Government isn't as special as its supporters and many of its critics believe. If it's wrong for government to do something, it's wrong for anyone to do that thing. It's not wrong because government does it, it's wrong whoever does it.

Way too much, actually

I don't know if you ever watched the 1994 animated series "The Tick", but one of my favorite lines from that show happened when a group of Secret Agents converged on the Tick's house and told him, "We're from the government."

His response: "Well, no thanks. We've got all the government we need."

My sentiments, too, except that I know we don't need any political government or its agents/employees bothering us.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Good? Evil? "Both are fine choices"

Pondering my Twutter suspension, I got to thinking...

If a serial murderer explained in public that committing random murders was the only "skill" he had, would it be wrong to tell someone else, as part of a conversation discussing his claim, that the serial murderer would be doing the world a favor if he killed himself? Especially if he was telling the truth about this being his only "skill"?

Of course not. HIs death would be a great benefit to the world. And it's right to point it out, even if you end up encouraging him to kill himself because he found out what you said. There is really no downside. Some people simply need to be dead.

If your "terms of service" forbid such a thing, your "terms of service" are toxic to society. If you aren't allowed to call out those who are committing evil, then why would they ever change? Evil becomes just another fine choice among equally valid options that no one is allowed to criticize (where they can be heard).

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Shouldn't have been in Afghanistan

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 25, 2021)

Nearly everyone criticizes the way the U.S. left Afghanistan and claims to know what the right way would have been. I see it differently. The tragic situation in Afghanistan has lessons for Americans, but I see most Americans missing the lessons because they are looking at it wrong.

The problem wasn't in the leaving; it was going there.

It's smarter to not make mistakes in the first place, rather than to dig yourself in deeper and deeper for 20 years and then realize there's no good way out. The time to worry about what's going to happen to someone you've pushed off a cliff is before you push them off the cliff, not as they smack the ground below.

Yes, I realize some people chose to join with those who then pushed them off the cliff, but they've had 20 years to find a parachute, and chose not to do so. Maybe they see the error of their ways now, when it's too late.

The most important lesson to be learned from the situation might be this: Government is not your friend. Do you think anyone is paying attention and learning this lesson?

Another lesson is: Don't meddle in other people's business. Doing so is usually a mistake, especially if you're using them as pawns and putting them in the position to die if-- or when-- things go wrong. Yes, I know there are those who believe the US government should police the world. They are wrong. This ought to remove any remaining doubt. Those who most need to learn this lesson, won't.

The Afghans would have benefitted from understanding another truth before the lesson forced itself on them in a horrible way: Don't trust government. Don't rely on government employee promises that they'll keep you safe. Don't imagine your life matters more than their own life, or even more than their job. It doesn't, no matter what they say to get you onboard.

The Americans stranded in Afghanistan would have been better off had they understood this as well.

Yet another lesson which everyone should pay attention to: Never imagine a political situation won't change. It will. If something can't continue unchanged forever, it won't. And nothing can. Part two of this lesson could be stated as: Don't side with the team which is going to have to hang you out to dry sooner or later.

Were you paying attention? Are you learning?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Kitten update #9

Whiskers seems to be recovering nicely. He even spent the day yesterday having the run of the house, among the other cats, unsupervised. And seems to have done fine.

His frequent nosebleeds worry me a little. Maybe it can be explained by how often he crashes into things. His surgical site finally stopped oozing blood, and I haven't noticed blood in his stool for a bit-- but that might be because I don't get a good look very often. I was a little concerned he might have a blood disorder, but now I'm thinking he doesn't.

So, I think he's doing great. I'm not looking forward to his hernia surgery, but that can wait.

-

All the parts of Whiskers' story, here: Original, first update, second update, third update, fourth update, fifth update, sixth update, seventh update, eighth update.

>> If you don't mind, share his GoFundMe-- I'm almost done with it now, as long as nothing unexpected happens with him.

-

I've also been helping a family of feral cats that hangs out on the porch. There were originally two orange kittens, but one has disappeared so I'm watching out for the last one more closely. I was able to treat his stuffy nose and slightly goopy eyes with left-over medicines, and he's looking good now. I'm looking for a home for him.

Because there are no magic wands

In a magical Harry Potter world where magic wands are real, we wouldn't need cars, phones, or guns because the wands would do all the things those tools do. 

A wand would be the only EDC you'd ever need and knowing how to use it would be the only skill you'd ever need to master.

But in the real world, we need multiple tools to fill those needs.

To hate tools is to show the world how stupid you are. You can still hate those who misuse tools to violate life, liberty, and property, though. They are the problem, not the tools. And they would also misuse magic wands if those were real.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Skeptical of artificial "authority"

I don't mind real authority. In fact, I can appreciate it. 

I've always had an issue with political or otherwise artificial "authority", though. And it has affected my life in many ways-- some good, some bad.

Back when I was free to seek conventional employment, this limited my options. But it also kept me out of trouble several times by keeping me skeptical of people or organizations that it turned out would have been really bad for me to be involved with. 

