Imagine if the rabies virus mutated and got weaker over time like the coronaviruses (and others) do. After a couple of days of being grumpy due to a headache and a tight throat, you'd be fine and immune for life. It would have simplified my life.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like having a really strong opinion for or against a vaccine might be tempting the Universe to smite you.

"Anonymous" art buyer: "Hey Hunter, when one of your paintings sells for exactly $251,963, that will be me. You can then have your dad's handlers return the favor." See how easy that is?

Don't "trust science" or "follow the science", DO the science. Yes, you really can in many cases. Science is not magic beyond the capacity of normal humans.

They just don't want it to work

It took years, but I eventually came to realize that when someone claims liberty (a libertarian society, anarchy, Voluntaryism, whatever you want to call it) "won't work", they are telling me about themselves. That they aren't capable. That they might not be trustworthy or responsible. That they can't imagine living without a Big Brother.

I already know all about the faults that humans have. I know how liberty recognizes and accounts for them. I trust myself to be able to navigate the world without an aggressive gang of thieves to fall back on.

I feel bad for those who can't. 

I may still call them out, though. It should be embarrassing to be that way. 

What's funny is that these people so often see themselves as the intellectual opposite of communists and other collectivists, who they'll try to group me with, while operating from the same playbook as those they imagine they aren't like.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Liberty is among self-evident truths

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 9, 2021)

Many times over the years people have demanded proof that liberty is better than the alternative. Sometimes the detail being questioned changes-- maybe it's the concept of human rights or ethics they are objecting to-- but the argument is the same.

They don't accept the superiority of liberty over whatever they'd prefer, so they demand proof.

No matter what I say, with each response, they move the goal post. With each objection, I'll be asked to prove something different. At some point, I realize the person doesn't understand because they don't want to understand. No amount of effort on my part will make a difference. I'm wasting my time. There's some reason they want to keep believing it's OK to harm others who are not violating anyone's life, liberty, or property.

Occasionally I ask questions to see if I can figure out their reason; I never get a straight answer.

Asking someone to "prove" liberty is better than the alternative is like asking someone to "prove" it's better to not be boiled alive. If you're willing to claim it might be better to be tortured and murdered, what can I say?

Like it or not, there are some things which are objectively true. Only politics or other superstitions can make someone dispute this.

If it's not wrong to attack-- to violate-- peaceful people who aren't violating anyone in any way (or making a credible threat to do so) society is an impossibility. Maybe that's OK with you. There's no way to pretend it's only wrong when you want it to be wrong, but not in other cases where you'd like it to be right. Inconsistency brings down this house of cards.

There would be no such thing as theft. No such thing as self-defense. Slavery couldn't be wrong. Some people might like these ideas to be true. I've been told rights aren't real because they are only a human construct. Fine. If this is the case, there could be no right to govern others, so we are back where I began.

If you want to be enslaved, I respect your choice. Maybe it is better for you. I'm going to assume it isn't; that you'd prefer your liberty and self-ownership to be respected and defended. Then I'll act on this assumption until you explicitly tell me not to. I am sure liberty is always better even if you won't accept the proof.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

How 'bout them experts?

If you've spent any time on "social" media, you've probably seen proclamations from current or former soldiers (or Blue Line Gang enforcers) who use their gun expertise to tell the citizens what they need or don't need. They imagine their background gives them even more credibility than Joe "Fire a Shotgun Warning Blast Through the Door" Biden. 

It doesn't.

If you don't know what you're talking about, and form idiotic ideas based on your ignorance, it shows.

I have actually seen them make arguments similar to all those I sarcastically included in the image. And yet, they'd claim to be the experts. Experts you should listen to. Like a doctor who calls his superstitions "science".

Let them say their piece. I would never discourage these fake experts from exposing their ignorance to the world-- and being confronted by knowledgeable critics. I think it's a useful thing for them to do. It's just too bad some other people, who aren't knowledgable enough to see the obvious ignorance, get fooled. But, then they too will get ridiculed and "educated" for repeating the stupidity-- not that they'll believe the truth, since it isn't what they want to believe.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

A real piece of KRaP

The worthless loser (Kevin Ray Perry-- KRaP) who burglarized and set fire to my (now 97-year-old)  great-uncle's house a couple of years ago, and then this past January tried to burglarize someone else's house while they were home. got sentenced to 10 years in prison for that pair of crimes.

