strangers and called each other "sir" or "ma'am".

While the majority of people were white men, there were plenty of women, minorities, and even a few children.

I wandered around up N 9th St, then down to E Main St, past the Court of Appeals, then came back down Bank St. I recorded a few livestreams on my way, and then retraced my steps.

On my way out down N 10th St, I passed some LGBT and Women's groups (both with pro-gun signs and stickers).

As I walked back up N 9th St, I passed by the only person I saw at the event wearing anything anti-gun (a small pin with an AR-15 in one of those "No" circle things). They were treated just the same as anyone else, with people moving aside to allow them to pass by, many of them wearing AR-15s. I couldn't help but wonder why that person would put themselves into such a situation if they truly believed that AR-15s were so dangerous that they should be banned? I thought about trying to start a conversation, but I didn't have time to make a decision before they passed by and I figured it would be creepy for me to turn around and follow them.

I spent a little more time wandering around before getting hungry and deciding to head home.

As I was stopped checking my phone, a guy with a camera came up and asked if I would mind being interviewed. I said that would be fine, and spent a few minutes answering his questions. I'm not a good public speaker, but I think I did okay and I wanted to represent the community well. A soft-spoken guy in a nice suit with a small handgun is more likely to change minds than a guy in camo with an AR-15 strapped to his back.

At this point, it was about 12:30, and people were starting to clear out. I made it back to the car and probably left close to 12:45.

On my way home, I stopped at a Wendy's in southern VA for lunch, which was the first time in my life I'd ever open carried in public by myself. Lunch went very well, I don't think many people even noticed the dark handgun against my navy suit.

Afterwards, I sat down and calculated the square footage of the area we had occupied. Based on my observations 162,000 square feet of space was packed pretty tightly with people. An extremely generous calculation of 6 sq ft per person works out to 27,000 attendees. I'd estimate that we probably had somewhere between 27,000 and 40,000 people there.

Signed,
   Anon1

-

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.

"Abuse of power"

A lot of people are throwing around the phrase "abuse of power" these days. Is it happening? Is it not? Who is guilty of it and who isn't?

Before you can figure out whether power is being abused, you need to figure out what a legitimate use of power would be. How power can be used without being abused.

Fortunately, that's simple.

A legitimate use of power would be using power in any way which doesn't violate the life, liberty, or property-- the rights-- of any other person. There is no other way to use power without abusing it.

All political government is an abuse of power, because it operates outside of what any legitimate use of power would be.

I know. If you're a political person you don't want to hear this. You want to find exceptions and justifications and you'll search for Phantom Menaces and "what ifs" with which to scare the women and children.

But it's true. It's accurate.

If you have any power and use it to violate anyone's natural rights you are abusing power. You have no right to do so. If you use the political means, and you have the power to cause any effect with it, you are guilty of abuse of power. All politicans are guilty of abuse of power. All bureaucrats are guilty of abuse of power. All State employees are guilty of abuse of power. And all those who support them are feeding the problem-- propping up the power abusers.

I oppose all abuse of power and all those who abuse power.

(Yes, I know what the picture kind of looks like. I decided it's hilarious and that I'd leave it.)

-

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.

Scientific consensus

Why is anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) about the only scientific topic where the "consensus of scientists" is still supposed to be the final word, shutting down any further discussion? You don't hear many other scientific topics described in that way.

Why is that?

I think it may relate to the worshipful way most people think of democracy. If "everyone" goes along with one way, it must be the right way.

But does that make sense?

"Ninety-seven percent of doctors agree: This medicine/treatment is all you need, there is nothing more to discuss on the matter! The science is settled!" How many times in the past has this been the case, only to be dismantled by those who didn't consider it settled?

"Ninety-seven percent of physicists agree that physics is done. No need to study or look for any more forces or particles. We know all we can know. The science is settled." And, again, how many times has this been claimed, only to be overturned by some maverick who wouldn't go along with the consensus of the crowd?

How often did the general population just accept the "scientific consensus" at face value-- to their detriment-- until the consensus was disrupted?

