Tired of political drama over virus

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 29, 2020)

On the personal front, there are new developments in the continuing saga of the Greatly Feared Virus Pandemic of 2020. Two family members caught Covid-19 several weeks ago. They both apparently recovered, in spite of being in the age group most vulnerable. One even has additional risk factors but made it through and now feels fine.

After being tested he was told to take Tylenol and get help if he started having trouble breathing. When the hospital called a few days later to tell him he had tested positive they didn't change their instructions. This sounds to me like the medical professionals didn't take the virus too seriously, but as it turns out they didn't need to.

I was thoroughly exposed and apparently didn't catch it. I say "apparently" because we are warned by the politicized medical experts of hidden dangers from this sneaky virus. Those who recover are warned of lasting damage to major organs, and those without symptoms are warned they may have it and be contagious without knowing.

How convenient. Notice how this justifies-- in some people's minds-- the ongoing shut-downs and mask mandates. After all, if you can't know anything for certain, you'd better comply with everything suggested by our Glorious Leaders in their pronouncements from the cathedrals of government.

Or not.

Still, because I care about people, I was cautious about exposing others to my possible contagious condition. I don't want to be a Typhoid Mary. As I've said from the beginning, I can take something seriously without panicking over it.

This virus could still kill me. It's unlikely but possible. I could also be taken out by a meteor, but if that's the case no one in the region would be safe. This area might get a cool attraction out of my demise, though. It worked for Arizona with their meteor crater.

I joke, but I'm tired of the adolescent drama coming from political quarters. They made it personal when my family vacation got canceled by New Mexico's tyrannical governor and her forced shut-downs of almost everything. I don't blame the virus for this; I blame political overreactions and those using the virus as an excuse to see how hard they can push.

I need time in the mountains and on forest trails. This opportunity was stolen from me by the fear-mongering politicians. Is this safety fascism likely to earn them my thanks and loyalty? What do you think?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Cops: Not extra rights, not fewer rights

I hate it when logic and consistency demand I defend cops from poorly thought-out criticisms.

Cops are not special. They don't have extra rights-- but they don't have fewer rights, either. Even if this doesn't always sit right with me.

If it is right for you, it is right for a cop. If it's wrong for one of you, it's wrong for both.

As I have pointed out before, "police officer" is a description of what someone does-- their actions-- not the human being himself/herself. "Cop" (or "police officer") in this sense is exactly like the term "looter" or "rapist"-- it is a description of the acts the person commits against his fellow humans in specific circumstances. A person who loots is a looter; a person who commits rape is a rapist; a person who commits acts of legislation enforcement is a cop. Regardless of what they do with the rest of their time. It's why there can be no such thing as a "good cop", a "good looter", or a "good rapist".

And it's why admitting you like or support cops is a really disturbing admission. Even if you imagine they make you "safer" in some way, or can't imagine how society could function without them.

A cop doesn't lose the right of self-defense for policing, just like a looter doesn't lose the right of self-defense for looting. Not even "in the act".

In each case, however, I hope the cop and rapist lose the fight if they are the ones archating-- are in the process of committing the acts that give them their label. They still have the right to defend themselves from their victims' self-defense attempts since rights can't go away, I just hope their intended victim prevails every time. And if they do survive I hope it is a short-lived victory. I never grieve a dead archator.

If the fight is archator vs archator, then whoever is the one defending himself from the aggressor at the moment is the one I hope wins. Even if I wouldn't like him in other circumstances.

-

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.

Being a good drone for your side

Good DemoCRAPublicans are expected to say the right things-- "right" according to their particular branch's ideology. Unfortunately, it's the same with good libertarians.

To be a "good libertarian" you've got to say the right things about woodchippers and "pedos", about commies and helicopters, about "gender", and about other things that aren't necessarily very libertarian-- that aren't about recognizing the absence of a "right to archate".

You've got to say the right things about shootings where the shooter may not be anyone to hold up as a hero... and some libertarians see this as relevant for some reason.

I don't always say the "right things", but I don't usually harp on the topics where I think others have gone off the rails because I don't enjoy infighting. I've said my piece and it is documented on this blog somewhere. If I change my mind I'll blog about that, 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.

Special birthday

Happy birthday to my youngest, who turned 13 today. Her birth was announced on this blog all those years ago. I can't believe she is now a teenager. She doesn't like her picture being taken these days, so no follow-up picture.

-

Any donations coming in today will go directly to her.

