I may need a lawyer

I hope not, but...

I've been trying to find a way to make some Time's Up items. I wish I could get some flags made but that always goes nowhere due to the expense of a run big enough to bring down the price of individual flags so that they would be affordable.

Anyway, I was going to make some Time's Up items through TeeSpring. I worked for hours getting products ready. Immediately when I "went live" they disabled my products, saying my design was subject to a copyright claim.

I filed a counterclaim, and never saw a reply (it said it could take 14 days) so I filed another one.

They wrote back that time and said "Time's Up" is trademarked and they will not be reinstating my products.

I've looked through the government's trademark office database and found nothing.

I've asked them who has trademarked it, since it is my original creation. But if they don't respond with a real answer (or not at all) I might have to do something to be able to make products with my own design on them. And this pisses me off greatly.

Does anyone know a lawyer who would do this pro bono? Or they could sue and keep most of the money as long as I can make my stuff.

I've never minded if someone makes a Time's Up product, and have given permission to several people to do so over the years. My problem is if someone has actually trademarked/copyrighted MY design to prevent me from making things. Or if TeeSpring is lying to me.

Also, tonight Patreon gave me a warning about running a raffle. Which I'm not. And never have and don't want to.

UPDATE: I am told these people "own" the words "Time's Up".

UPDATE 2: They have ignored every message I've sent them. So, I guess I'm not going to be able to use TeeSpring to make Time's Up products. I'll try to figure out something else. This is one of the problems with "intellectual property", to pretend someone can own words so that no one else can use them.

-

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.

Legislation is never good

All legislation has negative consequences. Even "laws" you might like.

Concealed carry legislation might sound like a good thing-- the more people who carry, the better. But by making it seem as though government gets to decide who is armed, it makes people accept anti-gun legislation more readily.

It works the same way with every other type of legislation. Even if you can't imagine how that could be true.

Legislation is always a bad idea. Don't patch bad "laws" with more "laws"; abolish the bad "laws".

-

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.

Anarchy Day 2020

It's Random Acts of Anarchy Day again.

Do something right. Without "official" permission or a license.

Thank you!

-

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.

"Classical liberalism"? Yuck!

For years, I've noticed the more refined "libertarian-leaning" elites out there have claimed to be, not libertarians, but "classical liberals". This may be to distinguish themselves from the unwashed masses like me.

Once upon a time, I felt a little guilty that I couldn't be part of that elite. I eventually came to accept that it simply isn't possible. I don't fit.

I can't be a "classical liberal" because I don't accept any justification for political governance. Ever. Politics makes people stupid.

Sure, maybe it's better to be a "classical liberal" than to be fully on board with whatever police state dystopia the pro-government extremists lust for. Still, it's a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. Once you accept just a little political governance, how will you stop it from growing out of your control? History has shown that you can't. Or won't.

How liberal-- in the antique sense of the word-- can you be when you still advocate stealing "just a little" to prop up your "minimal government"? "Just a little slavery" to empower the "night watchman" state? Even if this "minimum state" doesn't immediately do what political governments naturally do and metastasize out of control. Supporting such a state of affairs doesn't seem generous/liberal; it seems greedy and self-centered to me. They want "just a little" government so badly they'll sacrifice your liberty to have it.

No "classical liberalism" for me! It relies too heavily on politics.

-

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.

Don't be timid

So many people seem reluctant to dive in. They want to tiptoe around the edges.

If you're going to do something, and you're sure it's the right direction-- or at least not the wrong direction-- go big!

Don't just have shaggy hair, grow it long.

Don't just listen to music, sing karaoke!

Don't be a lukewarm political libertarian, be a real libertarian.

Society has enough wishy-washy people who are afraid to stick their necks out. No one needs any more of them.

If something is worth doing, it's worth going for. Moderation is OK as long as you don't overdo 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.

Time to let people take own risks

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 13, 2020)

I would expect, given the record of failure, this coronavirus experience would cause people to reconsider their belief in the credibility of government. From past experience, I know hope-- or something darker-- springs eternal. Most people are desperate to believe government is capable and credible in spite of 5000-plus years of evidence to the contrary.

As face masks become mandatory in more places, don't forget those same government experts were ridiculing people who were wearing masks early; insisting masks didn't work-- and telling people to stop buying or wearing them-- just weeks ago.

