The solution to crime isn't police-- it's to stop allowing police to make people helpless victims. Who else do you imagine enforces anti-defense legislation? "Abolish the police"-- if done right-- is an acknowledgment of this truth. Abolish the police and abolish anti-gun, anti-defense rules. The problem of crime is solved, if you let it be.

Fear doesn't figure into it

I'm not scared of the coronavirus disease, Covid-19. Almost everyone in my family had it and they all recovered, regardless of how many comorbidities they had. And some of them had a lot of comorbidities. Only one of them developed any "long-haul" issues, but those cleared up without any apparent residual harm after about 6 months. So being scared of Covid, in my case, would be silly. I'm just not.

Nor am I scared of the Covid-19 "vaccines" (or experimental, rushed-through injections). Most of the people in my family-- including, oddly enough, those who had already had Covid-- got the injections and didn't have reactions that were too awful. Just flu-like symptoms in a couple of cases, and pain in the rest. Nothing to fear, and coincidentally, not much different than the disease, itself. 

It's yet to be seen whether they'll turn into obedient zombies when triggered by the State through the "vaccines", like in the book Divergent. I'm betting against it (although I don't doubt some political criminals would love for this technology to be available).

As far as I know, I never had Covid-- I never took any test. I haven't gotten any "vaccine", either.

I dislike injections and avoid them unless I see a real reason for them. But I'm not scared of them. And in this case, I see no real reason to get one (or two-- or one every year). I would have to be afraid of Covid to think an injection is necessary, but I'm not.

I'm not fearless. There are things I am scared of. Large, aggressive dogs for example. And heights. So I know what fear is and I know when I'm experiencing it. Covid, and the "vaccines" for it, don't cause any fear in me. None. Fear just wasn't ever part of the equation.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Look toward cryptocurrency's future

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 16, 2021)

It seems nearly everyone is talking about Bitcoin and Dogecoin, as well as the thousands of other cryptocurrencies, these days.

Cryptocurrency is seen as a tool for financial freedom and privacy, as a way to hide profits from crime, and as a way to gamble and get rich (or go broke) quick.

Depending on how it's used, it can be all those things and more.

The prices of cryptocurrencies, as measured against government fiat currency like the US dollar, rise and fall, often based on nothing more than a comment from Elon Musk.

Some worry that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies aren't based on anything. Why do they imagine this is different than modern government money? The only reason a dollar has any value is because people imagine it does, based on the US government's promise to keep stealing from productive people far into the future.

Governments generally fear cryptocurrency and most want to regulate it. They frame this as "protection" for the people, but if that's part of the story, it's a small part. Mostly they want to tax it and stop it from freeing you from their control of the money supply. If you have alternative money, their inflationary schemes don't work as well for them and their cronies. They see this as a problem; I see it as freedom.

I don't believe governments will ever be able to control all cryptocurrency. They will keep trying and will have some limited successes which they'll publicize to try to scare you away from it.

If you want to try it, please diversify. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Not only should you get several different cryptocurrencies, but get some physical gold and silver, too, and even some of those US dollars. Realize, though, the dollars will continue to lose value due to the Federal Reserve's irresponsibility.

Recently there was some concern that Bitcoin is a climate disaster in the making, taking too much energy to create and trade. This ignores the environmental impact of creating and using dollars, or even silver and gold and barter, too. Everything has a cost. Accept this reality and make your choice.

I don't know what's in the short-term future for cryptocurrency. In the long term, I think it will replace government fiat money. Money of some kind will continue to be useful for trade. You should be able to decide what money you use.

(A reader didn't like this one and let me know.)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

How Things (fail to) Work

It seems many-- if not most-- people have hypotheses of How Things Work that depend on everyone being evil idiots... except when they have political power. In that case, they are necessary and society can't function without them.

Mmhmm. Sure.

These people never seem to notice how completely irrational and delusional this hypothesis truly is. And yet they'll lecture the rest of us to accept their diseased "reality". 

Usually, their main mistake is in defining every human interaction as "politics" when that's simply not the case. Only the unethical "win/lose" interactions are political, the rest aren't. And those political interactions aren't essential to society-- in fact, they are inimical to it; they are the opposite of social interactions. Politics is antisocial.

Are you going to be schooled on how to live among others by people who imagine everything is political, and that's not a bad thing? I will not.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"Fact checkers say..."

