There are FOUR lights!

"Free will" is irrelevant

I recently listened to a bizarre debate between two sciency guys who don't believe there is any such thing as free will because the Universe is deterministic, but they interpret this in different ways, which is why they debated.

Yet, every point that each of them made was made with the assumption of free will. They were swimming in it the entire time and didn't notice. "She could have done differently" or "What kind of upbringing did he receive?", as if those ideas have any meaning outside free will.

The reason these free will skeptics kept assuming free will exists is that they were focused on how it relates to crime (and things government pretends are crimes). Free will has to exist for them to justify their belief that governments have rights which include allowing a government to punish people (often, Trump in their examples) for their actions. In other words, their statism-- their government-supremacism-- required them to be absurdly inconsistent to avoid exposing the fallacy. It required them to never notice their absurdity or inconsistency.

In my view of the world, if there is no such thing as free will, it doesn't matter.

Does the lightning have free will if it strikes a tree, causing the tree to fall and crash through your roof? It doesn't matter. The lightning did a thing, that thing set other things in motion and damaged your roof. The lightning (in fact, the laws of physics that made that particular lightning strike inevitable) owe restitution for the damage to your house, but the lightning can't and won't pay. Maybe you now believe you or your insurance company have the right to punish the lightning... good luck with that.

If a person commits an act which violates you, it doesn't matter whether the person had any free will to make that choice or not. Something was caused to happen and restitution is owed. A person can pay restitution, even if it is only symbolic and can't erase the whole debt. The person could have been as destined to commit the act as the bolt of lightning was to strike and it doesn't change the debt which was created.

Maybe you also believe that person should be punished.

I don't believe in punishment, which I see as nothing more than revenge with lipstick. It doesn't reduce the debt at all, and in the case of government "justice [sic] systems", it creates even more debt which requires restitution which will never be paid by the archator which owes it: government. I understand the desire for revenge/punishment. I have felt it many times. But I also understand why it is wrong; why it is beyond what I have the right to do.

I understand the arguments against free will. I am not entirely convinced by them, but since free will isn't necessary, I can live with not knowing for sure.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

You don't have a right to not be exposed to free-range germs. No one has a right to spit in your face to expose you to their germs, but people have to breathe and this means germs are out in the real world. Otherwise, you would have no immune system. You can't have a right to enslave others because you're scared of germs. That includes using legislation to force them to mask or to vaccinate. You have the right to avoid others if you're worried.

Craft Holsters suede magazine holder

The guys at Craft Holsters were nice enough to send along this Leather OWB Magazine Pouch back when they sent the belly bands. There's not a lot to say about it, but here goes.

It is made of a nice thick suede leather and has the same strong steel clip as their in-the-waistband holsters, so it STAYS in place. Those clips are impressive.

Although they call this an OWB (outside the waistband) pouch, I chose to wear the magazine holder inside my waistband, on the side opposite the pistol. It worked just fine in that configuration, too.

It wasn't too noticeable; never uncomfortable. It never lost a magazine, nor did it ever threaten to do so. It works great. What more can be said? 

Thanks, again, Craft Holsters!

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Glad I have as much choice as I do

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 12, 2021)

It's good to have choices.

The continuing Covid-19 overreactions of New Mexico's politicians mean I've spent much less time and money in New Mexico than I would have normally. Why would I go where businesses are either closed or operating with restricted capacity when I have other options? I prefer to go where businesses can decide whether they'll force customers to wear a mask, rather than where a one-size-fits-all mandate declares businesses aren't allowed to decide for themselves.

Yes, I have to drive a little farther to have similar shopportuities, but in many cases, it's worth it.

We are lucky. Most people don't have such a clear and easy way to express their choice. If you are trapped in the middle of an oppressive political regime's wide territory, you don't have the option to simply drive one direction instead of the other to express your choice. Here near the state line, we have this choice, and-- thanks to New Mexico politicians-- it's been good for Texas's economy.

It's also good for those who are still afraid of Covid-19 for the same reason. Choice.

If you are still scared of the virus after more than a year of hearing the propaganda surrounding it, you have the choice to stay on the more cautious side of the line.

On the other hand, and on other issues, Texas is more oppressive than New Mexico. Marijuana and open carry of firearms being two examples that spring to mind. Again, you get to choose where to go depending on which rights matter to you.

If you're going to allow politicians to run your life, which I don't recommend doing, this is a good compromise. Let people choose how much tyranny, in which areas, they are willing to tolerate.

Of course, your natural human rights don't change when you cross an arbitrary and mostly imaginary political line. The only thing that changes is which of your natural human rights the politicians ruling over each side of the line have decided to violate, and how badly you'll be violated.

Liberty-- real unobstructed liberty-- is never an option as long as politicians have this power. They don't like liberty and are scared of it. They know liberty would be the end of their sweet deal. I can't understand why anyone cares what politicians think.

I'm glad we have this much choice; I'd prefer more because I'll never fear your liberty.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

You aren't violating the mugger by refusing to allow yourself to be mugged. Not even by shooting him to stop the mugging. You have the right to keep from being violated, he has no right to mug you. You aren't being controlled just because you aren't allowed to control someone else.

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.