Why statism?

Why would anyone be statist?

There are several reasons, and you'll find one or more of these traits at the core of every statist: Weakness, cowardice, laziness, greed, envy, hatred. Probably some others I didn't list.

Sure, you'll find those same flaws in libertarians as well, but the difference is while those traits are fundamental to statism, libertarians are likely to be unlibertarian when they display those traits. You could theoretically be libertarian without having a single one of those traits, but those traits are what makes a statist what they are. They are core characteristics of statism.

I can't imagine anyone basing their worldview on such negative traits.

-

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.

Shooting in self-defense

If you are being chased by people who are presenting a credible threat and you shoot and kill some of them, you didn't commit murder. You didn't do anything wrong.

If the reason they started chasing you is that you were standing guard over some property they wanted to destroy, you didn't even need to start to run before defending yourself from them.

If you are "arrested" for defending yourself in this manner, anyone involved with the kidnapping is siding with your attackers-- they are admitting they are bad guys.

If someone criticizes your act of self-defense by calling you a "white boy" with "white privilege" they are admitting they are vile racists. Those are purely racist terms. I don't know the guy who did the shooting. He may be a nasty character I would never get along with in person-- I've even heard he is pro-police! That's not relevant.

Of course, new information may come out and change my opinion, but as it stands this is how I see the Kenosha, Wisconsin riot shooting.

Even if he started it and was completely in the wrong, only a complete moron would continue to pursue him and threaten to use violence against an armed person. You're going to back him into a corner so that he believes he has no choice but to shoot you or die at your hands.

Play stupid games; win painful prizes.

-

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.

Police killings-- the only thing you need to consider

All killings committed by police can be evaluated by considering one thing: Was the person who the officer killed currently archating before the police approached him? If not, there was no reason for the police to approach him in the first place. If they chose to do so anyway and it escalated to the person being killed; it is murder.

If I walk up to a person on the street who isn't doing anything obviously wrong and I start molesting them and they shove me away, making me "fear for my life", and I then choke or shoot them, who is the bad guy? Not my victim. It's the same with cops. Badges don't create an exception.

Eric Garner was not archating. He was engaging in consensual trade with willing partners. Cops approached him using the excuse of "tax rules"; he resisted the kidnappers; they murdered him.

George Floyd was not archating. He supposedly passed a counterfeit bill (as most of us have probably unknowlingly done at least once). Cops approached, he refused to cooperate with the molesters; they murdered him.

I see this play out over and over. People criticize what happened after the police approached someone they should never have approached in the first place. They ignore the fact that cops shouldn't have approached the victim to begin with and focus on how the victim reacted to being molested and threatened by gang members. Then they excuse the gang for murdering someone they should have left alone.

I don't criticize police killings when the person who was killed is archating. But that's almost never the case in the killings that get the most publicity. Cops are scum. People who defend and support police are either weak, cowardly, or supportive of evil. Defund, dismantle, and disavow the gang.

-

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.

Placing the solutions off-limits

Found somewhere on the internet

"How can we solve this or that problem? Oh, and you're not allowed to change anything that matters! That would be crazy!"

How often do you see this kind of thing from statists? All the time? I do.

They'll ask how "we" can end government corruption, but only without ending political government.
How "we" can fix education, but only without ending government schooling.
How "we" can solve crime, without eliminating anti-defense legislation or ending prohibition.
How can "we" end police brutality without abolishing the police?

The solutions are obvious, but off-limits.

They don't want a solution; they want a pat on the head for being so concerned about the issue.

-

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.

Government should follow rules too

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 22, 2020)

People seem confused about what role-- if any-- government plays in our lives. This misunderstanding causes problems.

Government was never intended to be the master, but the servant. Your servant doesn't tell you what you are allowed to do, nor punish you for not obeying him. The servant isn't allowed to do things in secret with the master's money, nor to keep any job-related secrets from the master. Your servant is accountable to you; never the other way around.

If someone takes a government job, they either accept their subservient position in society, or they can take a job-- without such strings attached-- in the productive sector. Forgetting their place should result in immediate unemployment with no chance of ever holding another government job.

Government wrongly claims to have the right to track everyone, spy on everything we do, collect all our information, and punish us for doing things we have the natural human right to do, but which government forbids. Nothing can trump natural human rights, not even the opinions of the vocal majority legislated and enforced by government employees.

