They are getting desperate and careless

You may not believe me when I say all anti-gun bigots are either ignorant or lying. They are, but you may not believe me.

I think I ran into one of the former.

He had posted a request for Biden to ban "assault weapons" and someone reasonably asked him what an "assault weapon" was. He didn't respond, so I posted the pic above to be helpful. 

That got his attention and he decided to educate me on why I was wrong about what an "assault weapon" is:

There were a couple other responses to him after mine, confirming what I said and pointing out that he knew nothing about firearms. As is almost universally the case with anti-gun bigots. 

Such as that congressvermin who was carefully explaining to his colleagues how a pistol brace turns a semi-auto full auto because it is a bump stock. And these liars/ignorami believe they are wise enough to govern us!

Around this same time, I encountered another of this sort calling a black gun owner a "white supremacist" "MAGA" person for supporting this natural right. Yes, she was being ridiculed by lots of people for her absurd claim, but she wasn't backing down.

Another guy responded to my graphic explaining the Second Amendment and the right to own and to carry weapons with the comment:

Not sure that quite made the point he was going for.

They are trying really hard to fool people. Too many people fall for it. Not you, though.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

My own daycare story

(Note: The news of the mass murder at the daycare in Thailand came just after I typed out this story from my past. After I scheduled this to post, I went on Twitsite and saw the terrible news. Then I came back and changed the title of this post to avoid confusion. It was just one of those odd coincidences.)

Back when my son and older daughter were little, we put them in daycare so we could both work. It was barely worth the cost since my job paid only slightly more than we spent on daycare. But we thought it was the responsible thing to do-- what we should be doing so we could both have a job. (I did things differently this time around, which is why I depend on your subscriptions and donations.)

Then the daycare announced it had been purchased by the daycare that operated in the local college.

We got the official letter a few days later and saw that the price had doubled. We immediately pulled our kids out and decided they would go to work with me and I'd babysit them at the pet store-- there was space where this was doable-- if not wonderfully, at least workably.

It turns out that almost everyone else did the same. Or maybe it was unanimous. Suddenly the purchaser didn't want to buy a daycare without any customers and they backed out of the sale. (Not sure what they thought would happen when they doubled the price-- to me it seemed obvious.) 

The daycare owners called and begged us to reconsider and keep our kids in the daycare, but it just wasn't possible under the circumstances. We would have been losing money fast.

I guess a few parents were convinced to leave their kids in after the sale fell through, because a few weeks later...

A little kid left the daycare and walked several blocks to the elementary school to find his (or her) older sibling. The daycare hadn't noticed the kid was missing until someone at the school called. The daycare ended up just shutting down for good at the end of the day. They lost interest and just didn't seem to care anymore after the sale fell through.

Just imagine if that daycare had operated like government. We wouldn't have had the option of not doing business with them, no matter how harmful it was to us or our children. We would have been forced to pay whatever they demanded, even if we decided to take care of our kids ourselves (if that option was even allowed). If the service was poor or dangerous, it would have just been too bad. Deal with it or have your life destroyed. "That's the price of living in a civilized society", you know.

This is why-- no matter how bad a private business is-- it is still better than a coercive government "service".

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

My relationship with rules

I don't respect rules, not automatically. Doesn't matter if you call them "laws", legislation, policies, or whatever. 

I don't go looking for rules to break, but I also don't ask what the rules are before I act. I'm not necessarily going out of my way to violate the rules, but if one seems arbitrary to me, chances are I'm not going to pay much attention to it either way. 

I'm not saying this is the best way to live or anything like that; I am just saying this is how it is. How I am.

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ~ Robert A. Heinlein

If you can explain to me the reason behind the rule-- explain why it's not arbitrary or why it is needed-- and if I'm convinced that the reason makes sense, I will change my mind about it. If you can't, that rule has just lost every shred of credibility with me.

Perhaps surprisingly, I expect the same from others-- including my daughter-- regarding rules I make up. If I can't reasonably explain the "why", then my rule is most likely nonsense, too.