No, this doesn't make me happy. First of all, I am against imprisonment for anyone. Second, this doesn't hold him accountable for the damage he has done. Damage he intentionally committed. No restitution will be paid to his victims, so justice isn't on the table. It rarely is when the government "justice system" gets involved.

I would rather let people know who he is (and doing so relentlessly-- Kevin Ray Perry is his name), what he did, and then "let nature take its course". An "outlaw" in the original sense of the word-- outside the "protection" of "the law". Basically, a free kill. Yes, I hope his next intended victim kills him. That saves money and will keep him from ever violating anyone else.

None of my relatives, including my great-uncle's daughter, are happy, either. They believe this scum has shown he can't be allowed among the rest of society and needs to stay imprisoned much longer. I believe funding prisons only makes things worse. I don't see anyone this determined to be such a piece of KRaP surviving into old age, no matter what else happens, anyway. He's not bright enough and seems pretty dedicated to getting himself Darwinized. I'd like to see him get what he seems to be trying to get.

Now, I'm also ready to completely forgive him. It would take an admission of what he did, restitution to the satisfaction of everyone he victimized, and a guarantee (backed by immediate consequences) that he could never archate again. It's the same deal I offer every violator-- politician, cop, or freelance. It's simple, but not cheap. But it requires them to admit they are the bad guy, and most bad guys aren't willing to be that responsible (that's why they are bad guys in the first place).

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Sometimes, doing nothing is the right choice

I have the right to make choices-- to take risks-- that might result in me sacrificing myself. 

I have no right to make the intentional choice to sacrifice others. 

I continue to see it as more ethical to do nothing rather than to feel pressured into "doing something" which may result in sacrificing someone. 

This is why I don't fall for the trolley dilemma and it's why I am not going to get any Covid vaccine or gene therapy, while not caring one way or the other about the choice others make. Let the gears turn, but don't throw people into them.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Most people die of natural causes. If anti-gun bigots were consistent, they would scream to ban natural causes... even if it meant murdering people to prevent them from dying of natural causes. I mean, they are already on the side of murderers now, so it's not much of a stretch.

Can politics avoid using the political means?

If your politics encourages you to steal from others or to control what others do with their bodies or their property, it's a problem. And that's pretty much the definition of politics. Only if you try to pretend politics is about society by redefining it, and leave out what it really is, can it be justified. 

It's why I dislike politics. ALL politics.

This is why libertarianism isn't political-- not when it stays libertarian. And it's why a Libertarian (political) Party is going to be not-so-libertarian when it tries to do something other than educate people; when it tries to engage in politics.

I get it: others are using politics to violate your life, liberty, and property. They are using politics to archate. You want to turn the tables for a change. You want to use politics defensively to protect yourself from their politics. But I don't think it's any more possible to use the political means defensively than it is to set off a nuclear bomb defensively. You'll end up being the aggressor by your action. Theft and aggression are never defensive, nor are they restitution.

Sure, it sounds amusing to say the Libertarian Party is all about plotting to take over the world so they can leave you alone, but is that true? If liberty can only be protected by using the political means is it worth it? Is this a case of raping to promote virginity? I'm not sure but that's how it looks to me.

Obviously, any type of libertarian is better than any type of authoritarian. Don't think I'm saying otherwise. I'm just bothered when libertarians advocate using politics against others in any way for any reason. It doesn't seem to fit with the principles of the thing. What if that's the only way? Do you really "have to" slaughter an entire village-- women and children, too-- to protect yourself from a few bad guys who live there and are a threat to you? I doubt it.

I've just never seen any politics that didn't involve justifying archation at some level. And if it existed, how would it still be politics?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

If anyone would like to toss a little bit of money into this troublemaker's PayPal account ( paypal.me/Dullhawk ), it would be appreciated. Thank you.

If you start with the assumption that government is necessary, that democracy is a positive thing, that vaccines are always good, and that cops are heroes, you aren't thinking. You're just parroting the tenets of your cult.

