Liberty > life

I recently had a self-revelation. In every case I've been able to think of, I value liberty over life if there's a conflict (real or imagined) between the two.

Life, liberty, and property are all important. If I were forced to rank them, though, I would rank them this way: liberty > life > property. And I think property and life are almost interchangeable-- property is what helps you hang on to life.

I get that some people reverse the order and value life more than liberty. Many people seem to value one or the other more depending on the specific issue. I don't think the issue matters at all to the equation. Liberty (to me) is always more important than life.

But which one is really more important? The question is meaningless.

Value is always subjective.

Liberty is why I will always support the absolute natural right to own and to carry weapons. Regardless of whether someone believes-- rightly or wrongly-- that doing so puts lives in danger. I'm pro-liberty.

It's why I'm going to side with the woman on the topic of abortion, even though I don't like abortion and think it is generally a sign of irresponsibility. I'm pro-liberty.

It's why I support the right of addicts to use drugs without being attacked by state goons. I'm pro-liberty.

It's why I am not a supporter of government borders, of cops, of Covid mandates, or of the safety nazis. I'm pro-liberty.

It's about liberty, even over and above life. Liberty is my priority.

Yes, you have to be alive to enjoy liberty. A corpse can't enjoy liberty. However, a life without liberty (or at least the hope of liberty to come) is worse than death in my opinion. I believe liberty is worth dying to protect and promote.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

Supply chain is government problem

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 3, 2021)

I hate to sound like a parrot repeating the only phrase he knows until everyone is sick of hearing him. Even though it's true. Squawk! Government is the problem.

If you've seen any news or visited a store recently, you may have noticed the supply chain seems to be broken. Almost every retailer is having trouble getting products, and many of them are telling customers to start trying to get what they want early. They are warning customers that the things they want may simply not be available in time for the holidays.

So far, this supply chain failure isn't as bad as is common in more completely socialist regimes, but it's worse than most of us thought would happen here in America. We are accustomed to being able to find what we want when we want it.

It will probably get a lot worse before it gets better.

Once again, those crazy "preppers" don't look so crazy.

Ever since the supply chain failure became noticeable, I've been hearing supposed experts giving their opinions on the reason behind it. Like me, you've probably heard many different reasons, not just one. All of them sound completely plausible, even though they are all different. Everyone is looking at the problem from their own angle, seeing a different part of the whole.

This inability to find one good reason usually indicates every reason you hear is wrong.

That's not the case this time. Not if you dig below the surface of every individual reason suggested for the failure. If you do so, you'll see there's one common feature connecting all of them.

At its foundation, every reason I've heard comes down to this: the "just in time" supply chain was fragile, and something was going to break it. That "something" was government interference.

It's been a long time coming, but the Covid overreactions of the recent past-- still ongoing in some backward political offices-- brought it to a head.

Regulations, licensing, legislation, handouts... they all came together to create this mess. It won't be solved by doing more of the same. Getting government out of the way is the only permanent solution, but it's one you'll not hear from the mainstream or from government (as if those are different).

Yes, government caused this problem, too. Government is the problem so often it can't be a coincidence. To pretend otherwise is to live in denial.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"I didn't pull the trigger"

Can a Colt Peacemaker copy fire without someone pulling the trigger? Maybe...

I hate to trust anything an anti-gun bigot like Alec Baldwin says. When he said he didn't pull the trigger when he killed the person on the movie set, like probably most of you, my first inclination was to scoff. Then I wondered if it could be true.

I once had a black powder rifle fire as I pulled the hammer back to full-cock without my finger touching the trigger. Fortunately, I had it aimed downrange at the time (those gun handling safety rules work). Turns out that a sliver of wood from inside the stock, around the lock, had gotten into the sear's full-cock notch, preventing it from catching. It was a scary experience.

But my experience showed me that the common claim "a gun can never just 'go off'" isn't 100% true.

I happen to have a Colt SAA copy-- not the same one Baldwin was using, though. His was apparently a Pietta; mine is an EMF New Dakota Model made by Armi San Marcos. So I tested to see if I could get the hammer to fall while thumbing it back. 

I could.

If I thumbed the hammer back, but let it slip before it caught the first notch, it would drop back into place-- the firing pin would have contacted the cartridge primer. Since this is a very short fall, I'm not sure it would have hit hard enough to actually fire the round, but maybe. I guess it depends on spring strength and primer sensitivity.