Funny how often even asking for an explanation triggers those behind the rules. To them, rules must not be questioned. To me, every rule must be questioned and sufficiently justified.

Rules against harming others are well justified. Most others, not so much.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Got nothing? Demand to see their degree

When people realize they are wrong, they suddenly rely more heavily on appeals to authority.

I've seen it many times. 

They'll demand to know what your psychology credentials are when you point out that they are projecting. Even if moments before they were shrugging off expert opinions that didn't align with what they want to continue believing.

It doesn't matter that a degree isn't necessary to recognize what they are doing right in front of you. Or that they (also lacking a psych degree) made an almost identical comment about someone else moments before. It doesn't take a degree in ornithology to know a pigeon is a bird-- or that a frog isn't.

I've watched it happen with many topics. Recently I'm seeing it mostly in anti-gun bigots, probably because that's who I'm engaging with (poking at) the most. 

When you've got nothing supporting your position, you'll imagine "authority" in anything you can twist to prop up your side, and you'll demand unnecessary "authority" when called out.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

People have responsibility for actions

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 31, 2022)

Is it my imagination, or do many people run from responsibility as fast as they can?

If you cause harm to a person's life, liberty, or property you need to take responsibility. Don't wait for someone else to hold you accountable. Step up and accept it.

If it was an accident, it can't be a real crime, no matter how bad it was or what government says. You still owe restitution but government has no stake in the matter. It's between you and the one you harmed. Punishment shouldn't even be an option.

It's only if you refuse to take responsibility that I can see how some might justify government involvement. I still suspect this will always make things worse.

If you caused harm on purpose you committed a crime. You can still choose to take responsibility, although if you're the sort to commit crimes I doubt you will unless backed into a corner. Some people imagine government is the right tool to use to back criminals into a corner; I think it's a weak tool and still makes things worse in the long run. Being punished by government isn't the same as accepting responsibility or even being held accountable. It's nothing.

It's not just the big things like this, though. In fact, those are the extreme cases, even if too common. The smaller examples are even more common, and probably affect more people.

People don't take responsibility to put their trash in a proper receptacle, and if they do, they don't care if it's going to blow right back out again. They'll leave paper in the back of their pickup, knowing it's going to blow out and become litter.

They dump cats and dogs, not caring about the pain and misery they'll suffer as strays-- and the puppies and kittens born doomed.

I get it; responsibility is hard. It's not fun. It's easier to let someone else deal with your messes and suffer your consequences. But this is how others justify political government-- which is just more irresponsibility; every bit as damaging as the other things I've mentioned. Laws are pollution, too.

You are responsible for your actions, whether you accept it or not. If you don't face it you are hurting yourself. You're making a world none of us-- including you-- would want to live in. You might as well be telling everyone that you're not very smart or good.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Dystopia + government = same old thing

I often enjoy dystopian fiction. Books like the Hunger Games series, television series, and movies.

However, almost all of it introduces some factor that I don't like, which interferes with the whole premise-- usually because it doesn't seem like it really fits the story. Something that tries to make it into something other than what it was.

After establishing how you'll adapt to survive this world, suddenly, "Oh, look: there's a whole society you never knew about living just over the hill...or under it. This changes everything." And usually not in a good way. It's like the common fiction arc: "Let's discover this wondrous new place or thing, and destroy it so the world can return to how it was before."

And, of course, most dystopian fiction has to become a sermon promoting the Religion of Statism in some way. "See how brutal and short your life would be without us robbing and controlling you for your own good?" They do this, for example, with aggressive neo-governmental gangs calling themselves a militia and pretending they are different from any other political government. They aren't. And it kind of ruins the storytelling in a lazy way.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Making a case or making a claim?

There's a difference between repeatedly making a claim and making a case.

I see people getting those confused pretty often, and I'm sure I've done the same. It's easier to notice when others are doing it while disagreeing with you. 

When that happens you see them making the same empty political claim over and over again, acting like they've made their case through simple repetition.

