R.I.P. El Neil

I heard about the death of L. Neil Smith a few days ago from the Rational Review newsletter, but I needed time to process the news before I wrote anything. I wanted to take time to think about what I'd write.

The only way to sum it up: It hurts.

He helped make me who I am. In fact, he's the reason this is the "Hooligan libertarian" blog.

I've written before that I didn't know what "libertarian" meant before I kind of accidentally found his book Lever Action through an NRA magazine-- a lukewarm book review written by someone who was completely bewildered by the book and just didn't get it at all. But something about it struck a chord in me, anyway. I cut out the blurb and kept it on a table by my couch for months until I had the spare money to order the book. I've never regretted reading it.

I wish so badly that I still had that book review-- or knew where I have it stashed. It was from some time before the end of 2002. A muddled time in my life, for sure. L. Neil hadn't known about the review and wished to see it after I told him about it. I never was able to help him with that.

Anyway, before I read Lever Action I thought I was a "conservative"-- that's what schooled people had told me I was all my life, since I didn't like government. I discovered I had been misled. I finally felt like I was on the right track. I also began the long task of examining all I believed and tossing away the stuff that just didn't fit. A task that continues.

I spoke with Neil on the phone a few times over the years and emailed him even more often. I am more glad than you know that I was able to tell him how much he meant to me. A few years ago I asked if I could mail him my treasured copy of Lever Action to be autographed and he was happy to oblige. It has been priceless to me ever since.

When my older daughter died, he sent personal condolences and donated (as did so many of you) to help me travel to her funeral.

He always made me feel important; that I mattered. That my opinions mattered.

He had a stroke a few years ago, and I feared the worst. I was glad to see him get back to writing before too long.

The only thing we ever really disagreed over was Trump. He was a supporter, I wasn't. I understood where he was coming from, though. I never argued with him over the issue and it never came up when we wrote to each other. It just wasn't that important. 

Through it all, he always meant a lot to me.

I don't have heroes. I'm not sure I've ever really had a mentor. But he came really close to being both for me. I miss him already.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The Constitution is a Trojan horse. It's been disgorging political statists who hate liberty into America for 230+ years.

Got your blood kayak ready?

Get ready for the roads in Texas to turn into rivers of blood today, as we have been repeatedly warned will happen. 

This is the day that Texans will be slightly more free-- our rights will be violated just a little less. Yes, today "Constitutional" [sic] carry is in effect.

Today I will be slightly less of an outlaw than I have been in decades.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Banned for not lying

Alex Berenson wrote, "It doesn't stop infection[1]. Or transmission[2]. Don't think of it as a vaccine[3].

Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy[4] and terrible side effect profile[5] that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS[6]. And we want to mandate it? Insanity."

There are no lies there. 

You could substitute food for the assumed topic of the tweet to remove the triggering issue.

1- One meal today won't stop you from starving to death a year from now. 

2- No matter how well-fed you are, someone near you could still starve to death, especially if you steal all their food. You could "transmit" starvation even if you are well-fed.

3- Don't think of food as a vaccine against starvation.

4- At best, it is a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy. If you eat once, the starvation is only held at bay for a while. You'll have to eat again to keep from starving. 

5- You can get food poisoning, you can choke on food, you can break a tooth, you can have a fatal allergic reaction. For those who suffer these mishaps (especially those who die), this constitutes a terrible side effect profile. No one says everyone will have this experience.

6- You also have to eat before you die of starvation for the food to do you any good.

But this doesn't mean food is useless. To ban someone for pointing out these facts is a terrible disservice to society.

Alex didn't even explicitly say which non-vaccine he was referring to-- although we can assume we know. 

Herr Twitler (or a minion) claims this tweet is misleading and he imposes the Twutter version of the Final Solution on Alex and those like him for saying these accurate things.

If Twutter is a "private company", Twitler has the right to ban anyone for any reason or for no reason at all. If. It's still an incredibly slimy thing to do.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

One person's dystopia is another's Utopia. They'll fight to keep the dystopia that's killing you because it's their Utopia.

Is "long-haul Covid" confirmation bias?

Almost everyone in my family has had Covid. Of those, all recovered, including those with multiple serious co-morbidities, even though one developed "long-haul Covid". 

But here's the problem with that.

Her "long-haul" issues were in the same category of problems she's had for years. The only thing that makes it "long-haul Covid" is that she was diagnosed with Covid a couple of months before she the problem developed again. Before, it was just "You're not a particularly healthy person", but then it became "OMG! You've got long-haul Covid!" 

Hence, my skepticism.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Government won't save you from being conquered

Why is it that people who fear "we" are going to be taken over by the Chinese (or whoever) always seem to think government has the solution? That a stronger government will prevent such a thing, rather than to help it happen?

Government is the problem.

Want to take over another land? 

If it doesn't really have a central government you're looking at decades of fighting to conquer every individual who doesn't want your "help". Do you really want it that bad? Is your cannon fodder really that dedicated to getting you what you want?