Police across the state object to a requirement to wear body cameras so they can be held accountable to their bosses-- the people of the community. If they can't do their job under this condition, they are free to find other jobs. No one is forcing them to be police.

Locally, people are begging government for permission to re-open their restaurants, when government never had the legitimate authority to shut businesses in the first place. This illustrates the danger of allowing the servant to require business licenses. It's none of their business who opens what kind of business, and nothing can make it their business. Not even if "this is how we've always done it", which isn't true anyway.

Local government is even pretending it should have the power to dictate whether someone will be allowed to use their own property as a subdivision.

This is crazy!

If we are to continue to fund government and give it our occasional obedience there must be rules for it to follow. Since the Constitution has been ignored for the past century and a half or so, what do you suggest be tried next?

Those who want to keep political government around are the ones responsible for keeping it out of the lives of everyone else. If you won't rein in your troublesome servant, his misbehavior is on your head.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Libertarian "Buts" and "former libertarians"

I've written before about "libertarian, buts" and "former libertarians". I've always been skeptical of either claim. If you make exceptions you might be "libertarian-leaning", but I don't believe you are libertarian. And if you claim to be a "former libertarian" I have my doubts you ever understood the concept in the first place if you can be swayed to abandon it. I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they aren't being completely honest.

So many people seem to feel it's trendy or edgy to call themselves libertarian, but... they like to hang on to certain exceptions. This seems to explain "former libertarians" as well. They are fine with life, liberty, and property until they find an exception-- an excuse for archation-- they value more. They can even get creative in justifying their exceptions.

Someone may be a libertarian "but" they support police because they can't imagine having to take responsibility for defending their own rights and they imagine that's what cops do.

They may call themselves libertarian while demanding government schools be reopened.

They may have been a libertarian until they decided "Black Lives Matter" more than other lives, and are willing to use the political means to impose their belief on society through legislation.

Some may be libertarian, except that they lust to take part in whichever current witch hunt allows them to fantasize about revenge and murder (which they'll characterize as "justice").

Or maybe they were libertarian until they decided "climate change" was a big enough threat, with no way to handle it, so now they support governments dictating "climate policy".

Don't accept a "but". You're better than 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.

A life of public service

Those who work in the Market* have chosen a life of service.

Totally unlike those who work in government/politics, who have chosen a life of parasitism and thuggery.

Who are the true public servants and who are the public serpents? Common usage has it completely backwards.

-

*I don't say "free market" because if it isn't free, it's not the Market.

-

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.

Expecting Trouble?

I never expect trouble. However, I also know trouble can show up anywhere at any time. It doesn't care if I expect it or not. Recognizing that the potential for trouble is always there isn't the same as expecting it. One is paranoid; the other is realistic.

If I see a rattlesnake or a cop, I know the potential for trouble is there, so I avoid them.

Actually, with the rattlesnake, I sometimes approach out of curiosity... I know their range and that they really aren't my enemy. I know what to expect from them. A rattlesnake isn't going to take flight and attack me from above, nor give a call that brings more snakes to the scene.

-

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.

Mutual trust and respect

You don't show mutual trust and respect by both being unarmed, but by both being armed and non-aggressive.

I found that the original Lost in Space series is on a streaming service and have been watching it again. On one episode the Robinsons encounter some aliens who don't speak and after some tense moments-- and some laser blasts exchanged-- come to realize they aren't enemies. The alien dad tosses his weapon aside to show he means no harm. John Robinson picks up the weapon and hands it back in one of the most astute demonstrations of trust and respect I can remember seeing on any screen.

The political aliens that infest our human societies could learn a lot from this.

First of all, we are not shooting at them. Often not even when it's justified. Therefore there's no reason for us to toss our weapons down to show that we mean no harm-- if we meant harm we would be attacking them. It would be up to them to disarm if anyone should.

Second, the way they could show their respect and trust is by not insisting we be disarmed, but by acknowledging that humans stay armed.

Fictional TV characters, and the aliens they encounter, are far more human than the political aliens who want to run our lives and disarm us so they feel safe.

-

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.

Who are your representatives?

Political representation is a myth.

Believing in political representation is a superstitious belief. Such a belief is as delusional as believing in astrology.

No one can really represent anyone but himself. However, if you have a one-on-one agreement with someone to represent you in a meeting you can't attend, it can sort of work a lot of the time.

But for one person to claim to represent hundreds, thousands, or even millions of other people with conflicting opinions?

That's utter balderdash (to put it gently)!