They haven't. 

They are just chasing their own tail, believing they are getting somewhere. Like a hamster in a wheel or a mule on a treadmill. Hoping you'll keep following them as they go in circles.

I see it happening a lot. Online and in person. And always where political government is concerned. It can be amusing to watch for a couple of minutes but gets boring before too long.

(Even making a case doesn't necessarily mean they've proven their point, just that there's a possibility they are right. If they can't make a case, the chances are higher that they aren't right.)

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

How to have a credible election

If you want to ever have a credible election, there are things you'd have to do. Not a legitimate election, of course, but a credible one.

First, count all non-v*tes (every person eligible to v*te, whether registered or not, who doesn't cast a v*te) as a v*te for "None of the above" or a v*te against the ballot measure. Yes, that would make them much harder to impose, but that's the whole point. It should be nearly impossible to govern people harder.

Then, where political offices are concerned, have "None of the above/Abolish the position" as the top choice on the ballot and as the default. As the default, if left blank, this is counted as a v*te for "None of the above/Abolish the position". If no candidate ends up with the winning number of v*tes, then that office is abolished and will never be re-established unless it later gets v*ted back into existence. The position's powers or duties don't get transferred to another office-- they just go away.

Next, have any politician who "wins" only represent (or pretend to do so) those who v*ted for that politician. To everyone else, that politician is nothing but another random person whose opinions are meaningless.

Finally, have any ballot measure only apply to those who will admit to v*ting in favor of it. If a "tax", only those who v*ted for it pay it. If a ban on some object or activity, only those who v*ted for this prohibition will have government violence directed at them if they don't comply. People who v*te against it, and those who didn't v*te at all, are exempt from the measure or any consequences of it.

That's an election I would probably not object to too much.

Now, even though this would make an election more credible, it still wouldn't be legitimate. The reason is, no one's rights or liberty are subject to a v*te. The mob doesn't have the right to decide which of your rights you are allowed to exercise. Not ever. So, no matter how credible the election may be, if someone's rights are up for grabs, it is not a legitimate outcome no matter how one-sided the v*te in favor of violating someone's rights ends up. No majority-- not even everyone except for one individual-- has any right to violate the rights of any minority.

If this makes it too hard to impose your government violence on others, too bad. Find an honest pastime instead.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon

Don't ask permission!

Someone who recently moved to town put chickens in their backyard. This is against the rules in this authoritarian little town-- although others have chickens, too, and have for as long as I've lived here. I would have chickens if my yard weren't so ridiculously unsuited for ... literally everything.

Anyway, this new resident decided to ask permission from the town rulers to have his chickens. That was months ago, and they finally squeezed out a juicy decision after months of delays and indecision: "Yes, but".

The rules make me believe none of these petty tyrants have ever had chickens. Maybe they've never even seen one. They definitely must hate chickens and anyone who keeps them. And they obviously want to make it as burdensome as possible so as to convince people to not have them. (While right across the imaginary line that runs through town to divide "New Mexico" from "Texas", the residents of the NM side are "allowed" to have chickens. Because, states.)

First, no roosters are allowed. I have to put up with hearing dogs barking day and night, but Heaven forbid I hear a rooster crow! Just petty and stupid. Actually, I can hear roosters crowing because 2 blocks east of me is the "city limit" and homes across that road have roosters-- and guineas, horses, and cattle. (The town has tried to assert the "authority" to tell people within several hundred yards of the town limits what they are allowed to do and have, but this hasn't gotten anywhere yet.) So this arbitrary rule is pointless.

Then, the rules say you have to clean the chicken pen daily. And you aren't allowed to dispose of the bedding (or whatever) in the dumpsters the town provides for trash and garbage. They didn't suggest an approved alternative, and in cases like that, people usually just dump stuff along the road somewhere. Yeah, that's helpful.

There are more dumb little rules, but those are the main ones. Makes me want to get rheas.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Find a way to make it work

It has always been surprising that people greet any solution you suggest with "that can't be done because..." instead of considering what you actually propose.

