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?

People who wouldn't otherwise have "enough" enemies-- or who want to pretend their real enemies aren't enemies-- often hallucinate enemies. Then by treating those chosen people as enemies, they make them into real enemies.

These days, "The Unvaxxed" and "The Maskless" are popular targets to make into enemies, as are gun owners.

Yes, there are people out there doing wrong. You have real enemies; people seeking to violate you (and others). Most use legislation, others are more freelance about it. No need to hallucinate more of them, just because you don't take the real ones seriously.

-

Now would be a good time to help support KentForLiberty.com

Friday, August 06, 2021

Conservatives are wishy-washy on rights and liberty because they love punishment so much.

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.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

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.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Tuesday, August 03, 2021

Is democracy the greatest threat to human rights?

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.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

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...

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Sunday, August 01, 2021

Government wrong tool for society

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 30, 2021)




You are smart enough to know a hammer is the wrong tool for driving a screw. Yes, It can work in an emergency, but it isn't best and can cause future problems. Either use a screwdriver for the screw or find a nail for the hammer.

In the same way, government is the wrong tool for solving society's problems. It might appear to work, but you'd do better to find the right tool for the job. A social tool, not an antisocial tool.

Politics is antisocial. Someone only wins by making someone else lose. A social solution, though, is always win/win. At best, politics means you've fixed something by shuffling problems around. At worst, you solved nothing and created new, bigger problems in the process-- think of the examples of drug prohibition and anti-gun legislation.

Crime, homelessness, pandemics, etc. can all be addressed by finding voluntary solutions rather than non-consensual schemes. You also have to accept that some things can't be solved by any means; you just find ways to deal with them. Ways which don't make things worse by violating anyone's rights.

If you believe the only way to fix a problem is to steal, through taxation, the funds your project needs, and to threaten or attack people with legislation to make them cooperate with your plan, you've become as big a problem as the one you sought to solve. You solved nothing; you only replaced one problem with another problem you created. This isn't a net gain.

I have seen liberty work every time it is put to the test. Not "tried" in a weak, piecemeal sense, but fully embraced. The fears dreamed up as an excuse for violating liberty didn't come to pass. They never will.

Remember, liberty doesn't mean doing whatever you want, but doing whatever doesn't actually violate anyone else, regardless of how others may feel about what you're doing. Liberty is freedom tempered with responsibility, and your primary responsibility is to not violate the equal and identical rights of others. It's simple, but hard for people to grasp when they'd rather not understand.

Liberty, in every situation, provides the best possible tools. This is because it's not a single tool, but a complete tool set along with a machine for making new tools which never existed before; tools you didn't know you needed. No, it isn't perfect. Nothing is. It's still a far cry better than the alternative.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

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. 

But you can stop acting that way and you can be forgiven. 

Evil is an action, not a person. (Although, if a person consistently chooses evil behavior, labeling that person as evil is helpful shorthand.) 

Someone doesn't need to be evil to be subject to self-defense; they only need to be committing an act of archation-- acting in an evil way-- where the best choice at the moment seems to be using force to stop them. 

It's not personal, it's necessary. They aren't an enemy, they are just a problem. No need to imagine they are more than they are.

-

Please donate or subscribe to support KentForLiberty.com


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.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

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?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Thursday, July 29, 2021

It's amazing... the amount of effort the Universe is willing to put in-- just short of turning the laws of physics inside-out-- to make sure I don't make money. It's hard not to take it personally.

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.

This one bigot just kept heaping her bigotries on top of each other (see for yourself if you're interested).

She said. "You oppose all gun safety laws? Mass murderers, domestic terrorists, insurrectionists, criminals, felons, those in mental health crisis, domestic abusers, non-citizens, and mass murderers all salute and thank you.

That's a lot of bigotry packed into one tweet.

Before looking at all her bigotry, look at her dishonesty. Want to bet she's a BlueAnon nut who believes there was an insurrection back in January

Of course, "gun safety" is a lie. Guns don't need to be protected from anyone but politicians, and the only real way to do that is with more guns. I suppose she dishonestly means safety "from guns". I'm surrounded by guns and unless someone touches one of them in an unsafe manner, they pose no threat to me. I'm not afraid of them, not even a little bit. And the best way to protect myself from bad guys with guns is with guns. Even those who imagine police are there to protect them would be out of luck if the cops showed up to face (other) bad guys without guns. She's not worried about safety, she just wants to make sure no one can effectively defend themselves from her favorite bad guys-- whichever sort they might be.

Notice she mentioned mass murderers twice. Yet, anti-gun bigots are the biggest cheerleaders for mass murderers, salivating over the chance to offer them unarmed victims to their heart's content, so it's telling that she repeats herself.

Oh, but she doesn't stop there.  This is when her bigotry rears its head. 