I'm cynical, but when I see anything prefaced with "Fact checkers say..." I take that to mean what follows is probably a lie. And probably one told to harm life, liberty, or property in some massive way.

There may be nothing they could do to stifle the opinions of others that would make me more suspicious. It's on the order of "Government experts claim...". 

I've seen some of the things "fact checkers" say. They'll take a tweet or story about someone's doubt, and they'll "check" things that were not a part of the piece they want you to be suspicious of. It's as though they are hoping you can't tell they've baited and switched, but will see the warning and that will be enough to convince you the writer has no credibility without looking into it.

Of course, sometimes it backfires on them.

The tweet at the top of this post was posted well before the "fact checkers say" lie hit social media. So, that's not the specific warning they applied to this one, but it didn't really work out well for TPTB. This tweet is still being shared on a massive scale. If the clowns at Twutter had ignored it, it would have been quickly forgotten. But that's not how it turned out. It's probably on course to become the most retweeted tweet ever, even though you have to jump through hoops to retweet it.

And, if you'll notice, the clowns of Twutter, after claiming that the tweet is "misleading" (it's not), want you to follow their link to "learn more about how vaccines work" even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the tweet. They can't even criticize it honestly.

I see the same sorts of things happen with any skepticism concerning the most recent president selection, too. "Fact checkers say" all sorts of things that are demonstrably not true, and usually have little or nothing to do with the information they don't want you to know.

When you see "fact checkers say" you can probably ignore what comes after. It's most likely going to be an authoritarian lie. At least, if you see that preface, take anything after it with a grain of salt.

(It's probably a coincidence, but as I was trying to post this I suddenly started getting a warning that the "update failed"-- it wouldn't auto-save. That hasn't ever happened, other than a momentary glitch. But this time, it kept going on this way for a long time, over and over. It's enough to make a person suspicious.)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"That's too far!"

Is there anything government could do that would make statists, government-supremacists, or just the average person who wants to believe government is necessary or good, say "That's too far!"? I have growing doubts.

I think they'd either deny it's even happening at all-- it's "fake news"-- or they'd claim it's being misinterpreted, or they'd find a way to justify it.

That's the difference between you and me and them. If government does something right, I'm able to say, and I believe you could, too, "Government did a good thing" and still say that doing a "good thing" using politics is unethical. I mean, even mass murderers can sometimes do something right, and they should be acknowledged when they do.

This is a level of awareness or honesty I just don't see from government's supporters.

I don't think government supporters are rational. I think they are able to fake rationality pretty well in some cases, but their superstition eventually trips them up.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Freedom is subjective; liberty is objective.

Liberty is great, promoting it is hard

To keep promoting liberty is hard work. It's not popular and is mostly thankless (there are greatly appreciated exceptions, though). In the 20 years since I first got online, many of the writers I have paid attention to have stopped writing. Some died, others just vanished. Did they get burned out? Did they say everything they had to say? One, Claire Wolfe, has cut back quite a bit on posting, but I'm glad she's still around. Others who didn't stop writing found more popular bandwagons to hop on.

One actually started advocating communism, maybe he was trolling but if so, I didn't stay around long enough to find out. 

Others got distracted and started promoting Trump or became obsessive anti-Trumpers-- either course made them lose credibility in my eyes and I stopped paying attention. Some went nationalist. Promoting any brand of authoritarianism just isn't going to fly. Yeah, I understand it's pragmatic.

"Social Justice" collectivism seduced a few more. I think that's an easy way for liberty advocates to feel more popular since it can be spun in a way that looks like supporting individual rights, even when it isn't.

But, whatever the reason, when I look back at who I was reading and learning from at the beginning of my online journey, most of them are gone now. Either actually gone, or gone from my sphere. Just like I am gone from the sphere of others who believe I parted ways with them over one issue or another. It happens. Views evolve. 

I have to stay true to myself and my interpretation of liberty. Wherever that takes me. I do a self-evaluation pretty often to see where I stand with regards to individual liberty-- to see if I think I'm going off track, and nudge myself back on course when I need it. Sometimes I get that nudge from others.

It might be nice, in a way, to find something more popular to focus on. I'm sure it would pay better. But I just can't put that much effort into trivial things that I see as passing fads. At least, even though this is hard work, it's worth it to me.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

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.