Supposedly, New Mexico is back to mandating masks indoors. I went to a few stores today and didn't wear a mask, was never asked to put on a mask, and I saw other maskless people (maybe 25%). I think the Branch Covidians are finished.

Legislation's result

Those who say "there oughta be a law", concerning anything, must LOVE outlaws. What else could explain their drive to make more and more of them?

Every "law" creates an outlaw. Or millions of them.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"Anarchy, like communism, fails in practice"

"Conservatives" like to pull some statement of this sort out of somewhere dark and musty: "Anarchy, like communism, sounds good on paper but fails in practice."

Really?

I've never seen anarchy fail when it is followed. Not once. Of course, it's not a political system, and those who try to make it one will see it fail every time. It's like trying to use the family SUV to get to Mars. You're doing it wrong!

That's also why communism always fails when imposed as a political system. It might work OK as long as you don't try to make a government out of it-- keep it 100% voluntary and let anyone opt out at any time for any reason without punishing them. But once politics enters the picture, it's going to be bad, just like when politics is mixed into medicine/science or anything else-- nothing is left but politics. 

And why the pathetic attempt to always tie anarchy and political communism together? Might it be due to government school indoctrination? I'm sure it is.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

It's up to you, every day

In the old Twitter thread with the anti-gun bigot I've talked about several times, a pro-gun, but also pro-cop, "conservative" justified his support for police (and legislation) by saying, "I don’t want to have to protect my life & stuff *every* day."

Well, sorry Bub, but that's just how reality works.

Cops aren't there to protect you or your stuff. They are there to make a report after you've been violated and kidnap your violator if your violator happens to fall into their lap. Protecting you or your stuff isn't their "job". It is your job and it always has been and always will be. Always. Your wishful thinking and bootlicking doesn't change it.

In fact, cops steal more than freelance thieves now, and have for several years. Are these really the people you think protect you?

Things like that are why I can't be a "conservative".

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Kitten update #4

Whiskers finally got in to see the vet today. The news is mixed.

He still has an ulcerated cornea in his right eye. They gave me a new ointment to try to get that healed. If it's unsuccessful he may have to have that eye removed. I'm hoping the ointment works.

He also has an umbilical hernia (I had felt it but thought other issues were more important) that they say they will repair when he goes in for his neutering.

Other than that, he seems in pretty good health. He's making friends/chasing the other cats and my daughter is just in love with him. So much kittenergy!

He'll still have a few more vet appointments in the near future, though.

-

Due to the upcoming appointments and procedures, I am starting a GoFundMe, but since you've already donated to help, just share it if you care to. 

It's long past time for the U.S. to withdraw its forces from the rest of the countries it occupies. Including, and especially, America.

The good kind of progress

The nearest "PlastiCrap World" store, over in New Mexico, got rid of its anti-gun signage recently, replacing it (after a month or so) with signs saying "Kindly refrain from openly carrying a firearm".

That's progress I fully support. I'm always more willing to accommodate a polite request than a rude demand.

I wish I believed it had something to do with me calling them out in my newspaper columns-- over and over through the years-- for being designated slaughter zones, but I don't. Whatever their reasons, it's a good move.

Yes, I think it's still silly to reject open carry by others, for many reasons, but at least they are no longer demanding you be target practice for evil losers who ignore signs.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

If the (less than optimal) use of antibiotics can cause antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains, then the use of low-efficacy Covid-19 "vaccines" can cause new Covid variants. It's the same process. Any claim otherwise is a lie.

If it fails as soon as you stop propping it up with massive amounts of (stolen) money and hired goons, it was always a failure. Whether it is a political government in Afghanistan or a communist utopia.

"The Simulation": A useless idea?

I hear a lot of talk about "The Simulation". 

If we live in a simulation, but it's not possible to "hack" the simulation to get the outcome you'd prefer without going through the same steps you'd have to go through if you didn't live in a simulation, then of what use is the idea? None. It's utterly useless.

