Do you have actual enemies? Yes, whether you know it or not. But do you hallucinate more enemies than you really have?
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Saturday, August 07, 2021
Enemies out of thin air
Do you have actual enemies? Yes, whether you know it or not. But do you hallucinate more enemies than you really have?
Friday, August 06, 2021
Thursday, August 05, 2021
Is housing a human right?
Lots of noise is being made over the claim that housing is a human right. Is it?
Well, yes. But not in the way it is being presented. Those who don't understand what a right is get confused over things like this.
You have the right to provide yourself with housing. This just means no one has the right to forbid it, as long as you are housing yourself in a way that doesn't violate their life, liberty, or property.
No one has the right to impose building codes or to impose "zoning" that would prevent you from housing yourself.
You are responsible for making sure your house doesn't collapse on top of you. If it does, you probably built a house that was beyond your skill level. Maybe you shouldn't do that.
"Taxation" makes it harder to house yourself, and is therefore something no one has a "right" to do.
But no one is obligated to provide you with housing at their expense. You don't have a right to trespass on someone else's property. You don't have the right to live in someone else's house without paying them the amount of money you have mutually agreed upon. You don't have a right to the type of housing you'd prefer if you can't provide it for yourself.
So, if by claiming "housing is a human right" you are imagining it's OK to force someone to house another against their will, you're showing you don't understand rights. You may be a socialistic statist.
Wednesday, August 04, 2021
Kitten update
![]() |
Playing with his toy |
For those who might care, the rescue kitten is getting stronger. He's got a good appetite and is playful; he has a sweet personality.
He still has a respiratory problem and his eyes are still gooey, but he can open his eyes now.
I bathed him and have washed his face to help get the crust off, but it's stuck on there pretty good.
I've been using some rather old injectable penicillin, but am having my doubts that it is still good. I've ordered something fresh.
He has probably doubled in weight since Sunday. Still feels bony, though. I should have weighed him to begin with.
He deserves a chance and I'm doing what I can to give him one.
Tuesday, August 03, 2021
Beware those who want to enslave
![]() |
Anyone! |
People who don't believe in rights usually seem to have ulterior motives. They want to do things to you without seeing themselves as the bad guy. If they can say rights don't exist, it's easier to justify enslaving you.
Standing right beside them are those who imagine they have a right to do things no one can have a right to do.
That one gem of a human I was arguing with is a prime example. Some of her supporters may even be worse.
She wants to choose her own rights-- including the "right" to use government violence to prevent you from having guns.
She thinks my idea of rights only applies to "straight, white, males" no matter how clearly I've explained that that isn't the case at all.
I believe gay transgendered married multi-racial trios of independent migrants should defend their marijuana crops with full-auto rifles because no one has the "right" to forbid it. That "no one has the 'right' to forbid it" is the only thing that matters where rights are concerned.
She and her followers keep harping on the same claim, both are saying rights don't exist, that they only exist for "rich white men"-- and she thinks "minorities and women" should get to v*te on "new" rights they might like-- "rights" which would negate actual human rights. But what other rights would anyone need? The "right" to enslave? It's nuts.
Monday, August 02, 2021
The dangers of taking a walk
Every day I take a walk. Yesterday morning during my walk a sick, starving kitten found me and started following me, crying for help. I tried to harden myself and just walk away; I can't afford any new expenses.
But I couldn't.
I realize this was a stupid thing for me to do. I'm a sucker.
It's probably a hopeless case. It has a respiratory infection, eye infections, and is just skin and bones. I've seen friends lose kittens who were in better shape. I can't afford a vet visit. But I've set it up for comfort and am giving it kitten formula and soft food. I've also given it subcutaneous fluids, ophthalmic ointment, and antibiotic injections.
In spite of my daughter's begging, I absolutely can't afford another cat, so if it survives I'll have to find a home for it.
I don't want my cats to get sick from exposure, so I'm doing all I can to keep things clean. Keeping the kitten out on the protected porch. Washing and sterilizing my hands and anything I touch. At least I have lots of alcohol and anti-microbial wipes on hand.
Life...
Sunday, August 01, 2021
Government wrong tool for society
Enemies? Or just problems to solve?