Often, the "because" is that government wouldn't allow it.

If that's the case, get rid of government.

"But you can't do that because..." See? There it is again.

Cops are a gang that violates liberty, but if you point out that the solution is to abolish police, "You can't do that because...". Insert whatever weakness, personal failing, or irrational fear causes a person to cling to government police (or any policing) as a concept.

I think a way to reduce opioid overdose deaths could be to invent a new drug that produces an even better high, but can't be overdosed on, and is entirely legal. Yes, I understand there are chemistry problems involved, but I think the political hurdle is bigger-- government and the Puritans who are addicted to government don't want people to enjoy themselves in unapproved ways. But I suggested this, as an alternative to the US gov declaring war on China and Mexico, and all I got was "but that wouldn't work because..." followed by ignoring the meat of what I had proposed.

This is why we are still stuck in the era of the state.

To get free, people are going to have to consider different ways out. They'll have to think of ways to make new things work instead of only focusing on why new things "can't work". If you are sure it can't work as proposed, fix it. Find a way to do the same thing in a different way that will work. Be part of the solution, not part of the shackles that bind us to the problem.

For every problem, there is a liberty-respecting solution. Someone only has to find it. Maybe it will be you.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Day at the range

As much as it pains me to spend ammo, I spent a few hours yesterday at the range with my son. I almost never go to the Big City without coming home with more ammo; this time I came back with less. Ouch! But I'll be OK.

A while back I inherited a tiny rolling block .22 rifle that was my grandfather's. It's a J. Stevens Little Scout 14 ½. I had never shot it before. Until yesterday. I had to make a new front sight to replace the one that was missing when I got it, but it was right on-target. The only issue I had was that it doesn't like ejecting cartridges. Its extractor pulls them out but doesn't fling them because they stick. I had to use multitool pliers to get them the rest of the way out. I may do a little chamber polishing and see if that helps.

I also shot my carry guns and my scary black Sport Utility Rifle and a .22 revolver. It was a needed break and a useful way to spend a few hours. I always enjoy seeing other families out there practicing, too. It warms the heart. 

I may have missed Paratus (Paratus Day?) due to an unpleasant previous engagement, but better late than never.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

Government not worth trade-off

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 24, 2022)

Do you believe you need to be governed? I mean you, as an individual. If you didn't feel like government was watching over your shoulder all the time, would you steal, kidnap, or murder? I'm betting you wouldn't. Neither would I.

If you're saying you would commit crimes if not for government, I'm guessing you commit crimes anyway. By "crimes" I'm not talking about the counterfeit "crimes" which are only called crimes because government made up an arbitrary rule that says so. I'm speaking of acts which have a specific individual victim whose life, liberty, or property has been violated in some concrete way.

I doubt many in my audience would ever do anything actually criminal. People who read these columns simply aren't the sort. You govern yourselves perfectly well.

So, you probably don't believe you need to be governed. I certainly don't. It would be a very defeatist attitude to take. Nor do I want you governed on my behalf. I'm not helpless.

I'm glad we settled that.

Perhaps, like most people who still believe political government is necessary, you think you're not the problem; it's all those other people out there who need to be governed. People who won't, or can't, govern themselves.

Yes, there are people among us who violate others. Some of them choose this as a lifestyle; it's habitual. As you may have noticed, they don't stop committing crimes simply because government exists to punish them. Just like you wouldn't become a criminal if government went away.

Government makes it safer for the actual criminals to continue a life of crime. It protects criminals by enforcing rules against defending yourself and your property from them. Crime is largely a government-created problem. or at least a problem government doesn't want solved.

Maybe you can see that you don't need to be governed and criminals can't be governed, but you imagine you still need government in your life for some reason. Do you need government in your marriage? Do you believe there are things only government can give you which you couldn't get on your own? Things only someone with the power to steal can hand out, like a powerful, crooked Santa Claus. There's nothing I want bad enough that I'm willing to have government steal it from you to give it to me.

