Standing in the middle of Congress or a group of cops and saying "They can't all be bad" is like standing in a junkyard of rusted wrecks and saying "Some of these must run fine".

On the effect of politics on a person

I am more and more convinced, with the passage of time, that politics makes people stupid.

What I mean is this: People will reject reality to stand by their "political team". They'll shoot themselves in the foot to avoid the appearance of disunity once they've committed to a political team. No matter how little sense it makes, they'll hate what/who their team tells them to hate and support what/who their team tells them to support. The "Trumpets" and TDS sufferers being a prime recent (and ongoing) example. It's like they do no independent thinking at all, but default to their team's mob-thinking instead.

By "politics" I mean the use of the political means as opposed to the economic means; force, fraud, theft, legislation, "democracy", and other types of coercion rather than voluntary, mutually consensual agreement. If it doesn't rely on the political means, it's not political even if some would mistake it for politics. Shooting an attacker in self defense, even if he dies, is not the same act as murder.

And, by "stupid" I mean against their own interests, against the interests of society, against objective reality (or the best estimation thereof), and against what their own mind could show them if they weren't determined to stay on the path they are on even if it requires self-imposed blindness.

It's not just "the right" and "the left", although those are the most obvious examples in modern America of where politics leads. Where "libertarianism" becomes political instead of being above politics, it is just as bad. Politics makes people stupid.

I get that some people enjoy politics. Maybe as a hobby or a diversion. Maybe those people can avoid the trap. Maybe they can't. It's a daredevil hobby, likely to result in damage sooner or later. But as long as they don't hurt anyone else (I don't see how that's possible) it's their business.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I just didn't see it

If it hadn't been for the news media, social media, or the mandates, shutdowns, and other things government did in response, would you have noticed the pandemic on your own? Would your observations have registered a big health threat?

I wouldn't have. I saw nothing unusual, healthwise, in my sphere. I saw some people catch colds-- some of them had a bad cold and others not any worse than normal-- but in a typical year, I would have seen that anyway. And I know plenty of people who didn't get sick with any sort of cold-like disease.

I heard that some old or unhealthy people died; friends told me of this happening to people they, or someone they knew, knew, although no one I knew personally died. In a typical year, this happens several times anyway. This past year or so wasn't unusually deadly for people in my sphere. In fact, it's unusual that no one I know personally died since the beginning of what was advertised as a deadly pandemic.

I'm not claiming there was no pandemic. I'm just saying if I hadn't been told it was there, I wouldn't have observed it on my own. Like an invisible unicorn that can't be touched; that you have to have described to you by priests to know it is there at all.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Self and money

Some guy on Twitter was apparently angry that libertarians exist. So, in a response to a thread of libertarians discussing an issue, he posted:

A libertarian’s priorities:
1. Themself
2. Money
3. That’s it.

(Then why am I broke?)

Anyway, isn't it odd that the most selfless and truly generous of philosophies is characterized this way?

Libertarians recognize that no one has the right to violate the life, liberty, or property of another, and that everyone has the right to defend themselves and others from anyone who does so anyway. I describe this as the Zero Archation Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to archate, nor to advocate or delegate archation."

That is, at its heart, what makes a person libertarian. That is the opposite of selfishness, and money isn't even mentioned.

One time, when I couldn't afford to do so, I bought a set of tools for a guy I'd just met so that he could get a job that required him to bring his own tools. That act certainly didn't benefit me, nor did it say much about money being my priority. There are plenty of other examples of me putting others ahead of myself, and other things ahead of money, but that's one that came to mind because it was the most personally difficult example.

There are so many examples of libertarians I know being selfless and generous with their own money-- often with me as the beneficiary-- that the claim is completely ridiculous.

I think what this guy is really objecting to is that I don't think "taxation" is ethical, and he can't imagine a way to support the helpless without forcing people-- through "taxation"-- to do so. In fact, this is what he later claimed as he tried to make his point. He rejected every voluntary solution suggested as a way to help such people. That says much about his non-libertarian character.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Of all religions, w0keness is probably the most toxic-- and it is competing against some real monstrous ideologies, so that's quite an accomplishment.

Any time I see or hear the phrase "Critical Race Theory" my mind automatically inserts the word "Conspiracy" before "Theory": "Critical Race Conspiracy Theory". That makes the phrase a lot more honest.