Government doesn't disappoint

When you expect nothing good from government you won't be disappointed. This is why government can never disappoint me. 

It can anger me-- as any aggressor or thief will-- but it isn't possible for me to be disappointed in it. Sure, I'll feign disappointment sometimes to mock government, but it's only an act.

When government does something stupid or harmful, I just roll with it as well as I can. Sometimes I am a little bit shocked by the depth of the stupidity, but never disappointed.

When legislation fails to protect the innocent, and actually makes things measurably worse, no disappointment. Anger, but not disappointment.

When government drops the ball on some "service" I am being (non-consensually) charged for, I am not disappointed. Neither am I disappointed that I never get refunded due to this failure to provide the service I was forced to pay for. Sometimes a little disgusted, yes, but not disappointed.

Government can surprise me when it fails to do the wrong thing. It has happened a few times, but not often. Even those pleasant surprises are tempered by the knowledge that those events were made illegitimate through theft ("taxation") and aggression.

Back when I was young and naive and I could be disappointed in government, it was nearly a permanent condition. One disappointment after another. I was young and dumb. I believed that politicians mostly meant well. I confused legislation for law. I believed it was possible to have a mostly good political government, if you did it right. But then I grew up.

I am not disappointed that thieves and arsonists violate property rights-- it's what they do. Sure, I like it when they get shot in the act, but I can't be disappointed that they act the way they act. The same goes for political government. It would be stupid to be disappointed that government does what government-- by definition-- does. People act, and things function, according to their nature. They can't do otherwise without changing what they are.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Hating the messenger

Some of the angriest responses to things I write come after I warn of bad things in the near future-- particularly bad economic things. Such as inflation. It's not the only thing people get mad over, but it's probably the strangest.

Why would people get mad over economic warnings-- mad enough to write to tell me how wrong I am? To tell me it isn't happening and that it never will. To say I'm an idiot for claiming it's already started because they don't (won't?) see it. 

One particular guy wrote me last August in response to this column, saying local prices weren't going up and the dollar wasn't losing value because "God is in control". I wonder if he sees prices going up yet, or if his head is still stuck in a prairie dog hole and he hasn't bought anything since he wrote that email. Would it be nice of me to follow up and see what he says now?

Why all the anger? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I hope I am; I don't want hyperinflation to happen. It's not that important for me to be able to say "I told you so". But they could show me why they believe I'm wrong, rather than simply expressing their anger over my warning.

I suspect the anger might be triggered by a few different things. 

Maybe they are just that invested in the current system. They believe it has served them well so far, and they want to believe it will keep doing so. Maybe they don't want to feel bad about what they've done to their grandchildren's future.

Maybe uncertainty scares them; if they proclaim their certainty forcefully enough, they feel safe. It's like a magic spell to chant for protection.

Maybe they just don't believe the government they worship through Holy Pole Quilts and pledges of allegiance would ever knowingly wreck the economy (while enriching its cronies) and put them in harm's way.

Maybe they just hate me and this topic pushes them over the edge and motivates them to write out of anger.

Or, maybe that one correspondent's religious faith depends on not seeing that government can do bad and stupid-- even evil-- things, and attacking anyone who suggests otherwise.

But if you don't see it happening now, I doubt you ever will. Not even when you're pushing your wheelbarrow of "dollars" to the store for a loaf of bread. Getting mad over it won't change anything. Hating the messenger doesn't prevent disaster.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Drug abuse stupid but prohibition evil

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 2, 2021)

It's normal to focus more on things which matter to us personally. It's harder to care about everything else. I'm most vocal about the liberty I see being attacked the hardest. This is why I mention gun-owner rights so often. These rights are currently attracting the most hate.

If you want me to defend a right, start a coordinated attack against it.

Beyond rights I care about the most, you have the right to do things that don't interest me at all, or things I don't like. As long as "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", as Thomas Jefferson said-- nor the pockets or legs of anyone else-- I support your right to live as you wish. I don't care who it offends; there is no right to not be offended.

I recognize and respect the equal and identical rights of every human being alive. It matters to me when those rights are violated, whoever is doing the violating and however they justify it.