I try to keep in mind that my enemy isn't people so much as a way some people behave-- anyone can behave in that way under certain conditions. If you archate, it doesn't matter what you call yourself-- you are the enemy of liberty, society, and responsibility, which makes you an enemy of mine.
Saturday, July 31, 2021
Justifying the state
Recently I ran across a statist's justifications for political government, "...to secure America's borders from invasion and to protect the freedoms of the citizenry." His claim was that this was the totality of the legitimate justifications for government to exist. Sounds like he just wants a big daddy.
Even supposing his claim were true-- and it can't be-- if an institution can't do what it has to do in order to justify its existence, it's time to scrap it.
There's just so much wrong with his claim.
The real enemy is inside America's "borders". Any threat from outside pales in comparison. A big part of the reason is that invaders would be shot by their intended victims in defense of life, liberty, and property, while internal enemies are apparently largely immune.
To "secure America's borders" is to make a continent-spanning concentration camp. Fences work in both directions, you know. And governments are more interested in keeping you in-- to be milked your whole life-- than in keeping others out.
Governments never protect freedoms in any meaningful way. Sure they protect easy freedoms, but never do they rise to the challenge of protecting liberty, because governments are the only real threat to your liberty. Who else could threaten it like they do?
"The citizenry" is a polite euphemism for government property-- slaves. You may not see yourself that way, but government certainly does. They believe you belong to them. That's why they insist it's OK to disarm you, to "tax" you, to vaccinate you, to censor you (through their co-conspirators in "social media" corporations, if necessary), and to punish those who speak the truth.
Any government strong enough "to secure America's borders from invasion and to protect the freedoms of the citizenry", regardless of whether they actually do either, is too strong to allow you to exercise your liberty.
Only a delusional statist could believe the load that guy wrote to justify political government.
And other people have other equally delusional justifications for government: to provide a
"social safety net", to redistribute stolen money, to impose equity, to take away scary tools, and to otherwise be a big mommy.
Either way, it's a giant pile. Don't let people like that trick you into going along with them.
Friday, July 30, 2021
That's not fear
It's odd how everything related to dislike, or even just a preference that doesn't include something, has been relabeled as "fear".
If you dislike injections, it's not just a dislike for needles, it's called a "fear of needles".
And if you don't see the need for a "vaccine", so you decide not to get it, people will declare you suffer from a "fear of the vaccine".
If you don't want to participate in certain things, it's called "homophobia" or "transphobia" (the accurate definitions of those words would be "fear of the same" and "fear of crossing/beyond").
If you distrust political government, you don't necessarily fear it. You might just dislike (or hate) it. You might also fear it, but while that may be related, it's not the same thing.
If you don't like vanilla ice cream-- if it's just not your favorite flavor-- does this expose your "fear of ice cream"? Or of vanilla?
I don't like watermelon; am I Cucurbitaceaeophobic? No. That's all just dumb.
You can dislike, or just not love, something without being afraid of it.
Understand, I'm not even talking about using force to stop others from doing anything. Just a personal preference that doesn't include certain things. No fear.
But "fear", or better yet-- "phobia", is catchy. It makes something sound like a mental problem when it may only be a preference. Some over-the-top hatred might be a mental problem, but hatred isn't fear or a phobia.
Why are these words used in this dishonest way? Well, those who screw with the words that are used can screw with your mind. Why might they be doing this to you? Are they afraid of letting you think honestly?
Thursday, July 29, 2021
Anti-gun bigots are just bigots
It shouldn't surprise anyone that anti-gun bigots are also bigoted in other ways. But sometimes the depth of their bigotry surprises me anyway.
Tuesday, July 27, 2021
Chasing shadows
It seems to me that it's human nature to hallucinate enemies.
I'm sure I'm susceptible to the same thing. I am human, after all.
One of the most common demonstrations of this I see is all the anti-gun bigots hating the NRA. They act as though all guns come from the NRA. As though it is the only reason all the anti-gun legislation they dream of isn't reality. They imagine the NRA wants mass murder and dead children. They pretend that opposing the NRA means they are on the good side.
When I explain that this is far from the truth, that the NRA is wishy-washy on gun-owner rights and has long been an advocate of anti-gun legislation, they usually attack me, personally. And then retreat into their hallucination again. It's completely predictable.