But if that land has a government you only have to defeat those willing to support that government. Then you slide into the bureaucratic infrastructure (and don its veil of "authority") and continue business with barely a hiccup.

If you rely on government to save you from being taken over by someone else, you've hitched your wagon to the mule that will walk you right into the enemy camp and hand you over.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Let rich give humanity new frontier

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 28, 2021)

After Sir Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos both went to space-- depending on how you define "space"-- within days of each other, in rockets built by their respective companies, outrage activists got upset.

Were people angry when Henry Ford first rode in a Ford automobile, or when Alexander Graham Bell made his first phone call?

It's not a matter of how wealthy Branson and Bezos are. It was their responsibility to ride their rockets.

When your company builds rockets, you, as the head of the company, need to put some skin in the game. How could you ask anyone else to ride if you're not willing?

I'm not envious of their wealth, anyway. Other things bother me more.

I'm not a fan when Elon Musk's SpaceX takes government payloads into space or seeks FAA permission to launch rockets or built a tower. When government hallucinates the authority to "allow" or "forbid" business, and backs it with threats of force, you do what you have to do. I still don't like it.

Don't suggest they pay more taxes, either. Only the economically ignorant want government to tax corporations more-- or at all. All corporate taxes are, and must be, paid by the customers, like every business expense. I can't afford to support government by paying more than necessary for things I want and need.

In space flight, as with anything else, the early users are going to be those who can afford the immense price. I'm not envious. Other people buy more expensive cars, bigger and better houses, and take nicer, longer vacations than I can afford. For me to envy anyone who can afford things I can't would be pointless.

In this case, they are also taking the greatest risks. By the time the cost of space travel has dropped to the point where people like me can afford a ride, most bugs should be worked out. I'm glad others are going first.

Building rockets to take people into space is essential for the future of our species, even if you don't want to go. NASA had its chance. Now others have stepped up to do what government failed to do.

The envious can't see that money spent on space travel is helping everyone on Earth. This money is better spent than most charitable donations, if you're looking at long-term benefits. Humanity needs a frontier more than most people realize. Let them give you one.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Those who see details are more likely to also understand the Big Picture than "Big Picture people" are to grasp the importance of details-- which they are too busy to notice, anyway.

Hallucinate hard enough and government doesn't look like a failure

I asked a Right-statist what "not failing" would look like to him.

His main concern is the protection of everyone's property ("handling crime") and things "too big" for an individual to do on his own. And he wants it all to be done "efficiently". So, I guess, as long as a state does those things it is not failing in his view. 

But...

The primary violator of everyone’s property is government; much worse than freelance criminals. More on that when we discuss crime below. Also, if political government exists, I want it to be as inefficient as possible. Efficient government would be a nightmare for the people, plus it can trick them into tolerating it longer. It's the worst-case scenario.

Roads: First, I'll say I don't know how things would work out in a free society, the best I can do is come up with voluntary solutions I can think of. The actual way it works out could be much different.

Who would build the roads? The same contractors who build them now. Who would pay the contractors? The same people who pay them now-- you and me. How would they be paid? Not through taxation.

One possibility-- businesses would want roads so you could get to their doors. Those roads would also have to pass by your house to be of any use to them. You'd pay for the roads when you use the business, so toll booths would be unnecessary.

The difference between "managing a project" and government is the same as between sex and rape: consent. The structure can be the same, but it's a totally different act.

As far as agreeing where the road should go. Keep the roads which already exist. But new ones? Often a new development will lay out and build the new roads, then hand them over to government when they're done. Just skip that last step.

If a big project is actually wanted, people will chip in. Those who don't value it don't have to. If they then decide to use it after it's finished, they'll have to pay a user fee or chip in as though they were there from the beginning. Any project that can't get enough voluntary funding to survive needs to die anyway.

Traffic lights (and other traffic signals) make travel more dangerous. Maybe a few informational signs would be good, but most of that stuff needs to go away.

And that's assuming roads would still be as necessary in a free society. They might not, since flying vehicles would become more common (and most likely, affordable).

Crime: Cops now steal more property than freelance thieves, and have for several years running. Even before you factor in fines or the taxation which funds police. And that's only one small piece of the whole. 

If "we" are paying government employees to deter crime, we are getting screwed.

Police don't protect or defend you or your property. Warren v. District of Columbia settled that question. 

When inmates are asked what they fear most, it is never the risk of being arrested-- it is armed intended targets. The job of defending yourself and your property has always been yours, even if you imagined you had hired someone else to do it instead. If you want to hire someone, I wouldn't stop you. Just don't make me pay for it on your behalf and if your employees harm an innocent during the commission of their "protection", let them be held fully accountable (and you, as well, because you are their employer).

I don't want government courts judging criminals. It's a conflict of interest any time government is one of the parties. Do they recuse themselves in that case? Nope. 