Just about anything has good and bad sides, including the word "authority".

I'm not sure how wise it is to use the same word to describe experts (autual authorities) and bullies (political "authorities"), though, since those aren't even close to being the same things. But I see this problem with many other words, as well.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Another thing that shouldn't exist, so trying to fix it rather than eliminating it is a waste of time and effort: government-controlled schools.

Infuriating myself so I can grow

I intentionally expose myself to opinions I disagree with all the time. Even opinions that make me mad. 

One reason is that I might be wrong and I'd like to know if I am. How will I know unless I seek out the opposing opinions of others?

Another reason is that if I can see the holes in those other opinions and am able to describe how and why those holes make the other opinion collapse in on itself, it can help me strengthen my own argument. Plus, I can better see if I am ignoring any such holes in my own opinions.

Telling the other person why they are wrong isn't going to go anywhere, because they won't believe they are wrong, so it's probably pointless to debate them on it. Sometimes it's fun, anyway, but don't expect it to convince them of anything.

Regardless of the reasons, you should seek out crazy, stupid, delusional opinions sometimes. Just don't get sucked in like the poor sap you're listening to did.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Does it "work"?

I see people pointing out that if 100% of the population is "vaccinated" then of course 100% of the deaths will be among those who were "vaccinated". It's simple logic and couldn't be otherwise. No argument here.

However, they say this to explain reports that in some countries where somewhat less than 100% of the population is "vaccinated" (potentially every country on the planet, in other words) a significant percentage of those dying of the target disease were among those "vaccinated" against it. And this doesn't hold up the way they seem to believe.

There's a huge difference between 100% "vaccination" rate and any other rate.

If 90% of the population is "vaccinated" shouldn't it still be overwhelmingly the unvaccinated dying of the disease? Even if total numbers are way down. Even if the unvaccinated are a small percentage of the total population. Like hundreds to one-- or more. That should still be true even if 99% of the population is "vaccinated"... if the "vaccine" works. If that's not how it adds up, I don't think the "vaccine" can be said to work.

Something isn't adding up here. It might be my assumptions, my speculative numbers, or whatever on my end. But it might also be the official story.

Also, if a vaccine needs a booster every 10+ years, that's reasonable. If it needs a booster every day, it's NOT a vaccine. If it needs one every six months or so, that's a lot closer to "not a vaccine" than to a vaccine. You'd have to stretch your definition of "vaccine" beyond all reason in that case.

Things like these, that make me not trust the official narrative, just keep piling up. 

But, if you want one of the Covid "vaccines" I hope you get it, and I hope you feel better for having done so. I hope it keeps you healthy. Just don't demand government violence or corporate coercion be used against those who choose differently.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Today, for the first time, I was asked to wear a mask as I entered a store in New Mexico. He said, "You have to wear a mask", as he tried to hand me one. I said, "No thanks, I'll just leave", and I did, as he was apologizing, saying it's "store policy".

No, I don't think I will

Someone posted a video clip of a cop (I think it was in Australia) saying he agrees with those protesting the lockdowns, but he's just doing his job, and that policing is the only skill he has.

So I commented: "If your only 'skill' is being a hired gun for a tyrant, enforcing legislation or policy, you need to end your pathetic existence. You are taking up space from worthwhile lifeforms."

So, Twitler (his minions, I'm sure) suspended my account. 

I can get back on if I delete the tweet. Not going to happen, at least not today. If they don't like it, they can delete it, but I'm not going to do their dirty work for them. Because, like it or not, what I said is 100% true.

I've never been suspended or banned from any "social" media platform until this, and have always thought that if it happened, it would be time to stop using that platform.

Yes, I've gotten a lot of value in the last few years from Twutter, but not enough to beg to be in their good graces. I've had several people who I interact with a lot tell me they never see any of my tweets on their timeline anyway. So maybe I overestimated Twutter's value all along.

(Just for laughs, you should share this on Twutter!)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Do those who seek power over others enjoy it?

Is the pandemic response a way to increase authoritarianism?

Yes.

Intentional or not, this has been the result.

No, there was no secret meeting where this plan was hashed out. Political government is authoritarian. Those involved don't have to discuss it anymore than fish have to discuss how gills work. It is just the nature of the thing. Leave them alone and they will become increasingly authoritarian over time. And if pathetic cowards actually encourage them to be more authoritarian, they'll go at it faster and harder. They like it and if no one stops them...

You want to know who gained power? Well, the New Mexico governor, for one. But she wasn't the only one-- almost everyone at every level of political government gained power from the Covid reaction. Do people like power? Are they happy to gain it and unhappy to lose it? Do you understand what motivates people?

What power did the New Mexico governor, as one example, gain? The power to control how and if business owners are "allowed" to run their business-- beyond the illegitimate controls they agreed to by getting a business "license". She also gained the power to make individuals wear face masks (through threats of state violence) and to get a "vaccine"... among other powers she didn't have before. Did this benefit her, personally? She must believe power benefits her. If not, why did she seek political office-- power over others-- in the first place?