They have also been encouraging businesses to limit their hours of service which forces more people into a business during fewer available hours, and they're closing campgrounds and other places where people could physically distance in the healthy outdoors. Both policies are the opposite of helpful.

People choose to not remember the deadly errors, but view them as government taking decisive action to "flatten the curve".

I understand the call to "flatten the curve"-- especially in the early days of the pandemic when everyone was just guessing what might happen. We now know that's not going to work. It's time to let people make their own choices and take their own risks.

This will solve itself if people let it; faster if government stops dragging it out.

There's not going to be a vaccine-- not a real one, anyway. This virus is going to have to go through its natural cycle. If you're going to catch the virus, it's going to happen sooner or later. Since eighty percent of cases don't cause symptoms, you may never know. You may have already had it.

Let the virus spread and naturally lose strength over time, as these types of viruses always do.

No, that's not "safe". Nothing is. Americans are giving up their liberty for promises of safety. Promises which were lies from the start. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin wrote those timeless words on November 11, 1755.

Soon you may be forced to decide which is more dangerous-- the virus, the government, or economic disaster-- and act accordingly.

Every non-governmental job is essential! It's time to do the adult thing and get back to normal life. Lead the way and force government policy to play catch-up, as it usually does. Recovery is, and has always been, up to you. Let's get to it!

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Tearing down statues

I have no personal attachment to monuments to military/political people or events. You could say I even hate most of them. You probably understand why. Every historical figure is almost surely someone's Hitler.

However, art-- even when ugly or offensive-- is art. And older art is historical. Destroying historical art because it has unpleasant connotations is ignorant. The "reasons" are irrelevant. I opposed it being done in Iraq and I oppose it being done in America.

Not only is art being destroyed, but the vandals are also burying history. Hiding something doesn't change what happened, and often helps some people pretend it didn't.

Tearing down monuments is the book-burning of our time. At least until book-burning comes back into fashion.

-

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 autonomous zone

Autonomous zones are suddenly all the rage.

I'm all for setting up autonomous zones, but not if you steal other people's private property to do it. That's what political governments do, and it's wrong. (Government "property" already belongs to you so it can't count.)

Your property is-- or should be-- an autonomous zone, whether it's your house or your business. You rule that zone as supreme dictator (if living with others, as supreme co-dictators)-- at least until you choose to voluntarily open it to others, in which case you can't just violate visitors' rights because you want to. If you do this you're no different than any other political government.

But as long as it's your legitimately-owned private property and you don't open it to visitors, it should be yours to control completely.

No representatives of any other government allowed in unless you explicitly permit it on a case by case basis. No cops. No "tax" collectors. No inspectors. None of them. They have no right to violate your autonomous zone in an "official capacity" for some other organization that has no legitimate claim on your property (like a town, county, state, or country).

A "property tax" is a yearly ransom imposed by these thieves who have no legitimate claim to your property-- but who will steal it and murder you for resisting. Be careful dealing with this kind of robber. Their gang is large, stubborn, and heavily armed.

If you use your property to violate the life, liberty, or property of others, they have the right to defend themselves from you. You can't make a rule to take away their right to do so-- again, this is a tactic political governments try to get away with. So, act wisely and ethically, unlike they do.

You might even join with others to create a larger autonomous zone-- as long as it is by unanimous consent. That's more difficult, and not necessary.

No one has a higher claim on your property than you do-- not even if legislation and policies pretend otherwise.

Your home is your autonomous zone; your castle. Never forget it. How you choose to act on this knowledge is your business.

-

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 dishonesty

A while back I listened to a Left-Statist preaching against Religious (Christian) Nationalists.

You know I'm not a fan of religion, of nationalism, nor of Right-Statism. But I am a fan of truth, and this podcast had very little truth in it.

I've never heard such a collection of dishonest Straw Men and outright untruths in one place-- by someone who seemed otherwise intelligent and well-meaning-- in my entire life as I heard in one hour of listening to this Left-Statist author and the show's host.

Straw Men, false dichotomies, lies, mischaracterization (about both Right-Statists and Left-Statists). It was hard to listen to. It was full-on fanatical government-supremacism from beginning to end.

She (and the host) pretended that government handouts financed by theft are the same thing as charity. They pretended that democracy is laudable (as long as their side [sic] wins). They focused on how these Right-Statists get out the news of the candidates they like while utterly ignoring how the Left-Statists use the entirety of the national mainstream and alternative media (including social media) to campaign for their candidates. The only reason that's OK is that their side [sic] uses it. They lied about government indoctrination day-prisons to equate them with education.