Will it make any real difference?

I'm assuming the Texas governor is going to sign the "constitutional carry" bill like he said he will. Yes, I know taking a politician at his word is stupid.

I'm wondering whether this new legislation will make an actual difference in the legal ability to carry a weapon. 

Judging by the fact that almost every business in this region already has "We don't care if you die!" signs posted, I'll bet it won't.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Even though it doesn't really impact my life, I love seeing Cannabis advertised on billboards.

Sometimes, but only a few times per day at most, I feel that the biggest mistake I ever made was not wandering off into the mountains when I was about 20.

Won't sacrifice liberty for worst of us

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 5, 2021)

There will always be some members of the population set on killing each other over petty squabbles and imagined slights. Nothing you and I can do will ever change this; nothing government can do will stop it. Some people are just determined to be uncivilized. They may even prefer living this way, and wouldn't change if given every chance. You will be more free once you realize this truth.

Maybe the best outcome is for them to do society a favor by culling their own herd. How can you prevent them from harming anyone outside their culture while killing each other?

One way to help guarantee this is to make sure everyone is adequately armed. Unfortunately, all legislation imposed under the excuse of disarming these people will only disarm those who have no intention to commit murder.

People who are willing to murder aren't going to stop short of violating firearms rules. Even if you somehow managed to magically remove all their guns, they'd stab, club, strangle, or drown each other. It's simply what they are determined to do. Making the rest of us vulnerable isn't hurting them a bit.

You shouldn't structure society around this type of person. This gives them the power to control society by their own rules; for their own benefit.

Instead, society is for those of us who respect the life, liberty, and property of all others. Those who refuse to live this way will be continually removed from society by their own actions if we let them. It's their choice. It's a service, not a tragedy.

You probably think I'm being harsh. Do you prefer the alternative: to give them the power to dictate how you will be allowed to live. I don't.

I used to feel bad for this sort of person. If there were a way to get through to them, I'd be for it. More legislation and harsher punishment haven't worked. Imprisonment has been a complete failure in changing their behavior. I wash my hands of them. My concern for their welfare and quality of life is used up.

I will not sacrifice my liberty because of how the worst among us choose to act. I don't accept blame for their behavior. I will try to avoid them, knowing they can't be trusted to act ethically; to respect the rights of others. Stay ready to deal with them when they won't let you avoid them.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

The majority of my adult v*ting life, I v*ted for Republicans. And throughout that time I noticed I was only getting stabbed in the back when the Republican won. Now I'm seeing Republicans telling libertarians they'd better v*te for Republicans because libertarians will never win anyway. I didn't "win" when any Republican got elected. Yes, often Democrats are even worse, but even if I were going to v*te, it's not going to be for some (perhaps) lesser evil.

Asking someone to "prove" that liberty is better than the alternative is like asking someone to "prove" that not being sawed into pieces while alive and conscious of what is happening is better than suffering that fate. If someone can't understand the "why" of it, you probably won't be able to prove it to them.

Sticking to the script

In every publicized and politicized shooting, both sides-- the gun owner rights side and the anti-gun bigot side-- just repeat the same things they always say in response. I include myself in this. There's nothing new to say.

The thing is, when the anti-gun side says the same thing over and over like a recording, what else can you say in response? Each lie is going to elicit the same response it always elicits. For each and every lie, there is a truthful response. I mean, how else can you respond to the claim that the Earth is flat other than by pointing out how you (and they) can know it isn't? You don't start talking about the kinds of cat food you recommend, because it is irrelevant to the topic.

The anti-gun bigots have their list of ways they want you violated. They whip out whichever "solution" they feel fits the situation the best (which sometimes leads to comedy when they pull out the wrong one because of their festering ignorance). 

The "solutions" they demand have always failed in the past. They are failing now. They'll continue to fail into the future each and every time they are tried. That's because they aren't really intended to stop shootings. They are intended to make sure you can't defend yourself from shooters by shooting back. They may even be intended to enslave you.