So, even though access to marijuana isn't important to me, I write about it because it's a right which matters to many people. It attracts attention, both from those who recognize the right to trade and use it and from those who want to continue using government violence to violate the right.

All choices have consequences; accidental or intentional. Some of the things you have a right to do can hurt or kill you. Misuse of any drug-- especially those more dangerous than Cannabis-- is one of those things. I still oppose drug prohibition. Drug abuse is stupid, but prohibition is pure evil.

If you are irresponsible you can harm others; something you have no right to do. Saying you were under the influence when you accidentally harmed someone can't wipe away the debt your act created.

You also owe restitution just as surely if you are under the influence of political authority and harm someone with legislation. Accept your responsibility.

Self-employed bad guys are almost as much a problem as those who believe they are entitled to violate your rights. The mugger and the tax collector are doing the same job, with the same result. There is no difference, other than it is more socially acceptable to defend yourself from one thief than it is to defend yourself from the other.

Respect liberty, even those parts you don't care about. It's what society needs most.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

Liberty requires perpetual secession.

Happy Independents Day

No, that wasn't a misspelling. If you get it, you get it.

I hate that Independence Day has become "The 4th of July" and a celebration of government and the government's military. That's so not what it's about, and something I can never participate in.

But for those out there who understand, celebrate your independence with me.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

I love America and therefore I hate its enemy, the United States of America. It's odd how many people are confused by that statement.

Body counts aren't a good argument

People who argue for even worse "gun control" [sic] than Americans are already burdened with love to quote various questionable statistics on how many people are killed with guns every year.

There couldn't be a less convincing argument for them to make. Sorry. And it isn't that I don't care. I care a lot! I've had three close friends who were shot; two of them died as a result of being intentionally shot by evil losers. (The other was intentionally shot by an evil loser who was mugging him, but he survived.) That's no excuse to support anti-gun legislation. I'm not going to punish you for the deaths because it wasn't your fault. You didn't pull the trigger. In fact, I believe if you'd been there and were properly armed you would have tried to save their lives-- and I say this to anyone reading this blog. 

The problem is never "too many guns", and there is no way to "keep guns out of the wrong hands" without keeping them out of too many of the right hands, too. And the wrongest of the wrong hands-- government employees-- are never even factored in. 

Even if you use the dumb excuse of preventing the "mentally ill" from having guns by imposing draconian legislation, that's a hard "No" from me. Keep legislation out of it.

People die tragically every day. If you believe guns should be banned or rationed by the state because they are a tool that is sometimes involved in tragic deaths, why not food? (And yeah, I realize there are government-supremacists like a former NYC mayor who would support rationing or banning food on this pretext, too.)

Thousands of people choke on food annually. I know of someone whose young son choked on a piece of popcorn and died before they could save him. People commit slow suicide with food by grossly over-eating and by eating horribly unhealthy things. You've seen it happen. Evil people have served poisoned food to others as a way to murder them. Sometimes there are food "malfunctions" (contaminated food) and people die from it. 

Still, no one has the right to ban food. It's crazy or evil to even suggest it. No one has the right to regulate food, either, but they've already got their foot in the door on that point.

Back to guns: You could argue that there are other defensive tools you could use instead of guns if guns were eliminated. But none are as effective as guns, especially in a world where you'll never get rid of all the guns as long as government employees have them. (If they were as effective as guns, I'd bet money that the gun-banners would want to ban them, too.) 

You could argue that there are alternatives to traditional food, too. Twinkies, for example. (Just kidding.) People could swallow nutrition pills instead of eating food to keep themselves alive. Or get hooked to an IV full of nutrients. The point is, there are suboptimal substitutes for food, but you could try to rely on them to keep you alive. Just like the suboptimal alternatives to guns.

With all its drawbacks, food saves more lives than it takes. So do guns, but that's not the part of the story that makes the news. It's more thrilling to focus on evil losers murdering people than on boring things like good people showing a bad guy a gun and encouraging the bad guy to go away quickly.

The lack of food kills. The lack of a gun can kill. Both are your natural human right-- which doesn't mean anyone is obligated to provide you with either one; they just have no right to prevent you from providing for yourself. Gun-banners are exactly as evil as those who would starve you to death to keep you safe from the very real dangers of food.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com