I can't even list all the dishonesty they packed into that hour. It was vile.

But it's a good way to remind myself how these people think and the superstitions they believe and base their lives on. I couldn't do this very often though. Yet, this is why libertarians are better informed than statists-- we hear and evaluate both sides, honestly and often. They don't even hear the other side.

-

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.

Defense for the incapable

A common tactic from those who want to at least appear to have an argument against abolishing the police is to either claim that they themselves are incapable of protecting their own life, liberty, or property, or to try to scapegoat someone else as being incapable.

Nonsense.

Plus, when you try to blame others for your desire to keep "employing" the gang, it's rude!

I've seen enough examples of kids, small women, the elderly, and the disabled protecting themselves and others from archation (and so have you) that I don't buy that anyone who isn't completely helpless is incapable. It's a coward's lie.

Maybe some don't want to accept the responsibility, but they can.

It's not your job to coddle those who refuse, but you can if you want-- at your own expense. It doesn't give anyone the right to enslave everyone else for their imagined weaknesses.

Yes, there are some who are truly incapable of defending themselves, feeding themselves, or wiping their own butts. Nice people take care of this kind of person, sometimes for money-- but society doesn't revolve around their inability. That would be like living in a prison established to make certain that no one could be any more capable than the least capable among us. I'm not going to live that way.

Refusing to consider abolishing the police based on the lie that people who are otherwise capable can't protect themselves is antisocial, unethical, and statist (but I repeat myself).

-

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.

Candace Owens, I thought you were better than that

Candace--

To observe that a murder happened and to point out that it was a bad thing doesn't mean someone imagines the victim was a hero. I never thought that.

It just means that at that moment he was doing nothing which required killing him to defend life, liberty, or property.

Why would a murder victim need to be a hero before I oppose the murder? It would be a strange thing to need to check to make sure every murder victim is a hero before objecting to his or her murder.

That he had "drugs" in his system is irrelevant unless you believe it's OK to murder a woman who's had some wine and then fights back against a kidnapper. I take that back-- it's irrelevant and wrong even if that's what you believe. The stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is prohibition propped up by counterfeit "laws". To excuse murder based on that Big Government program is wrong.

Yes, it is known that Floyd did some actual crime, too. Real archation. His victim would have been right to have killed him in that encounter. I would have cheered his death in that case-- it would have been self-defense and not murder. But not in this case, and not over what he was murdered for doing.

Your fawning support of government-supremacism and its jackboots seems like it would embarrass you. It would certainly embarrass me.

I really imagined you were better than that and I'm disappointed to discover I was wrong.

-

OK, I admit I've never followed her or even read anything but selected quotes of hers, but most of those seemed a little smarter than what I saw when she tried to make sure to tell people who protest the murder that Floyd had a criminal past. So does the murderous cop-- why not go into detail about that? Why not recognize that policing attracts thugs and turns otherwise decent people into thugs or at least into people who will stand by and allow thugs to violate life, liberty, and property-- all in exchange for a paycheck financed by theft. Government-supremacism makes people stupid... or hypocritical or 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.

People like this are why we can't have nice things

This was in response to a comment in which I posted a link to my suggestions for ethical alternatives to theft-funded Blue Line Gangs.

See if you can find the flaws in her complaint compared to what I actually suggested in that post. And, this time I'm not going to protect the identity of a dishonest statist.

I would have shrugged it off if she had addressed what I really said, and not only responded to the hallucinations in her head, instead. If you have a problem with my suggestions, address them honestly. Don't strawman it like she did-- my response, if you do, depends on how sorry I feel for you in the moment.

Is she only dishonest, or also pathetic, or just a copsucker? You decide. People like her try hard to ruin everything for the rest of us who aren't so pathetic.

I can't wrap my head around how emotionally attached most people seem to be to the occupying military force that infests America. Even people who (it seems) would know better. They are not essential to society-- they are society's enemy. They are the enemy of individual rights and liberty.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Found: Those "good cops"

I'm always being scolded for insisting there are no good cops. "Of course there are good cops!" they'll say.

They'll even point to examples they believe prove their point. I look at each one carefully.

I've seen nice cops and even helpful cops. But no good cops. Not one. Not ever.

Yet the protests continue.

But I finally figured out where all those good cops are hiding.