People look really dumb when they argue against stuff like this just because they like government as a general principle (as long as it's doing what they want).

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Libertarianism works in real world

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 18, 2021)

When you take a libertarian and whittle away everything nonessential-- all the philosophy and politics-- what is left is the understanding that no one has the right to use violence against those who aren't harming someone else, and no one has the right to violate the property rights of others.

This simple idea is often phrased as "no one has the right to initiate force". Another name for the initiation of force is "aggression", so the definition of a libertarian is anyone who rejects aggression.

Even most children understand this concept. It's why they say "He started it!" rather than admitting they threw the first punch. Children instinctively know libertarianism is the right way to live among others, even though they often fail to follow it very well. Come to think of it, the same could be said for most adults.

Property rights violations are sometimes counted as aggression but are more commonly called theft (including fraud, taxation, and fines), trespassing, or vandalism. Either way, they are still wrong.

What's wrong with aggression?

Aggression is offensive force. You have the human right to use force-- violence-- as long as you use it in defense of yourself or someone else. Violence used in defense is not aggression. Every living thing on Earth has the natural right to violently defend itself. Legislation can't overrule this right, nor can it legitimately forbid or control the tools of defense, be they claws, horns, fangs, knives, or guns.

Most people have been fooled into accepting aggression and property violations when committed by those who claim it's their job. These are the people among us who live by "the political means" where one person wins at the expense of another, rather than by "the economic means" where everyone comes out ahead and feels they got the better end of every deal.

If you use force against someone for not wearing a seat belt or for offending you with their words, you have used aggression. You've done something no one has the right to do. I consider those who do this to be the bad guys, no matter what justifications they use.

Libertarianism works in the real world, every day, without being forced on anyone. The alternative only works when most people have been tricked into believing aggression and theft are the only way to get things done. For a growing number of people, the trick isn't working anymore.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Foot in mouth, without realizing it

Sometimes government-supremacists put their foot in their mouth; they make a point that works against them without realizing what they've done.

I saw someone point out-- with regard to mask/"vaccine" mandates-- that good ideas don't require force.

So a statist piped up that "The Republic is held together by force".

Yeah, that didn't quite make the point he believed it did. It seems to make a great argument against "The Republic"-- beyond all those I've heard in the past.

In the same way, I saw someone pointing out that there is no database for long-term vaccine problems, as justification for not letting the lack of such data for all the Covid "vaccines" keep you from getting the jab. But, that's not exactly what I took away from that. It got within spitting distance of turning me into a full-fledged anti-vaxxer. No, it didn't quite get me there, but a few more brilliant points like that, and it might happen.

It makes me wonder why government-supremacists are so clueless about what they are saying. So often, if they pondered the words they utter, they'd see that they've dismantled their own position.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Who woulda thought?

It's odd. People I never expected to hear saying smart things have been saying smart things. 

Some famous girl, Nicki Minaj (a rapper, I've heard) has been quoted as saying people should watch what substances they put into their bodies. She believes a friend of her cousin had a bad reaction to the "vaccine". Whether that really happened or not, she would still be 100% correct.

Then Sarah Silverman (I've seen her before but I can't remember where) says the US needs to break up because this "isn't working". Some of us have been pointing this out for years-- practically forever. Yes, it's long past time. The "Civil War" [sic] should have ended that way. "The Union" isn't. It has become a forced marriage between people with not enough in common. Breaking up would be the healthiest alternative. It's dumb to stay together just because you're scared that someone else might come along and force you into another coerced "marriage".

It just goes to show you never know who's going to say something smart (or who's going to say something stupid).

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

You can't fix what shouldn't exist

A while back I watched an informal interview with Elon Musk as he walked around Starbase, Texas. One thing he said really struck me.

He has said many times that the best part is no part, and the best process is no process. 

In this interview, he described wasting time trying to optimize and improve something that really just needs to be eliminated. The brilliant insight is to realize this fact and to stop trying to fix it. Just ditch it!

This not only applies to landing legs on Starship, but to police, elections, and the state.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

New Mexico mask mandate update #3

I've made some observations about New Mexico's newer mask mandates, and it's not going the way the governor wants. Not in this region, anyway.

Links to previous observations here and here.

Today my daughter wanted ("needed") to go to a hobby/craft store. I could either drive 90 miles one-way to visit one in a big city in Texas, or drive about 12 miles one-way to the local one in NM. I chose NM.

Again, there was a state-mandated sign on the door, but this time at least 50% of the customers were unmasked. I didn't try any other stores to see if the percentage held there, too. But, it appears as though compliance is actually fading with time. At least in this more Texas-like part of New Mexico.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

How can you tell that the suspect is either a cop, a politician, or a politically connected person?

Clovis police announced Aug. 31 they had identified the vehicle and the driver in the hit and run, but the police report on the incident has not been made public. (link)

That's how.

A ban on mask mandates is still a ban. Just like a ban on slavery is a ban. Neither would be necessary without government creating the conditions that allow both to become a problem.