I'm not willing to trade what's right for what's expedient. Do you really believe it's worth the trade-off?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The signpost up ahead...

I'll say a little about that recent experience I don't know whether I should relate.

It was either a neurological event, a "glitch in the matrix" type thing, or something else equally disturbing. It was completely unsettling, whatever it was.

I am meeting up with someone later today and I might feel comfortable enough to discuss it. I'll see.

Whatever else, I'll make an effort to get back to writing on topic as soon as possible. 

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

The joy just keeps on coming

Yesterday afternoon the colonoscopy doc called to inform me of the lab results on the polyps he removed: one of them was "on the verge of being cancer", but wasn't yet. But, that's also the one he isn't sure he completely removed because it was so flat he couldn't get a good grip on it. I'll spare you the bloody picture.

So, of all the options for treatment he offered, I've chosen another colonoscopy in 6 months, with a backup surgery scheduled the very next day (to be canceled if it doesn't look necessary after the colonoscopy).

I'm glad he caught it, but this doesn't make me happy at all.

The insurance balked at paying for this last colonoscopy because it wasn't 10 years after the previous one. They are probably going to completely refuse to pay anything on this next one after only 6 months. The doctor says he will send a letter to them explaining why it is medically necessary, but he says the insurance company doesn't work for me or even him, so he doesn't know if it will do any good.

And, no, this has nothing to do with the other issue, it's an additional thing.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Don't struggle to please the people who will never really be on your side

I don't understand the desire to water-down libertarian principles so that people who aren't really on our side might be tricked into v*ting for Libertarian Party politicians. Or at least not scared away.

Back before I knew I was libertarian, I disagreed with some of what I considered the "extreme" libertarian positions-- ditching prohibition and government borders, being two examples. But those issues didn't scare me away. 

I realized libertarians were right on the other stuff, so I examined my own positions on the things I disagreed with them on. Even if I had eventually decided they were wrong, it wouldn't have been enough to drive me away.

I was really and truly done with DemoCRAPublicans, and nothing could have driven me back into that circus.

If I had been so close-minded that those disagreements had been deal-breakers, I wouldn't have embraced it at all. Not even if someone had told me "Well, we don't really mean it" or "Those are only the extremists-- we reject their position". That would have seemed sketchy.

Stick to principles and let people either side with us or choose some other path, but at least it will be an honest choice. Not based on some weak statist-lite version of libertarianism that is palatable to those who will abandon us at the first sign of disagreement anyway.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

I chickened out. Twice.

For the second day in a row, I canceled the post I had scheduled for this morning before it could post.

Why?

Because it scares me to think about it, and I wonder if critics could use it against me in the future.

No, it's nothing illegal or unethical/unlibertarian. Just personal.

I need to wrestle with this some more. I feel the need to talk about it, but I'm not sure putting it in writing or on any electronic media is smart-- although since it's already written and in "the cloud", that's a moot point. And there's no one in my personal life I trust with this.

But since it is in the cloud and discoverable by any bad guy with keys to the backdoor to the internet, maybe it would be better to go ahead and let some good guys in on it. Maybe.

I'll keep thinking about it (I can't seem to put it out of my mind), and try to focus on something else to write about in the meantime. But this is seriously distracting me.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Twitler's Brown Shirts demonstrate their stupidity. Again.

I'm currently in Twutter jail because Twitler's goose-stepping Brown Shirts are too stupid to understand the difference between encouraging "self-harm" and ridiculing those who are actually trying to trick people into harming themselves.

I was replying to someone who was making fun of people gullible enough to try the TikTok "challenge" of cooking and eating Nyquil-marinated chicken. I have no idea whether the guy I was replying to was also put in time-out. It seemed to be a repeat of the Tide Pod "challenge", and those looked like a natural side dish to such an entree.

So I've been locked out unless I delete the tweet and "agree" that I violated their rule against encouraging self-harm. In other words, I'm falsely accused of doing what Twutter is doing in reality by objecting to my tweet. 