They've been in Wishful-Thinking-Land all along, hanging out with the good rapists, the good IRS employees, and the good looters.

It's always the last place you look!

-

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.

Abolish the police (and then what?)

The completely rational idea of abolishing the police scares some people.

They think "But who would I call if someone is breaking into my house in the middle of the night?"
Chances are, if that's happening, it's a wrong-address police raid and you're about to be killed, and calling more police to the scene isn't going to help you. I'm sorry if this news upsets you, but you need to face reality eventually.

On the off-chance it's a freelance thug breaking in, you have better options than calling the police even now.

Take responsibility for your own defense-- you ought to be doing this first anyway. Calling someone else should always be a last-ditch response. You are there now; they aren't. What could happen before someone arrives to save you? Almost anything. You are the first responder, and you always have been. Act like it.

If you still feel the need to call back-up: Call your neighbors. If any of my neighbors called in the middle of the night, I'd respond.

If that doesn't work for you, there are still options better than inviting the Blue Line Gang to your house and facing the very real possibility they'll shoot you by "mistake".

Use Cell411.

Or call a crackhead.

Or, use the money you should be saving by not being "taxed" to fund those badged tax junkies to hire private security-- ones who will actually be contractually obligated to protect you, individually ... unlike police.

Or think of another option that suits you better.

The thing is, to imagine that abolishing the police would leave you helpless is what the police would like you to believe, but it's not even close to reality. The "reasons" to not abolish the police are as flimsy as the "reasons" people once used to say it wasn't possible to abolish chattel slavery. In hindsight, those "reasons" look stupid, dishonest, or evil.

You have options; better options. You can create new options. Police must be off the table to free you to find better solutions.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Defund, dismantle, and disavow-- Abolish the police

Minneapolis is "threatening" to defund its police department? It's a good first step... if they are serious. I have my doubts.

Abolish the police!

Isn't it odd how an idea which has been around less than 200 years is now imagined by so many people to be essential for civilization. Especially when that institution is utterly antithetical to civilization and society. This societal cancer (or is it a virus?) is said to have begun in London, England in 1829 and spread from there. It should have been smothered in its crib.

Abolish the police!

But, yes, defund the police. Not only in Minneapolis but everywhere. And then refund the money to the victims of theft ("taxation") so they can provide for their own security if they so choose.

Abolishing the police would get rid of the police union, too. A valuable bonus. Government employee unions are a lie anyway.

Dismantle the whole institution until not one stone remains stacked on another. And don't replace it with anything. You have to disavow the whole concept of government police. Otherwise, someone might try to establish a new legislation enforcement gang later.

Abolish the police!

If people want to hire security-- and pay for it without the ability to force those who don't want to chip in to pay anyway-- that's their right. They don't have the right to hire enforcers and force everyone to pay for them-- they never did.

Government-supremacists are terrified of abolishing the police. They are afraid of what would happen next. Sure, some are probably afraid of rampant crime, but I'll bet more of them are even more afraid of people finding out they never really needed the Blue Line Gang in the first place. Once you figure this out it's not that far to realize you don't need politicians, either.

Abolish the police! It will be OK. I promise.

(Abolish the police, and then what?)

-

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.

The murder of George Floyd

George Floyd may have had some drugs in his system at the time he was attacked by the Blue Line Gang.
He may have resisted arrest.

So?

To those who think this matters, how do they feel if a woman who had a glass of wine is killed while fighting off a kidnapper? It's the same thing.

Once I discovered Floyd was originally molested by legislation enforcement thugs because he may have spent a counterfeit Federal Reserve Note (FRN) I was even angrier over his murder.

I have no idea how many counterfeit FRNs I may have spent over the course of my life. Every few months some of them turn up in this area. I know cashiers who have been fooled before the counterfeits were discovered by management. If they were good enough to not be noticed before the cashier got them, should the cashier be kidnapped or murdered over this mistake?

Is a phony piece of phony money-- a counterfeit of a counterfeit-- worth killing over?

The Federal Reserve [sic] makes trillions of counterfeit dollars. That's what a Federal Reserve Note is. And that's the real crime.

Those cops should never have approached George Floyd.
They should not have escalated the situation to a kidnapping.
They should not have murdered him.

Police are where the knee of tyranny meets the neck of humanity.

Abolish the police!

-

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.

Legislation and the responsibility gap

When someone looks at-- or imagines-- evil behavior and says "This is why we have to have laws" they are usually admitting they are not responsible enough to avoid doing the wrong thing. It's an admission of their own ethical weakness.