My own accidental discharge with the black powder rifle makes me also wonder whether debris could have gotten into the sear of his gun, causing a malfunction similar to the one I experienced. 

So, yes, as much as I don't want to believe Alec Baldwin, I think it is possible for his gun to have fired without him touching the trigger, even if I think it's more likely that his finger was on the trigger after all.

None of this excuses him for sweeping people with the muzzle, for not checking for himself whether or not the gun was loaded, and for being an anti-gun bigot.

Update: I finally saw the part of the interview where Baldwin was talking about the shooting, and he talked about having the hammer cocked, but "letting it down" without pulling the trigger. That can't be done. On a SAA you have to pull the trigger to lower the hammer from a cocked position. It's the only way to do it. So, he's either lying or doesn't realize what he was doing when he shot her. Either way, it's still his fault entirely.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

The unwise celebration of anti-science

I have loved science-- and "doing science"-- most of my life. In school, some people referred to me as the mad scientist. That wasn't too far off.

My family got used to bright electric arc flashes coming from under my door, as well as the smell of burning components and air. And other smells. Yes, I did wear safety goggles that I built myself to save my eyesight from the UV exposure. Once, I nearly burned down a friend's shed doing some electrical experiments I thought too dangerous for in the house. 

Then there were the biology experiments of various types, some chemistry experiments, and quite a few physics experiments (probably my favorites). I was curious.

I didn't enjoy doing things that I knew what the results were "supposed" to be; things that countless others before me had already done (the kind of "experiments" done in school), so I tried stuff that I couldn't find a record of others already doing, but that I was curious about. I learned a lot that way.

I even experiment and test things that don't necessarily seem like subjects for scientific inquiry. I have never found that to be the wrong way to learn something useful. 

Did I always come to the right conclusions? Probably not. But I tried to stay aware of my limitations and biases.

That's why the recent bastardization of science gets me so riled up. Anti-science is being sold as science to people who aren't educated in the difference.

Pope Fauci is NOT science personified. He's a cult leader. 

Consensus is NOT science. 

Politics is anti-science because it is dictated. Science requires liberty in order to thrive. "Authority" kills it.

Falsebook, Twutter, and Gugle/YourTub are NOT supporting science with their censorship and fact-blocking. They are hiding useful political lies from proper scrutiny. It bothers me, and nothing they say can excuse them in my eyes. I hate all these anti-science bullies.

Science is a process, not a proclamation, a cult, or a person. Treating any of those as "science" is anti-science.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

I'm still having fun playing with Quora, and they invited me to their program where they say I can earn money by answering questions (rather than just by asking them, as was the case before). I've since answered probably hundreds of questions asked of me, and my earnings are... zero. Well, it was worth a try.

Responsibility can be a heavy ... blessing

Sometimes I think it would be nice to give up on responsibility. To be just as irresponsible and statist as the neighbors and family members you see every day who are bumbling their way through the world, leaving a carefree path of destruction in their wake.

This past summer I had saved up over half the money I needed for something I wanted. Notice I said "wanted", not "needed"-- just a fun purchase. But then I found the sick kitten. Then another of the family cats got sick and needed vet care.

Although the GoFundMe donations mostly took care of Whiskers' needs, I also had to empty my fun fund. Its balance still stands at zero. But that's OK. I knew what I was getting into when I took on the responsibility of saving Whiskers (and caring for the other cats) and it was worth it. I was also telling my daughter just this morning that I would have a lot more money if I didn't feed the feral cats who live on my porch. But this is another responsibility I took on of my own free will.

Sure, most people would probably see those as trivial "responsibilities"; nothing compared to the responsibility I have to my daughter. It's also trivial compared to my human responsibility to not archate against any other individual I encounter. And those who see these other responsibilities as trivial are probably right. But they are all responsibilities I consciously accepted. To ignore one responsibility would make it easier to ignore others.

Still, sometimes it's tempting to just behave like others do. Toss responsibility to the wind. Do what I want at the moment and don't worry about the consequences. 

But I can't.

Whether it's the responsibility to take care of the animals who depend on me for their lives, the responsibility to my daughter (and even my adult son), or the responsibility to not archate-- I take them seriously, even if I sometimes fall short.