It's also useful balderdash for those who want you to comply-- against your own interests-- with their system of "representative government". It's useful because it seems to make most people complacent. To the point they'll defend it even when the superstitious nature of the belief is clearly demonstrated to them.

No one can represent me without my explicit consent, contingent upon them accurately representing me in every detail, without fail. No one has this consent and I doubt anyone ever could. Is your consent not worth just as much?

-

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.

Holster-Quest 2020

After my holster melt-down and my test and review of the Urban Carry G3, I was approached by a holster company that wanted to send me a holster to test and review.

I know I'm a difficult case. I'm not optimistic about success. But I'll never know until I try.

I don't know how long until it gets here, nor how long after that I will post the review. But I just thought I'd let you know there will be at least one more post about Holster-Quest 2020.

-

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.

It's only political if you make it political

To those who claim that "everything is political", I would say they are partly right. Everything can be political but only if you make it political. You can make anything political by getting government involved. But that's an awful thing to do to your fellow humans. Politicizing anything is also one of the fastest ways to lose credibility.

Pick anything you can think of. Then think of ways the government-supremacists have politicized it. I'll bet there's almost nothing you can think of that either hasn't been politicized or that someone hasn't attempted to politicize-- and attempting to politicize something could be argued to have politicized it even if the attempt didn't do what they hoped.

The only political problems are problems you create when you make something political.

Even water has been politicized in many places. When you can be molested by The State for catching rainwater as it runs off your roof, you are the victim of water being politicized. There are better ways to deal with water shortages-- even if you have to work to find them.

In the same way, "race" and sex have been politicized.
Science-- including medicine-- is ruined when politicized.
Education has been politicized so badly that most people can't understand the difference between education and schooling anymore.

When you politicize anything you pollute it-- you foul it up.

It doesn't need to be that way because nothing needs to be politicized. It's a nasty shame that this has been allowed to happen.

-

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.

Government makes crisis worse

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 15, 2020)

America is in crisis. Nearly everyone agrees on this point; they only disagree over what the crisis is.

Fewer still agree over what caused the crisis they can't agree on, so they can't agree on how to solve it.

Whatever the crisis is, and whether it was caused by a virus, police callousness, racism, inequality, or something else, governments love the excuse to crack down on liberty. This is often among their first responses-- regardless of what the crisis is, what caused the crisis, or how it might be solved. It's as though they don't even care about those trivial details.

A crisis is when your right to life, liberty, and property is most important. When things are going well, are more robust and stable, a small disruption probably won't cause ruin. When things are already on the edge, one little push in the wrong place, at the wrong time, can spell disaster. Deciding to treat liberty as if it's negotiable is a big jackbooted shove to civil society.

To respect the liberty of every human being is the civilized thing to do, even if some people aren't respecting the liberty of others. This is why self-defense remains an important human right.

No crisis justifies additional government power; instead, it's a time for less government meddling. Especially when the path forward is unclear.

The result of restricting liberty is to limit the number of individual solutions which can be tried. When there's disagreement, it's important to let people take different paths. If enough things are tried, someone will get it right. If you force everyone to follow the same path, the chances are nearly one hundred percent that the wrong path will be imposed.

This is why the Constitution doesn't allow itself, or human rights, to be suspended during any emergency and thus doesn't permit martial law. To pretend martial law is constitutional the Supreme Court was forced to concoct political "theories" to justify it. They made up, out of thin air, things the Constitution didn't say and which it was explicitly designed to prevent. It seems the Constitution has never stopped government from committing any action it really wanted to commit. Someone, somewhere, will rubber-stamp almost anything.

If the Constitution did permit the suspension of rights for the duration of an emergency, this would invalidate the document. That it doesn't, yet government goes ahead and does it anyway, invalidates government. Government "help" makes any crisis worse.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Individual lives matter

Individual lives matter. All individual lives. (I'm not convinced collective "lives" have any reality.)

But some people choose to throw their life away by making self-defense against them necessary-- resulting in the loss of their life. If you force someone to kill you in defense you seem to be saying your life doesn't matter to you.

How can you force someone to defend themselves from you? By archating.

Violating life, liberty, or property is how you demonstrate that your life doesn't really matter to you.

In that case, even though your life might matter to your victim, you have forced them to choose between your life and theirs, and I hope they choose their own life every time in that case. After all, you've already told them what your life is worth to you.