Yes, Twutter is encouraging those who actually promote self-harm by making it against the rules to ridicule them.

I appealed, but I will delete the scary tweet if my appeal fails. Then I will post this multiple times.

Update: My account was restored because they say they made an error. 

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Being better

I've made some people extremely angry in the past by saying I was trying to help them be better. That was a mistake! I probably could have phrased it better, but it might have made no difference anyway.

I can't remember all the specific topics, but I know spelling and grammar figured in a couple of times that are burned into my memory. I was told, "I don't want to be better! I don't need to be fixed!"

I've run into this same issue even when I've just tried to demonstrate an easier or better way to do something I've seen someone struggling with. They'd rather keep struggling than learn something new.

This is an attitude I can't wrap my head around. I always want to be better. I love learning new ways to do things-- even if I eventually go back to doing it the way I did before. I've even let people try to fix me. (It's not their fault I'm difficult to fix.)

I have seen the same attitude in people who have a problem that could be solved, but they don't want to solve it. They'd rather pretend it's not a problem because they get their identity from it. It has given them a culture.

This is why you'll never be able to help most statists. They love their defect and will stand firm in denying it is a defect. They get an identity from it-- its "pole quilts" and other symbols, its rituals and documents, its beliefs and camaraderie. It has given them a culture and they aren't letting go. Not even when you offer a healthier culture in its place.

Part of it is probably that they don't want to admit they've been wrong; that they've wasted years of life going down a terrible path. I can't really blame them, but I wish they'd take the hand I offer. You can't help people who don't want to be helped.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

It's all in the accessories

Apparently, my glasses make me look really intelligent-- like that guy... what was his name?... a long time ago... he invented gravity or something.

That's from an actual conversation I recently had with someone. Well, she was doing most of the talking. I just sat there in a hospital gown being medically assessed, poked, and prodded before being violated. But looking intelligent, I guess.

It was one of the oddest compliments I've ever received. Or, that my glasses have received.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Drug abuse is a risky choice

Dilbert's Scott Adams has been extreme on the topic of Fentanyl ever since his stepson died of an overdose a few years ago. I understand the pain, but I can't condone using that pain as an excuse to advocate wrong.

He claims it is terrorism and mass-murder-- an act of war-- to provide Fentanyl to Americans.

He wants the US government to invade China and kill the manufacturers, invade Mexico and kill the cartel leaders, and use drones to kill anyone crossing "the border" to bring it into the country.

An important piece of this emotional puzzle is that he also claims addicts bear little (or no) responsibility for their addictions once they are addicted. "Once they are addicted..."

I think drug abuse deaths are tragic. I care. I also hold the addicts 100% responsible for their own death. It's suicide, not murder. They know the risks involved in abusing substances-- they don't care enough to stop. They knew when they first chose to try something they knew could be addictive and knew might contain ingredients they didn't necessarily want. You've got to take that first step on the road to addiction yourself. They made a choice. It turned out to be a bad choice and there are consequences. Welcome to reality. It's the same reality we all face all our lives.

If I knew of people who insisted on dashing across railroad tracks without looking, I would wish they'd stop, but I wouldn't imprison them to force them to stop. I wouldn't arrest the train engineers or the workers who built the tracks. People have to be free to do stupid things that can kill them. If someone chooses to use an addictive drug, then they get addicted and can no longer stop and they die of an overdose, it is on them.

To commit a larger wrong-- to involve government to impose your will on others-- in an attempt to solve a problem, is not a good way to do anything. It's not going to work anyway, since humans have always sought out mind-altering substances and experiences, and they always will. Risk, government opinions, and whatever else will always be irrelevant to their behavior and the choices they make.

The smart move is to know it's going to happen and take measures to protect yourself. Some drugs should be avoided, some drug sources shouldn't be trusted, and some behaviors can (and probably will) kill you. And some addicts will be a danger to you.

As I and others have pointed out for decades: drug abuse is stupid, but prohibition is evil. Don't be stupid or evil, but if you feel you have to pick one, pick stupid.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.