"Criminals"? "Felons"? I guarantee you she has committed crimes. There's no way not to in today's police state. But not all criminals or felons committed acts of archation, much less acts of aggression. Even if they did, that can't erase natural human rights, even though many pretend it does. To advocate violating the rights of "criminals" and "felons" is bigotry. 

She apparently doesn't even notice that she seems to be assuming "non-citizens" are automatically to be treated like criminals. Notice, she didn't even claim they were "illegal immigrants" [sic], just "non-citizens". If that's not toxic bigotry, what is? 

People in a mental health crisis might need to be defended against, but they still have all their rights intact. And, remember who gets to define "normal mental health". Do you trust them to make the right call? Even after the 2020 debacles?

She kept focusing, in various tweets, on "White males", too. I pointed out this racism, but she responded that "A white woman mocking white men is not racist, it’s sport. (Sexist perhaps)." So she almost accepted her bigotry in one case. Of course, she also posted a meme hinting at the size of gun owners' "virile" (?).

Later, after I linked to my explanation of what rights are-- because she asked-- she wanted to know "Did God make that list? Old white men? Asking for minorities and women.". You can go back and read what I wrote about rights at that link and see where it excludes anyone. She can't even see how bigoted her assumptions are.

Even after all her bigotry, she claimed I have "liberal anxiety" when she's the one advocating fascistic legislation. Delusional to the end.

She's like a parody of all the anti-gun bigots' bigotry, ignorance, and dishonesty rolled into one bitter little pill. But she's a hilarious inspiration.


-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

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.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

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.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Sunday, July 25, 2021

You're only responsible for yourself

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 23, 2021)




You are responsible for yourself. No one else can be as responsible for yourself as you are, nor can you ever be completely responsible for anyone but yourself. Please do your best in the case of babies and others who are totally helpless, though.

When your own responsibility fails-- and all of us have been there-- you can ask others for help. Friends, family, and charity are there to fill the gap when you fail to be as responsible as you should have been. The non-consensual institution of political government is also there for you to lean on, but this only creates more irresponsibility.

If you won't be responsible, no one else can force it on you. Not governments and their legislation, nor churches and their morals. No matter how hard they try, they're going to fail. It's up to you.

While you are responsible for everything you do, some people will try to convince you of a responsibility to do things which aren't your responsibility. This is one of the biggest tricks government plays on you.

This kind of person will make up an imaginary responsibility-- one which advances their agenda at your expense-- and try to convince you it's real. They will try to shame you for not doing what they want.

Among the false responsibilities which will be imposed on you is to "pay your fair share" in taxes for things you don't want and probably don't need. Just because someone else imagines it's a good idea.

You are also told to follow illegitimate orders which will harm someone; if you don't, you'll be called irresponsible.

A fake "social contract" is a great weapon to use to shut down rational thought and create imaginary responsibilities out of thin air.

You are responsible for not violating the life, liberty, or property of any other person. All your real responsibilities grow from this root.

You are responsible for supporting yourself, because if you don't, someone else may be forced to support you against their will. This violates their property rights.

You are responsible for keeping your nose out of other people's business, as long as they aren't harming anyone; to do otherwise violates their liberty.

As long as you have a conscience and can see the consequences of your actions, you'll know when you are being responsible and when you aren't.

Don't violate others. This is the foundation of responsibility. Anything less is irresponsible.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

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.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

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.

Personally, I suspect it is past "Claire Wolfe time". I think the window of opportunity has closed-- at least to where it's no longer possible to "STB" without it turning into a full-fledged war. In an earlier time, maybe it would have been possible to "STB" in surgical strikes. There weren't as many, and the obvious bad guys were pretty... obvious... to the normal person who wasn't a political shill. ("Political shills" include anyone who imagines FDR did anything other than prolong the Great Depression. And don't forget Wilson. Ugh.) Now, it's a huge hive of bad guys-- including their army of enforcers-- compared to back then. 

They are still few, compared to the rest of us, but they have the illusion of legitimacy fooling most of our neighbors. That might make up for anything they lack in numbers. 

I don't think they'll ever leave us alone to live in peace as long as they are among us. They crave more control than that. To leave some of us alone would demonstrate how unnecessary they really are. They can't let that happen. I think they'll be compelled to keep pushing and pushing until something snaps.

I think they'll probably end up defeating themselves whatever else happens. If we let them and stop pretending they are anything other than the criminals they are. That means stop pretending they are in any way legitimate; that political government has any legitimacy.

Obviously, if they do what Biden (and other political criminals) suggested, and use nuclear weapons against the people, in America, they've lost no matter how many of their opponents they kill. They're just done. At that point, no one has anything to lose by resisting.

Those who wring their hands over anyone who suggests that war isn't necessarily worse than the alternative might not be wrong, but I don't think they are 100% right. And it just feels like something is coming. Maybe it's just due to the general negative feeling I've had recently. I hope it's a false alarm. 

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

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.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com