It doesn't matter if you are a rapist committing a sexual attack, a mugger stealing a wallet at gunpoint, or a cop committing an act of legislation enforcement. Archating is as good as admitting your life doesn't matter to you. If it doesn't matter to you, why should it matter to your victim? And even if it does matter to your victim, why should they sacrifice the life they value for the one you apparently don't? I don't think they should.

Individual lives matter. Act like you believe 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.

"Prussian" indoctrination- the other side

In doing a little searching for "The Prussian model" of schooling for yesterday's post, I ran across an essay that claims to expose "The Invented History of 'The Factory Model of Education'"

It's important to get the other side, so I read it and I'll give you my thoughts here.

"There were laws on the books in Colonial America, for example, demanding children be educated"

Those "laws" were counterfeit. That they existed so long ago no more justifies similar counterfeit "laws" today than old slave "laws" could justify slavery today.

"There was free public education in the US too prior to Horace Mann’s introduction of the 'Prussian model' – the so-called 'charity schools.'"

As long as it is funded voluntarily (charity) and attendance isn't compulsory, it's not a problem. Charity is great. Theft-funding anything is evil. Compulsory attendance is slavery.

"There were other, competing models for arranging classrooms and instruction as well..."

OK. Your point is...?

"Textbook companies were already thriving before Horace Mann or the Committee of Ten came along to decide what should be part of the curriculum."

That's to be expected, and it's not a problem. Let parents choose the textbooks they want to buy if they want them. The problem arises in "one-size-fits-all" school "systems" where a local monopoly is created by government. Where children are taught from books they can't opt out of or choose an alternative to, and their parents (and the community) are robbed to buy the books whether or not they want them.

"One of the side-effects of the efforts of Mann and others to create a public education system, unmentioned by Khan, was the establishment of 'normal schools' where teachers were trained."

Was there no better way to train people to teach? And why is it assumed there need to be specialized teachers? If people are too stupid to teach their own kids-- to show them how to learn-- it means the school did a horrible job teaching the previous generation. You're not going to solve such a problem by imposing it on generation after generation.

"Another was the requirement that, in order to demonstrate accountability, schools maintain records on attendance, salaries, and other expenditures"

That's just standard practice for any business. I would expect any voluntarily funded school to do the same. Except that the records for attendance should be limited to the employees, not the customers.

"...control of public schools in the US have, unlike in Prussia, remained largely decentralized – in the hands of states and local districts rather than the federal government."

If it's under the control of any government, it's not decentralized. Yes, it could always be worse, but it can be better and less centralized, too.

"The standardization of public education into a 'factory model' ... was nowhere as smooth or coherent as Khan’s simple timeline would suggest."

The smoothness or lack thereof is a distraction, not a counterargument.

"Arguments over what public education should look like and what purpose public education should serve ... are not new."

"Public" education shouldn't exist, not in the way statists define "public". That gets rid of the argument and replaces it with choice-- with a market in education.

"For what it’s worth, Prussia was not highly industrialized when Frederick the Great formalized its education system in the late 1700s."

Which was probably the point. Maybe it's harder to become industrialized without a population of obedient drones.

OK. I'm tired of analyzing the nonsense and dishonesty in that essay. It proves nothing except that the writer is biased for government indoctrination. You know my bias since I've never tried to hide it. Decide for yourself which of us is more credible.

If you want to, you can read it all for yourself. That whole essay is just statist justification of government indoctrination day-prisons for children and youth. Death to kinderprison!

-

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.

Libertarians for theft and Big Government?

How can libertarians be seriously discussing how "best" to use "tax" money to fund government schooling or even any schooling? I don't think they can.

"Taxation" is theft.
Government schooling is not education. Even if it were education, government has no business getting involved in education and stolen money shouldn't be funding it.

Yet, over and over I see "serious", "credible", "libertarians" discussing how to direct government to spend that stolen money to fund schooling.

Recently some have been advocating tying the funds to individual "students" rather than to the schools.  I can see, in a world of false dichotomies, why that seems better. Yet we don't live in that world. Thieves do have the choice to stop stealing. Thugs do have the choice to stop advocating compulsory school and the "Prussian" indoctrination model.

Why does anyone who claims to value liberty gloss over those facts as if they aren't there? My suspicion is that they see this as necessary to try to be politically relevant-- I suspect this is the reason for a lot of inconsistency.

I can't take them seriously at that point. At least, not as libertarians, but only as threats to liberty.

-

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.