If this isn't a simulation, to have success you have to have the right idea at the right time, put in lots of work (in just the right way), and also be very lucky.

If this is a simulation you have to do the exact same thing to achieve success. There's no hidden button you can discover and push to hack the system without doing all the work. Even those who imagine there is a "hack" they've found seem to be fooling themselves about how much work (and luck) goes into the results they see.

So, either way, would it make any difference whether or not we live in a simulation? A difference which makes no difference is no difference.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Legislative damage takes time to undo

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 14, 2021)

Why are legislative messes so quick to be made but so slow to be removed once in place? After they are shown to move society further from the goal used to justify them, they should be immediately reversed.

If politicians can hide their mistakes without admitting or reversing them-- and get away with it-- that's what they'll do.

At most, cleaning up these messes is done piece by piece, as though searching for a way to keep as much of the mistake around for as long as possible.

Even the failed scheme of alcohol prohibition is still around; handed off to local governments, rather than completely reversed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. Governments are still allowed to get away with unconstitutional restrictions, taxes, and enforcement powers. The ghost of alcohol prohibition still haunts America. It's why there are still "dry counties", liquor licenses, and Sunday alcohol sales bans. If it's wrong when done by the federal government, it's still wrong when done locally.

It's happening again with drug prohibition. It hit society all at once-- not coincidentally just as the federal government was looking for excuses to keep employing all the useless prohibition enforcers-- but only gets removed a little at a time, state by state. Never enough to stop the prohibition-fueled violence.

Maybe it's finally moving in the right general direction, but replacing the eased prohibitions with prohibitions on new things-- vaping for example-- isn't a net gain. Government has never had any business being involved with what people voluntarily consume.

It's the same story with gun prohibition. Sure, more states than ever have passed watered-down relief for the rights violations, dishonestly calling it "Constitutional carry" when the Constitution allows no exceptions whatsoever, but other states and the federal government keep looking for new ways to enslave Americans on the perverse altar of "public safety".

It's said people get what they vote for, but most people either voted for the opposite or didn't vote at all. They shouldn't be shackled with the bad ideas other people supported. Those who vote for something should be the only ones who have to live under it; let everyone else be exempt.

Liberty must be restored, in every case where it has been criminalized and regulated with legislation. No matter what excuses are used to keep violating natural human rights-- even those rights you care nothing about-- it needs to be stopped.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Encounter at the thrift store

I was in a thrift store this weekend and an older guy with a little "service" dog approached me with some mystery kitchen appliance and wanted to know if I knew what it was. I didn't, but I looked up the answer on my phone. He thanked me, then, out of nowhere as I was turning to leave, asked if I'm a Democrat. 

I guess he doesn't read my newspaper columns.

I said, "No, I'm a libertarian so I don't believe in any of that government stuff."

He appeared shocked. He said he likes government because it does things for us and gives us stuff. I said, "Yeah, paid for with money stolen from us, after they skim their cut off the top. I'd rather they just go away. I don't need them."

Then it happened. I've never gotten the "But who would build the roads?" question in real life, but he actually asked in those exact words.

I said, "Don't you think businesses would build roads so you could get to them and spend money?"

He said "Well, they might, but why would they build roads to...?"...and he paused. I saw the wheels turning. He said, "Oh, I guess the roads would have to go everywhere or it wouldn't work..."

I mean, has he never actually thought any of this through?

So, he suddenly changed course and started asking if I'd had the "vaccine". Normally, I wouldn't even answer such a question, but this guy was fun, so I said "No, I decided against getting the rushed-through Trump vaccine". Again, he looked like a deer-in-the-headlights. 

He finally found his voice and said, "Well, the vaccine was the right thing for Trump to do, but anyone would have known that and done the same thing and everyone knew it could be done fast." Strange, I remember hearing the opposite: that a vaccine would take years, and Trump was lying when he said it could be developed quicker. But memory is easy to re-write.