It's popular among the intelligentsia to make fun of the "red pill", but responsibility is included in that "pill" and once you've taken it, I don't think you can go backward and accept being like those who made the other choice. Whatever your responsibilities are, you're not going to feel good unless you meet them to the best of your ability. Even if it sometimes feels like responsibility is wearing you down.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

Seeing "the crazy"

"But you can’t pretend you don’t see the crazy." ~ Claire Wolfe (link-- read it, please.)

 Nope. I can't. I also can't pretend it isn't crazy. 

It's not just about the crazy Branch Covidians and their crazy, power-mad Pope of Science, but about all the w0ke delusions and lies, and the delusions and lies from every corner of the political circus. It's all crazy and I see it. I think you see it, too.

Don't cover the crazy with a veil of legitimacy it didn't earn. Laugh at it even if it hurts the feelings of the believers. You'll be doing them a favor in the long run, even if they don't like it now.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

 It's very considerate of the idiots and fans of mass-murder to self identify as such by calling for more anti-gun legislation after an evil idiot (who didn't let legislation or laws get in his way) murders some people in a "gun-free" zone, such as a kinderprison, again. Otherwise how would we know who they are? Idiots.

Embrace the Omicronians...

... but don't install them as your overlords.

I was glad to see I wasn't the only person to be amused by the Omicron variant. Or, its name.

I went online soon after hearing about it, specifically as it relates to "Lrrr, ruler of Omicron Persei 8", and discovered that plenty of others had already made the connection. Warped minds think alike--isn't that the saying?

And yes, I think it is appropriate to ridicule this whole ridiculous mess. 

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

Another Covid hallucination

I heard a Covid fetishist saying that it is selfish to not get the shots; that both the "vaccinated" and "unvaccinated" are trying to control the other side. Not controlling others in this situation isn't even possible. The "unvaccinated" aren't leaving the "vaccinated" alone while demanding they, themselves, be left alone.

The reasoning being that those who won't comply are the reason things can't go "back to normal", so "we" are imposing on the "vaccinated". I've talked about people who hallucinate this kind of thing before. Short version: that's completely wrong and is simply something control freaks tell themselves so they don't feel evil.

This also makes the wild assumption that political criminals would ever voluntarily allow things to go back to normal even if 100% of the people get the shots. They won't. To believe they would is delusional and shows a stupendous ignorance of politics. (I don't believe "normal" as it once was is even possible-- the past is gone.)

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

Your employer's property

I can't imagine being an employee of a business and just allowing shoplifters to run rampant in "my" store. And mobs of looters? Nope.

I get it, this is mainly happening in California-- a place where self-defense is a criminal act, and defense of property is probably considered domestic terrorism and genocide. But I couldn't work there under those conditions.

I would rather act and get fired-- or even get arrested-- than to stand aside and let thieves do whatever they want. I realize criminals might even kill me for standing in their way, even though I'd be armed. It is what it is, but I can't be part of the problem by letting them steal and destroy.

If I work for you, I'm serious about taking care of your property. I feel the same about protecting my co-workers-- even the ones I don't especially get along with (yes, I've had a few of those, but very few). That's how I've always felt.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the smart thing to do is to let insurance (if any) cover the losses. But that's not me. I don't know how those California employees can handle it.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

Education must be separate from state

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 27, 2021)

I am a fan of education. If there were such a thing as public education, I'd be a supporter. Unfortunately, what exists instead is "public schooling". By "public", they mean government controlled, and by "schooling" they mean indoctrination. Schooling is not the same as education, but its opposite.

I oppose socialist, tax-funded government indoctrination and the compulsory day-prisons for children where it occurs. It's no wonder socialist and Marxist ideas sneak in to the curriculum.

I understand some parents need daycare for their kids, but that's a separate issue. Or should be. It also shouldn't be compulsory or tax funded.

Any education which occurs in these institutions is accidental. Kids are learning machines and it's nearly impossible to keep them from learning. After a century and a half, though, government schools are getting dangerously close to eradicating the childhood hunger to learn.

It's not most teachers' fault. My family is full of current and former schoolteachers, and one former principal. They are crippled by a system which shouldn't exist.

Another problem arises when government decides what it will indoctrinate the kids to believe this year, which may change again next year. Government usually sets itself up as the hero of the story-- if not the hero of the past, then of the present by acknowledging the wrongs its predecessors committed, while pretending it isn't even worse today.

The issue raised its head recently when residents of Portales became aware of the New Mexico Public Education Department’s newly proposed social studies standards.