Their "solutions" certainly work to protect the evil losers who murder. Maybe this is because the shooters are a protected class-- it's probably no coincidence that aggressive monsters (who use weapons-- legislation and guns-- against the innocent) empathize with aggressive monsters (who use weapons-- guns, knives, etc.-- against the innocent). They are birds of a feather. Oh, sure, the murderers are demonized, but only in words. The actions taken in response-- to blame people who didn't do it and look for more ways to hurt them-- speak louder than the disingenuous words.

A "gun-free" zone will only be "gun-free" until some evil loser wants to take a gun in there to kill people. To allow (or require) him to face no opposition is evil.

Kids who have been intentionally kept ignorant of guns-- and the ethical imperative of zero archation-- will get ahold of guns and will likely harm someone. Demanding that kids, therefore, be kept even more ignorant of guns, under threat of punishment, will only make matters worse.

A ban on certain kinds of guns-- based on looks or even on functionality-- will only change the weapons used, not save lives. Do these people really imagine it's less bad to be killed with Gun B than with Gun A... or with Tool C? What kind of stupidity is that?

Background checks will not catch the actual bad guys, but will keep good people who want to obey illegitimate legislation from acquiring the proper tools to defend life, liberty, and property.

Whichever type of weapon is used, it will be presented as too dangerous to allow common people-- anyone who isn't an armed government employee-- to possess. If the weapons weren't dangerous, there would be no point to them. Bad guys respond to danger to their lives and bodily integrity, but not to appeals to their humanity.

You can ignore these anti-gun monsters if you want. Their bad opinions don't affect your rights even a little, but can affect how dangerous it is to exercise your rights. Responding to them probably won't change the course of society as it becomes less and less social and more political. But sometimes you just can't sit quietly while someone is telling lies that are going to hurt people. So, the same old things will be said in response to the same old lies they keep parroting.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

If someone says "we" when talking about something the government or "country" did, or says "my" (or worse: "our" or "your") when referring to government or some government agency or agent, my opinion of their intelligence usually plunges-- unless I believe they are using those words sarcastically. If I'm feeling less generous, it may only affect my view of their ethics... by making me decide they have none.

Violence is ethically neutral because "violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." Self-defensive violence is ethical; sometimes you've got to use physical force to "hurt, damage, or kill someone" to keep from being violated by them. Aggression-- initiated force-- is violence which is unethical.

Fauci's emails

I haven't bothered to read Fauci's supposedly incriminating emails, because I don't really care about his opinion and whether he lied.

I already knew he's a government-supremacist and as such can't be trusted. Did anyone not know this?

The government-supremacists who are right-statists are celebrating the emails, saying they show he was lying all along.
The government-supremacists who are left-statists are either ignoring the emails, or are saying they see nothing incriminating in them.
So, just more of the same from all those people who put politics over truth. They can be ignored since they can't think outside their box and add nothing to what is known.

Government-supremacists see nothing wrong with lying (or killing) to prop up the state-- at least the kind of state they want. To them, it's for the "greater good".

This hasn't changed in my lifetime and I doubt it ever will. 

Even if there were nothing in those emails I would disagree with, and no politics disguised as "science" for the gullible, I still don't trust Fauci. It's not about one thing he said or did, it's about his approach to life. His actions show he places the collective State above the good of individuals. Of course, he'll frame this as the collective State being good for individuals.

Instead of saying "There's a new cold virus, it seems to be slightly more dangerous than others, and here are some things you might consider doing to protect yourself, but we really don't know much for sure yet", he went all ... well, government-supremacist... on society. Advocating mandates and rules; encouraging using government violence against those who didn't do what he thought they should-- or at least giving rulers the excuses they needed to do those things without any pushback from him. 

Now some are saying the emails are new evidence he lied to get the response he wanted to the narrative he was selling, and that he did other wrong things, too.

Would it be surprising to find out he did? Not to me. He's political, and ALL politics-- all statism-- is based on lies and doing wrong. Why would this be the exception? 

Why would I read through lots of someone's emails-- or see someone else's biased (that's not a criticism, just reality) interpretation of them-- to find out that nothing in them is going to make a difference to me one way or the other?

But that's just me. Others may be more interested and might have good reasons to be. If you want to read through those emails and tell me your impression, go ahead. Maybe I'm just wrong. Maybe there's something in there that you'll find and think I should know because it might change my mind and how I live my life. Stranger things have happened.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Government is paranoid

I doubt there's any group as paranoid as political government-- any political government. And, it's why other groups get infiltrated so easily by the kings of paranoia in government-- other groups just aren't paranoid enough.