He started telling me how many thousands of people are dying because they won't get the vaccines. I said, "Why would I believe those numbers? Or anything government sources claim?" He said "But government... but why... You don't believe them?" Could he finally be getting the picture?

So then he asked, "You didn't support Trump, either?" I said, "No. Like I said, I don't support any of that".

I left him there pondering and mumbling to the air (honestly, it sounded like he was trying to reassure himself) and I went on about my business.

I was later told that local businesses don't like him because his little dog poops in the stores and he won't clean up the mess. Why was I not surprised?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Kitten update #3

Whiskers is finally healthy. His right eye (cornea) still has some healing to do, but it's no longer infected. The cough is gone and there's no more rattle in his chest. There's no excessive sneezing.

He has also transitioned into being an indoor cat, thanks to monsoon rains over the last couple of days. He's meeting the other cats, who are suspicious, but not hostile. There is lots of supervision when they check each other out.

He is extremely playful and energetic, as healthy kittens tend to be.

His life is good. So much better than when I stumbled across his sick, starving body nearly 2 weeks ago. Thank you to those who helped me help him.

I appreciate the donations toward his care and the concern shown toward his well-being.

Chasing the ball. Where did it go?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"'Your child will wait for another child to die.' Amid Covid-19 surge, Dallas County has no pediatric ICU beds left, county judge says." ~ Thus sayeth CNN

How many children actually die of Covid? Or even get put into the pediatric ICU due to Covid? And do none of them in the ICU recover? If not, why does it matter whether a child gets a spot in the pre-morgue? Politics makes people stupid.

Believing in the state's magic

I know there are those who hold out hope by pointing out the state's illegitimate word games and whatnot. They are playing along.

"Legal" mumbo jumbo doesn't change reality. 

Yes, government supremacists like to pretend it does; they want you to believe in their state magic. It's statist wishful thinking.

The United States doesn't own you no matter what, not even if it is a corporation named THE UNITED STATES.
It doesn't matter how your name is written on documents.
It doesn't matter about the legal definition of "person".
It doesn't matter if a flag has yellow fringe.
None of that makes an iota of difference in reality or with your natural human rights, even if states believe it does. 

Don't buy into the lies they want you to buy. You're doing their work for them if you do. None of their legalistic stuff makes you their property. None of it alters your natural human rights. Let them play their word games. If some other state plays along, that's on them. They are the fools.

You are sovereign. Act like it.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Arnold Schwarzenegger says "...screw your freedom. Because with freedom comes obligations and responsibilities". Sounds like he doesn't understand the difference between freedom and liberty. I wonder if it would make any difference if he did. Yes, freedom can include things you have no right to do, but liberty doesn't, and he's advocating violating liberty-- something no one has a right to do. Screw your mandates, Arnold.

"Eek! Liberty?! Kill it before it spreads!"

As I've mentioned, I am right on the state line between Texas and New Mexico. NM recently legalized Cannabis (Texas gov says they never will). It's not yet legal to sell it, but it is legal to use it. Legislation is so incredibly stupid.

But, anyway...

Someone from Colorado wants to open a dispensary (why not just call it a store?) right on the NM side of the state line. The town council (of the NM town) is trying to make up new zoning rules, more strict than the already ridiculous state rules, to make sure it doesn't happen.

This is what angers me about statists. They just seem to hate liberty so much that they can't stand to see it threaten to happen.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

You don't need that!

An actual, although paraphrased for brevity, argument I saw recently for banning certain guns:

"You don't need an AR15. You can use a revolver to live out your white male self-defense fantasies if AR15s are banned*. No one should have to live in a society with semi-automatic assault rifles. Society has rules. If you don't want to live by society's rules, go live in the woods in a Ted Kaczynski cabin, you mouthbreather."

Yeah, I get it. You don't like guns.

And I don't like pit bulls. Probably at least as much as you don't like guns. I see no need for anyone to own one. I've known nice ones, but that doesn't mean some of them, when kept by certain people, aren't crazy dangerous. There are plenty of other breeds you could keep, right?