The mask slipped, but the ugliness has always been there. Social studies is always the worst offender.

The current issue concerns the Marxist conspiracy theory called "Critical Race Theory", and its twin lies of "identity" and "equity". It's the latest example of the toxic indoctrination government schools have always spoon-fed their inmates. I understand some may think these concepts will make the world nicer, but one look at actual history and you'll know it doesn't work that way.

Government always hides and changes the history presented in schools to suit its interests and to sell a particular version of the present. Critical Race Theory is simply the latest lie used to give government illegitimate power over your life.

Education needs to be freed from government control-- federal, state, and local-- forever. The solution has always been a complete separation of education and state. Education is much too important to let government handle.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The mandate pushers

The forcible-penetrationists and the maskerbators say anyone who refuses to comply with their agenda is the problem. That those who resist are the unreasonable ones.

If you don't participate in the Branch Covidian rituals, you are the reason "things" can't go back to normal, even though "normal" isn't even on the table. When was anything like this never-ending sickness theater "normal"? ... and I include the TSA's nonsensical "security" kabuki.

The mandate pushers are insane, evil, or both.

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

The Aspen Institute wants to fight "information disorder". I've pointed out in the past that too much order is as deadly as too much chaos. If this group of authoritarian monsters succeeds, this would be an example of too much order.

Sometimes it feels like a problem to be able to see more than one side of an issue. It would be easier to only be able to see one side.

Holiday sale on Bitcoin! If I had money to spare I'd be getting more.

I'm too ignorant to have a good opinion

I saw enough "news" about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial that I had a firm opinion as to the correct verdict. I don't feel I had seen enough about the Ahmaud Arbery killing to form an opinion as to how that trial should have gone. Nor do I trust media sources to get the story right (which includes everything I heard about the Rittenhouse case, too).

I've heard two very different versions of the Arbery case. Depending on which one is closer to the truth, I could go either way.

I heard that the killers were trying to make a citizens' arrest and Arbery resisted. If cops can do it, so can anyone. If it's not OK for any goober off the streets to do it, it's not OK for cops to do it. That includes killing someone for "resisting arrest". That's just how it is. Cops can't have extra rights. So, if* it's valid for a cop to arrest someone or kill them while trying, you and I have the exact same right to do so regardless of the opinions of political criminals. (*That's a big "if".)

But, I also think everyone has the natural right to fight a kidnapping, even if you call it an "arrest". By anyone for any reason. Yes, it might be unwise to do so, especially if you're outgunned, but that's a separate issue.

And, I still think both sides in any altercation have the right to use whatever force they feel is necessary to keep from being harmed-- yes, even the clear bad guy. I just hope the bad guy loses every time without fail.

I also think people have a right to defend their property-- and their neighbors' property with their neighbors' permission-- from thieves and other violators. One version of the story I heard seems to show this right being exercised.

Otherwise, I don't really like convictions, just on principle. It feels like letting government win. So there's that. 

Nor do I like everything being sold as being about "race" and I don't like when the racists win.

So I admit I'm too ignorant about this case to form a good opinion as to how I think it should have gone. 

-

If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.

Happy Thanksgiving

 

Those rights you defend

I'll bet you've heard the claim that "you only have those rights you defend", or similarly that you don't have the right to do "X" because government prevents you from exercising it.

This is wrong.

That's because rights mostly revolve around what others have no right to do.

Even if others enslave you-- which no one has a right to do-- it doesn't mean you have no right to not be enslaved. You have this right, but others chose to violate it.

You have the right to fight off slavers. You might win and you might lose, but your rights don't change, only your situation does.

Mostly, of course, I see this argument used to explain, in a statist way ("statesplaining"?), why your rights are routinely violated by political criminals. "It's your fault because you didn't defend your rights hard enough." Nice victim-blaming there. No, it's the violator's fault. Every time, without exception.

You have rights because no one has the right to violate you. That's all you need to know. I hope you'll do whatever it takes to defend your rights, and if you need my help, let me know. But you can't "lose" a right just because some thug chooses to violate it.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Balanced living

I've said before that libertarianism is the balanced position. Various facets of libertarianism-- anarchy and responsibility, among them-- are the balance between the dangerous extremes of decadence and authoritarianism, deadly chaos and deadly order, and between nihilism and fascism.

One of the clearest illustrations of this has been visible in the reactions to the Rittenhouse case and verdict.

Only the libertarians get it. Again.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com