But maybe government is.

Government employees have to know their power and position are illegitimate. They'll deny it, but this is where the paranoia comes from. If they weren't so paranoid I might think they actually believed their own lies.

It's why they spy on us so thoroughly. On our emails, our online activity, our snail-mail, our phone calls, our credit card purchases, our guns, our health status, our location, etc. It's why they infiltrate other groups.

It's not to keep us safe; it's to keep their unearned power safe. 

I'm not saying their paranoia is unjustified. If you're a criminal gang, you probably ought to be paranoid. Someone probably really is out to get you. The crown rests uneasy, and sometimes, the head that wears the crown rests uneasily on the neck, too. I just can't get too worked up when bad guys' paranoia turns out to have been justified. Death to tyrants.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

I've never encountered a litterbug who didn't also have other serious problems with being responsible.
Also, I consider legislation to be litter.

That's one risk I'm not willing to take

I have no plans to get the Covid "jab". Not unless it looks necessary, and has been shown to be safe, in 20 years or so. Then we can discuss it.

I would rather not catch Covid and die-- or have lasting effects.
I would rather not get "the jab" and have a reaction and die-- or have lasting effects.

But, for some reason, and I know it's not rational, I would rather take my chances with the virus.

At this point, I would feel dumber for getting "the jab" and having a bad reaction (since I feel it's something I shouldn't do) than if I caught the virus naturally (assuming there's anything natural about this virus). 

I was exposed, intensely, several times during the first year of the virus. Now, I feel (and I could be wrong) that I either had some natural genetic immunity to it or caught Covid and didn't know and developed some immunity that way. I have seen nothing to convince me that immunity (if any) conferred by "the jab" is superior to natural immunity.

I'm not the slightest bit worried about catching Covid, and certainly not of catching it and having a serious problem from it. The only person I know personally with lingering ill-effects from Covid has never been what I would consider a healthy person. And I know others, personally, who caught it and recovered with no ill effects even though they were riddled with co-morbidities.

If I got "the jab" now and had a bad reaction it would feel like I took an unnecessary risk. A dumb risk. Almost like I was asking for trouble.

Why fiddle with what seems to have worked? If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.

--

A friend-of-a-friend in California (I'm making an educated guess that she's a radical left-statist) is still so terrified of Covid that she won't stop masking, has been fully "jabbed", still avoids people, and is skipping an important (to her) memorial service (a Covid-delayed funeral) due to her terror. 

If you ask me-- and you didn't-- this is evidence of psychological abuse. Who is to blame? Politicians, her politics, the media she consumes, society, or some combination? 

I wish someone had the guts to try to deprogram her and give her back her life. If I knew her, I would try. But sometimes you get what you v*te for.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Solutions are not on the agenda

I was reading a couple of opinion columns in our little weekly local paper-- the one that's not online, where I used to write my Liberty Lines columns on occasion.

The two remaining opinion columnists are solidly "conservative".

Reading their columns, you'd think the only real problem with America is that "liberals" exist.

They are quick to list their gripes, and blame them all on "liberal" politicians (or those they've influenced). It all because "we" aren't tough enough on "crime". They can't see that "their side" is just as bad for liberty.

They beat around the bush when discussing their problems with government, but they avoid the core issues and avoid mentioning anything like an actual solution beyond more government violence. Why? Because you can't solve problems caused by too much politics by bringing in more politics. Especially not with more authoritarian politics. And they apparently love politics as long as "their side" has the upper hand. They don't want to stop using the political means against others. Solving problems is less important.

So they'll never do anything other than carefully avoid a solution to the things they complain about. And continue to hallucinate that it's only "liberals" making the mess. If only everyone would lick the boots of the police and the military, enforce all the right "laws", go to the right kind of church, never use any intoxicants that are "illegal", etc., America would be all better again. A nice, quiet, police state where they get the kind of government over others that they like, while their enemies plot how to turn it against them in the future.

They plow around the stump in their field, even as it grows larger, because to get rid of it entirely would take away their option to use it against someone else, later. And sticking it to the "liberals" is more important to them than is living in liberty.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two