I don't believe you suffer from that particular weakness-- you don't "need" legislation to keep you from raping, murdering, looting, etc. I feel bad for those who imagine they do, and you probably do, too.

Or alternatively, if they lack the inclination to archate, the claim that "we need laws" is an admission that they don't feel they can be responsible enough to defend themselves (and others) from bad guys. They fantasize that legislation can bridge their responsibility gap.

Either way, it's a failure of personal responsibility and as such is kind of pathetic. Don't be like 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.

Reopening isn't politicians' call

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 6, 2020)

To open or not to open; that is the question. But it's the wrong question. While there's plenty of debate and disagreement over allowing businesses to re-open; when and how it should be done, the discussion misses the point completely.

No one had the right to shut down businesses they didn't own. You don't have the right to tell someone they must shut their business and you can't delegate a right you don't have. Not to a governor or anyone else. This means the authority to tell businesses to close shop, even temporarily due to an emergency, doesn't exist.

The same applies to telling people they aren't allowed to leave their house or to gather with groups of friends. To forbid people to gather is a clear violation of the First Amendment even if you agree and even if government employees are allowed to get away with it.

Nowhere does the Constitution say "unless there is an emergency and people are scared". I know because I've checked.

Government employees can get away with making these rules because the people of America have been infected with a superstitious belief in political authority.

I understand the fears which lead people to accept such orders, even though I don't share them.

I still believe you should be careful and shouldn't do things which put others at too much risk.

Respecting liberty is always the right choice, but there are risks either way.

There is no policy which won't cost lives. That option doesn't exist, even in normal times. The best you can do with any policy is trade lives. Ignoring the virus would have cost lives; shutting the economy is costing lives; seeking some sort of middle ground costs lives too. It's time to stop this silliness.

The ethical thing to do is to remove government from the equation, let business owners decide when and how to re-open, and let individuals decide for themselves the amount of risk they are willing to accept.

If someone is not willing to accept risk to save America, they are perfectly free to self-quarantine inside their homes as I would assume they have already been doing.

This virus-- or any other-- is going to have to run its course, whether it happens in a month or in a year. It's time to accept this and let it. I think you'll discover the fear-mongering was overblown.

So, open or stay shut, but it was never the politicians' decision to make.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Libertarian tyrants?

If your argument is that "libertarians will never get into power because..." then you have shown you don't understand libertarianism. It's not about gaining power; it's about recognizing that no one has the right to archate.

It's the same sort of thing that happens when someone makes the statement that "if libertarians would use government power to force someone to carry a baby to full term, don't they have the obligation to have government support them afterward?" I actually heard someone make that case-- again, displaying an incredible lack of awareness of what libertarianism is.

Libertarians can disagree over abortion; they can't really disagree over the use of government/initiated force and still qualify as libertarians.

Objecting to this stuff isn't "No true Scotsman"; it's pointing out the nature of things.

-

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.

Censorship is a loser move

Censorship is running rampant, but I've seen people argue that it's not censorship unless government is doing it. That's not correct. Censorship doesn't only refer to government action.

While the First Amendment prohibition of censorship only applies to government organs, because those are the only ones who can use legislation to prevent someone from expressing an opinion (or telling an inconvenient fact) or hearing the same, it is still censorship if I prevent you from speaking or being heard. I'm not individually obligated to promote or "host" your message, but if I take action to prevent it from getting to those who want to hear it, I'm censoring just the same as if I banned you from expressing it.

If I deleted comments from my blog which expressed an opinion I didn't like, it would be within my rights... and it would still be censorship. I wouldn't feel right about doing it because, to me, censorship is never ethical, even when you have the right to do it.

The first definition of "censor" is "an official" who suppresses [things] deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. But the second expands that to be anyone who does something similar. That encompasses employees of Twitter, Google, Facebook, and all other quasi-governmental, pseudo-private, institutions.

As I have pointed out on the topic of "private prisons", if it's wrong to do something, it doesn't magically become right just because it's not being done by a direct government employee. It's wrong if done by a corporation or by a private company or by an individual. Murder isn't wrong only when committed by a cop, and censorship isn't wrong only when committed by a government censor. Even though the First Amendment only applies to the direct government employee.

Interestingly, just after I wrote this I ran into something very similar linked over at Claire's blog. I suggest you read that one, too.

-

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.