Justice isn't about punishment (revenge), it is about restitution. Incarceration prevents restitution and robs the victim again. Prison is a racket. My dad worked in prisons-- they are totally illegitimate and only serve to train criminals to view themselves as apart from society and give them more excuses to target "others". They also operate as Criminal University. If someone is too dangerous to be walking free, let his next intended victim (or a bystander) kill him and solve the problem. Prison only makes things worse.

Again, "Would each person [protect] their own property?" If you aren't already doing this you're failing your responsibility.

"Who guards my stuff when I want to go fishing or to play cards with friends?" Security systems, neighbors you've built a relationship with, etc. The cops don't do that now, why worry that they wouldn't be there to continue to not do it in the future?

If you'd rather have "pros" protect you, go ahead. Just leave the rest of us out of it. As long as I'm allowed to opt out and not pay for them on your behalf, what you do won't violate me.

Government is an automatic failure, from top to bottom, front to back, side to side, and beginning to end. A free society couldn't possibly fail any harder. At this point, clinging to The State because you can't think how the alternative would work is just a mental problem.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

For future reference, remember: a high "social credit score" is a sign of a rat-faced suck-up. No offense meant to actual rats, which are intelligent creatures, unlike those humans who will have high "social credit scores".

Reality is a bully

In a Quora answer, I mentioned that people have responsibility, whether they accept it or not. 

A political libertarian-- responding to the question, not my answer-- asked what "responsibility" means. I told him that everyone has the responsibility to not archate. 

He responded that he agrees, but refuses to have this responsibility "assigned" to him. That's weird. But I pointed out that responsibility just is, like gravity. Does he resist gravity being "assigned" to him?

He said "[I] don't want it assigned to me. If gravity had the audacity to tell me that I was to be subjected to it I would spend my life working on opposing it."

Antigravity, here we come! I assume he's been working on it his whole life. Right?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Kitten update #5

Whiskers is a furry ball of dynamite. Full of energy, and so playful. He is really sweet (even though he looks vicious, killing my hand in the picture above).

The other cats are still less than impressed, but Ghost, the outcast cat, loves to wrestle with him. They get a little rough and I have to step in sometimes, but at least Ghost has someone to play with now.

We take Whiskers on adventures almost daily. He loves car rides-- more than the destination. He prefers paved paths over grass, but we're working on that.

His right eye hasn't changed in several days-- as far as I can tell. It is still cloudy, but the surface seems smooth. If he'd hold still long enough for me to get a better look it would be helpful. I think the ointment did the trick. I don't think a cloudy eye would need to be removed, so I'm hoping that surgery has been avoided.

We still have to deal with the hernia. Maybe we'll find out more about that next Thursday when he goes for his follow-up appointment. I'm hoping for good news on the eye, at least.

I've still got his GoFundMe up and running to cover the cost of the hernia surgery and follow-up vet appointments. Please share that link if you want to help. Thanks.

.

 A person would have to be a real festering pile of slimy feces to sign up to be an enforcer of legislation.

"He's stealing from the government!" is one of the least inspirational rallying cries I can imagine. The murderous Giga-Mega-thief is being pick-pocketed by a worthless punk. Yawn. It's not going to bring me to action.

What does "not failing" look like?

I've been thinking a lot about the "libertarianism fails in practice/in the real world" claim that I see so often.

I wonder what those who make that claim would see as "not failing".

To me, it doesn't matter what technological wonders you have, or how "safe" you feel, if you don't have full liberty, it's a failure. For this reason, I see the entire history of political government as one monumental failure from beginning to end. 

So, the disagreement must center around a difference of opinion as to what "failing" means.

This may also mean we want different things. Or, maybe we want the same things, but we disagree as to how they can be achieved.

I want relative peace. I want everyone's property to be secure. I want everyone to be free from molestation as long as they aren't violating the life, liberty, or property of another individual.

Sure, nothing can guarantee this, but the failure is built right into political government from top to bottom and side to side. That's unacceptable to me.

If the only way I can get what I want is to violate others with taxation, legislation, etc., it's not worth it. It's exactly the same as admitting that if the only way I can have sex is to commit rape, it's not worth it. Statists think violating others is "a necessary evil" if they consider it in any way negative. If it's necessary, it can't be evil, and if it's evil, it can't be necessary. And political government is evil.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

A person would have to be a real pile of feces to enforce runaway slave "laws".

Be "that guy", but...

...keep in mind it's going to embarrass the Family. And we can't have that!

In the past, I've embarrassed them because I refuse to participate in National Socialist ritual pole quilt worship. I've embarrassed them on occasion by refusing to go into places with "We don't care if you die!" signage by the door. Now I embarrass them because I'm done with mask mandates.

Family doesn't want you to be that guy. They want you to go along obediently, with whatever "the Authorities" dictate. Don't embarrass them. Don't make a scene, even if you don't make a scene, by being different.

Well, I'm not a particularly obedient person. Especially when I see the harm in obeying.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

A person would have to be a real pile of feces to enforce anti-gun legislation.

A person would have to be a real pile of feces to enforce mask mandates.