I've long said the best thing about the NRA is the way it makes the anti-gun bigots lose their minds. It also keeps them focused on the wrong thing; chasing shadows instead of going after the real rights advocates. As long as they hallucinate an enemy in the NRA, those actually fighting for gun-owner rights will have fewer rocks thrown at them. That's a good thing for gun-owner rights and for society.
Monday, July 26, 2021
Why support cops?
Why do so many people have blind spots where cops are concerned? Even otherwise liberty-loving people. I don't get it at all.
One guy told me he thinks cops "fight bad dudes" so he doesn't have to. Such as when a woman gets beaten by her husband, instead of her having to confront the evil loser on her own, she can call the cops and let them do it.
Sounds cute if that were reality.
He's ignoring the fact that that abuser has a high likelihood of being a cop or "cop adjacent".
I have no problem with someone calling for rescue-- I do have a problem with those rescuers being a monopoly that everyone is forced to fund.
I also have a problem with that gang of "rescuers" not being held accountable when they show up and kill the person who called for help. A local woman experienced this, but she survived. The cop was a bad shot and only wounded her in the shoulder when he showed up to save her from an intruder he didn't find.
Also, why does it have to be the cops she calls? Because that's how the rules the cops established and enforce are set up. If she does what she has a natural human right to do, the cops will most likely kidnap and cage her until the government courts decide how much to punish her.
Others have told me it's because they are helpless and can't defend themselves. Not in those exact words, of course, but that's what they were getting at.
Still, others support cops because they are cowards. Sorry, but it's important to call things what they are. And if you're afraid to defend your own life, liberty, or property...
Cops are bad guys who sometimes accidentally do good, but more often either do bad or enable others to do bad. They are unnecessary and are harmful to society. Don't ever support or excuse them and pretend it's about supporting liberty.
Sunday, July 25, 2021
You're only responsible for yourself
Don't cooperate with the slavers
A few days ago I pointed out that using democracy to defend yourself from the vampire of The State is counterproductive. You may or may not agree, but what else is there to do?
Plenty.
One of the best things I've read recently was "Be ungovernable" by Isaac Morehouse. I think his suggestions have merit.
It's along the lines of "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.", by Etienne de la Boétie, but with more flair.
I resolve to be ungovernable while refusing to support the tyrant.
Saturday, July 24, 2021
War or "peace"?
I don't want war. I'd always prefer to avoid killing and violence whenever possible. But I also know that the "peace" of the compliant slave isn't something I want, either. Some people seem to think it has to be one or the other. I hope it doesn't, but if it does... well, I'm not cut out for complaint slavery, even if I doubt I would survive war. I'm just not mean enough.
Friday, July 23, 2021
"Liberty" and "freedom" are not synonyms-- neither are "morality" and "ethics". nor "violence" and "aggression". But convincing people they are is useful for those who want to control how and what you think. Don't use the definitions that play into your enemies' hands.
Democracy-- A stake through the heart of tyranny?
I have no love for democracy. But I understand its appeal.
Those who advocate democracy seem to see it like garlic, a crucifix, and a wooden stake to be used against the vampire of political government ("the state"). They seem to believe it's their only hope of defending themselves from being trampled by political interests.
But it doesn't work. Instead, it makes the problem worse.
First of all, the reason garlic, crucifixes, and stakes "work" is that ("human") vampires are imaginary. They can't hurt you even if you don't defend yourself against them. As long as you don't initiate force against a non-vampire with those weapons, you haven't done anything wrong.
Government, as the entity most people imagine when they picture it, is also imaginary. But to use democracy to defend yourself from government is to become the problem you fear. You bring your enemy to life.
The bad thing in most folklore about being bitten by a vampire is that you'll become a vampire, yourself.
Trying to defend yourself from an imaginary thing called "government" by doing the very things government does-- by trying to govern someone other than your own, individual self through a majority v*te-- is like trying to defend yourself from vampires by attacking innocent people and drinking their blood. This is not defense, but is something no one has the right to do.
Instead of defending yourself from the vampire of government, you're just offering yourself to that vampire by becoming a vampire. You've done the vampire's work for it.