So, if I were as self-centered as you, I could claim:

"You don't need a pit bull. You can still have a Shih Tzu to live out your white male dog-owning fantasies if pit bulls are banned. No one should have to live in a society with pit bulls. Society has rules. If you don't want to live by society's rules, go live in the woods in a Ted Kaczynski cabin, you mouthbreather."

Except, that I would never make that argument. I am not so self-centered that I imagine I have any right to tell others what they are "allowed" to have. It doesn't matter how much I dislike (or fear) what you have. I'm just not ever going to do that.

Yes, if your gun or your pit bull harms someone (or if there is a credible threat they'll do so), you are fully accountable. You owe restitution-- maybe more than you can ever pay. But before that happens, your stuff is none of my business. 

Yes, society has rules, the primary one of which is "Don't violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else". Once you start deciding you can tell others what they don't need, you're violating that rule. You are being antisocial and uncivilized.

No one has the right to decide what other people need. You only need air, water, shelter, and food. You can live on Primate Chow in a sheltered cage with a dripping pipe. Anything else is a luxury. But only a monster would force you to live this way based on what they claim you don't need.

--

*At least until "Saturday Night Specials" are banned.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Hypothetically, I care about people... I promise

Is it bad that I seem to care more about a sick kitten than I do most people? Sometimes I think it is.

But, on the other hand, the kitten only cried for help. He didn't hold me at cop-point and threaten my life if I didn't help him. I'm more willing to help someone who isn't giving me an order; who isn't making threats.

Hypothetically, I care more about other humans than animals. But that hypothetical keeps running into reality-- people who advocate violating my life, liberty, and property either through freelance crime or through legislation. It's hard to care about people who demand I be sacrificed on their altar to selfishness.

However... I do care about other people, and caring about other people means it hurts me when others are violated. Never forget, advocating for the violation of one means advocating for the violation of all. 

If I didn't care about people, I wouldn't be a libertarian or an anarchist or a Voluntaryist or an abolitionist (whichever term floats your banana). But I am because I do care. Even when it's hard. Even when it doesn't show as clearly as it should.

PS: I sincerely thank the two readers who chipped in toward the kitten's expenses. It means a lot to me and to my daughter. It helps remind me that people are worth caring about.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Cori Bush got something right

I know you probably don't want to hear it, and I hate to have to say it, but sometimes a politician can be directionally correct.

Some people are criticizing Cori Bush, some politician from somewhere, over her support for defunding police while hiring her own private security. (Here's a link, but of course, it's from one of those fake news organizations, so take it all with a grain of salt: link)

If that were the whole story she'd have it exactly right. Shocking, I know!

Of course, being a politician, any money she spends on anything-- food, transportation, clothing, housing, or security-- is stolen money. If it weren't for institutional theft ("taxation") she wouldn't have the money to spend.

But, if she were not a politician she'd be doing it right.

Yes, the police must be defunded, dismantled, and disavowed. Then the "taxes" which would go to funding that gang need to be abolished, too. That money could then be used for whatever each individual wants, including security of some sort if that's what someone wants to spend it on. People could hire private security or buy a gun. They could even pool their resources-- through mutual consent with others who also want the "service" and are willing to chip in to pay for it-- to hire something superficially police-like (but without "qualified immunity" and such). I wouldn't chip in, but that's just me.

You can't legitimately justify legislation enforcers by pointing to a problem they perpetuate-- crime-- through their enforcement of disarmament legislation. Well, you can try, but you look like an idiot doing so,

I know... copsuckers gotta copsuck. They hallucinate that cops are the good guys and are different than their freelance competition. Of course, police now out-steal freelance burglars (ignoring other types of freelance thieves) even before you count the "tax" money they receive, so the claim they are the good guys is completely delusional. 

Abolish the police, then accept the responsibility for your own security-- it has always been your responsibility whether you wanted to face that or not.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com