So, if "all scientists" agree that the climate is changing, the change is due to human activity, it will be a net negative, it can be fixed, and that governments are the only thing which can "save the world", then gullible people jump on that bandwagon. "All scientists" agree, so it must be true! Right?

Strange how this problem and their proposed solution gives power and money to those who are largely "funding" the research. If some other science issue could give this much power and money to States, how quickly do you think they'd discover some crisis that only governments could exploit... I mean, "solve"? Maybe if the climate change hysteria dies down, they will find another issue to exploit. Unless political government evaporates before then.

-

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.

Citicar "review"

I just had to share this video.

My Citicar was baby blue, had no fan blowing across the motor, and had no aluminum gutters. I did make my own rubber gutters to keep rain from dripping on my electrical contacts (which would make them melt and spark).

I stashed the windows behind the seats when I drove with them out-- at least until I installed zippers in them. I didn't have trouble getting the doors to latch like he did.

I repurposed that pointless "defrost" switch as a stealth "on switch". If no one was around and I didn't feel like using my key I could just flip the switch and go.
I did install door locks.
I tried not to use the "first position" power much as the resister coil would burn out easily. Once I got the hang of accelerating quickly, it was smooth and the first position was very quickly moved through. There was not much clunking after I learned to handle it. I don't remember mine being so noisy, but I usually had the radio on.

I notice, that even with all his misgivings, he enjoyed the car. I get that.

-

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.

Now what, Virginia?

So, Virginia... now what?

I've read reports of the legislative molestation the Virginia political gangsters have gone ahead and set in motion against your rights. Against YOU.

So, what will you do in response?

You've seen that v*ting doesn't work. Protesting peacefully doesn't work. Telling the legislation enforcing gangsters "thank you for your service" doesn't work. So, now what?

You're either going to have to try something else, move to another tax farm, or get ready to give up your guns. How much will you take before Time's Up? How many anti-gun "laws" will you tolerate? How many anti-gun bigots laughing in your face will you remain polite toward?

I'm not proposing anything.
I'm not telling you to do anything.
I don't even know what would work.
But the way you-- and all politically active gun rights supporters in America-- have been trying to get political trash to respect your rights doesn't work. Isn't that obvious now? So what's next?

-

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.

Hope for peaceful liberty on Earth

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 25, 2019)

Peace on Earth. While it sounds like a wonderful ambition-- and under the right conditions, it would be nice-- not all peace is good.

A cemetery is peaceful. No one is more peaceful than the dead.
People who have given up are peaceful. Why fight against something which has already defeated you.

I'm no pacifist. I don't support unnecessary violence like the kind governments depend on, but I know defensive violence can be necessary.

When I first heard the story of the First World War's "Christmas Truce" between British and German troops, I was touched by the humanity it illustrated. Later in life, I stopped enjoying the tale because I realized the soldiers soon went back to doing the bidding of the politicians. The story has become one of almost unbearable tragedy to me.

Those soldiers experienced peace. They knew it was possible; that to kill and maim each other on behalf of political thugs directing them from afar wasn't necessary. If only they had understood that the war they were fighting would directly cause another world war in a generation or so, with unimaginable horrors and consequences we are still suffering, maybe they would have refused to pick up the fight where they left off.

I'm not saying it's always wrong to fight, but that it is wrong to fight for politicians. If politicians have a problem with politicians in other countries, let them fight it out in person. Leave the rest of us out of it. War is the health of the state and lies are its vitamins.

Governments can create a sort of peace. It's an unhealthy, false peace like the peace of a corpse. Peace enforced at the barrel of guns-- even though the guns are usually hidden and only come into view if you're not the kind of peaceful they like.

Peace is fine as long as it is voluntarily chosen and comes with the liberty to raise a ruckus when necessary.

Liberty is more valuable than peace. Liberty on Earth leads to the right kind of peace. The productive, voluntary kind. Peace which has room for just enough defensive violence to protect liberty and allow peace to flourish again, but no room for aggressive violence.

A few politicians may be fine with peace as long as it doesn't lead to the inconveniences of liberty, but most hunger for aggression and will say anything to get you to want it, too.

Peaceful liberty on Earth; good will to all who keep their hands-- and legislation-- to themselves. Merry Christmas!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

More fake credentials

I recently pointed out the fake credentials some people flaunt.

The Freedom Feens have pointed out that Keynesians and other central planners are experts in things that are wrong. How right they are.

And there's more.

You may have a degree in education, but if you were taught to believe education is tied in any way to government's coercive and compulsory dayprisons for kids, your degree is worthless. Any credentials you may have are fake.

What other fake credentials can you think of? There are lots of them in Statism.

-

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.

Violators-- whoever they may be

It doesn't matter if you call it government, a corporation, a gang, or an individual. The label doesn't matter. If it violates life, liberty, or property it is my enemy. Not by my choice, but by the violator's choice.

The problem is archation, not government. Government is simply a problem because it relies on archation for its existence. As do other illegitimate gangs and individuals.

This is the case for more and more "corporations" these days.

Whether you believe getting in bed with the State makes them subject to the limits imposed by the Bill of Rights or not, they are archating and they are a threat to your life, liberty, and property.

Ammo.com has a recent article about these corporate liberty violators. And, just to be clear: anyone who makes it hard to exercise your rights-- or effectively impossible to do so in so many cases today-- IS violating your rights. They are in the wrong.

-

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.

What's in YOUR holster?

One of the most ridiculous things I hear from time to time is when a gun-rights supporter says "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".

Yeah... no.

That's like saying I eat food because plutonium is too expensive.

Even if gravity were not an issue, I wouldn't carry a cop. I don't want to have a cop around. Ever.

His self-interests are not going to align with my own. Even if he were one of those mythical "good cops" he's still going to be more concerned with his own survival than with mine. Even if he somehow weren't, he's not going to value my survival to the same extent that I would. He's not going to see what I see. He isn't going to act or react as I would. He wouldn't be me.

I carry a gun because only I can be trusted to always have my own best interests at heart. I may make mistakes but I still trust myself over someone "protecting" me for pay. Someone who could be bought off, could change loyalties, or might have his own issues and distractions.

Even if I could carry a cop, I wouldn't. Who would really choose that ridiculous option?

-

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.

Kissing some gang hiney

I've pointed out the people who need an "a**hole parking" sticker so they are allowed to park on the yellow stripes. Well, recently a new "a**hole parking" space has been reserved right beside the yellow stripes "for our law enforcement partners". And this one has a notice posted. With a light on top! (Does the light work?)

Gag!

And yet, even with the store passionately kissing legislation enforcement gang hiney, these vermin still park on the sidewalk in front of the store. A parking space front and center isn't convenient enough for them. They can't be bothered to use an actual parking space, but I'll bet they'd ticket you or me for using their "reserved" space.

What pathetic losers.

-

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.

Statist priorities

I've pointed out that when the religion of Statism conflicts with other religions, people generally defer to Statism, allowing other religious beliefs to be given the scraps; to be pushed down the stack of priorities.

This photo, which I took at a nearby church, illustrates this perfectly. Oddly, for this area, the wind was calm so the flags aren't as visible as I wish. But that's a US federal flag-- Holy Pole Quilt-- placed on a pole above the Christian flag.

That's right, they give Holy Pole Quilt a position of superiority over their other beliefs. They are honoring Statism over Christianity.

Yes, I realize the old (and retired) "US flag codes" require this placement. So?

Why are they even flying Holy Pole Quilt at a church at all? What does that have to do with their primary mission?

When I was a kid I heard people talk about the brave Christians in the USSR and China who risked death by putting Christianity above the wishes and opinions ("laws") of the State. Yet Americans can't bother to do the same in a minor way when the US feral government is highly unlikely to murder them for doing so? If you won't stand up when it's easy, how can you believe you will when the stakes are high?

They need to get their priorities straight and choose who or what they are going to worship. Or, just give up.

-

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.