Shoot all balloons on sight!... no, don't do that

Next time I see a weather balloon, which happens once a decade or so, I'm going to assume it's a Chinese spy balloon. That seems a lot more fun than a boring old weather balloon out of Roswell or wherever ours originate from.

When I first heard about the one over Montana I thought "Seriously? No one in Montana has shot it down yet?" Then I heard that it was like a weather balloon and realized it would be out of range. 

I'd be willing to bet someone has shot at it already, though. Especially after the news came out that it was a Chinese spy balloon (not that this means that's what it really is-- I just wouldn't want to be flying in a balloon right now).

I saw someone asking who had "Chinese spy balloon" on their 2023 Bingo card. I didn't. 

I also saw someone else wondering why "our" government wasn't doing something to protect us from a spy balloon sent by "our existential enemy". But I thought it was sent by the Chinese government, not the US government. Maybe someone is confused about which government poses the greater threat to average Americans. It might be me, but I don't think so.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Government and drugs

There's only one thing government can do about "the drug problem": Turn loose and go away. Release it and leave.

Letting government keep its fingers in the issue only makes it worse. There is no government solution and there never will be.

Don't add socialism or legislation and punishment-- which is what all government supremacists propose every time.

Handing out free drugs or needles is socialism. That's not going to help anything. You get more of what you subsidize. You have to steal money from people to pay for anything "free". You're making things worse.

Harsher legislation or more draconian punishment is just evil. And it doesn't work anyway. Prisons are funded with stolen ("tax") money. Even the pretense that prison is to protect you/society is a lie. You're making things worse.

I'm not talking about "legalization"; I mean stop letting government say or do anything about drugs. Any and all drugs.

Respecting the defense of person and property from any archator using any excuse-- drugs or "authority"-- would go a long way toward making the problems associated with drug abuse go away, too. This is something else government needs to release and leave.

Government is always the wrong tool. Trying to fix anything with government is barking up the wrong tree at an imaginary squirrel.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

It's the ideas that matter

It's interesting to me when I see someone getting attention for saying something I said on this blog earlier. Sometimes a year or two earlier. But it never really caught on when I said it.

I guess there's something to be said for saying something at the right time rather than too early or too late.

I have this experience a few times a year now. I doubt they ever saw what I wrote. But, even if they did, and it got into their head, I probably got the idea from somewhere else, too. There are very few original thoughts that haven't been thought of multiple times by multiple people. 

Great minds think alike. Great ideas make themselves be thought.

I don't care where the ideas come from. If they are good, I want them to spread. Even if I truly were the first person in human history to ever have the thought, if it's good it doesn't matter if I get credit, as long as it spreads. Right?

That's why I don't care if you copy and paste anything I write and claim an idea as your own. If you think it needs to have a life of its own, that's what matters. Some ideas would do better separated from me-- I'm not everyone's cup of tea. Hard to believe, I know! But it's true.

I'm not going to get rich off of any of my ideas. If they are useful and can increase liberty, that's the main thing. If someone else can get rich off my ideas (not that I believe it would happen), I might wish I got a cut, too, but liberty matters more. Liberty is more important than I am. Liberty > life.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Censorship only drives evil into shadows

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 21, 2022)

I've realized most people don't understand freedom of speech. Not even experts.

Having freedom of speech doesn't mean you can force anyone to listen. It doesn't mean you'll escape consequences of your words. It doesn't mean anyone-- other than government-- is obligated to let you speak.

Of course, I believe corporations are an arm of government due to the cozy arrangements they share. Government puts pressure-- with implied threats of retaliation-- on corporations to ban speech government doesn't want allowed. This violates the First Amendment, which applies to what government is allowed to do.

Free speech means you have a right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater-- politically motivated "expert" opinions aside. No one has the authority-- or the practical ability-- to keep you from shouting before you do. Government is even prohibited by the First Amendment from silencing you for "public safety".

There will be consequences, though.

You should be held accountable for any harm your speech causes. Either through some legal system shenanigans afterward or by someone present who sees the harm you are causing and acts to stop it. If someone needs to act to protect innocents from you, you have no one to blame but yourself when this turns out badly for you.

Choosing to ignore someone doesn't violate their freedom of speech in any way. I saw people get angry and cry "hypocrisy" after Elon Musk's Twitter purchase when he personally blocked them. Don't confuse someone's right to not listen to you for violating your right to speak. These are not the same. You have the right to stink, and people have the right to hold their nose in your presence.

I disagree with him banning accounts from Twitter, though. For anything. The other side of freedom of speech is the freedom to hear it. I understand the desire and the legal pressure to ban some accounts, but it still isn't the right thing to do. No one is right, or wrong, all the time.

I would always prefer to let nasty, dangerous people speak freely. I want them to feel free to expose who they really are so we'll know. This is how we can be ready to defend ourselves from them. Censoring them only drives their evil into the shadows where it can fester and grow, unexposed to the light of truth. Bad speech should be countered, not censored.

This is why I am a free-speech absolutist.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Comply or die... Oops, I meant "and die"

Almost everyone will tell you that to reduce your chances of being murdered by a cop, obey cops quickly and completely. (Which is sometimes impossible, given the conflicting or physically impossible orders they are unintelligibly barking).

Some will tell you this, as a matter of fact, to try to keep you alive when bad guys unfortunately have the upper hand. As cops nearly always do.

A second type will tell you this as part of a dishonest narrative that cops are good guys who are just doing their job of keeping you safe, so you owe them your respect and immediate compliance.

Both admit that cops can and will kill you. This is objectively true and saying otherwise makes you look like an idiot who lives in a rotten log.

The second type is telling you a partial truth, but is letting you know he's your enemy.

This type will sometimes admit, when pressed, that immediate compliance is no guarantee because cops murder (innocent) people all the time, even when they are doing their best to comply fast enough to keep the cop from getting scared. Mistakes are made, but it's still the victim's fault because the other guy is a cop!

There's one long-time "expert" in the gun community and in gun magazines who will always take this second path-- or always did back when I paid any attention to him. He would tell you to comply (and how your compliance should be choreographed) and let the court sort it out later. (Or let your estate sort it out if the cops murder you anyway. But I doubt he would ever admit that as a possibility). 

He was always so over-the-top copsucking that I haven't paid him any attention in more than a decade-- maybe a couple of decades now. I just saw him pop up in a suggested video on YouTube. No, I'm not going to watch any video he's in. His pro-cop attitude (he's a cop or former cop) destroyed his credibility with me long, long ago. Now I hate even seeing his face.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Business + government = failure

When you mix business with government, you don't improve either one.

Around mid-December, our town's contract with a garbage collection company ran out. The company that has had the contract for decades lost the bid. So before the end of December, they started hauling off the dumpsters around town.

The new company wasn't supposed to start collecting trash until mid-January.

So, we were without any trash collection for 2 weeks. The new company did put a large bin on the town's lot (where the water towers and other town utilities are) for people to use. I stashed my trash in my shed.

When we finally got a new dumpster, after being without one for over 2 weeks, instead of placing it in the ugly scar where the old one had sat for decades, they carefully placed it underneath the guy-wires of a utility pole, about a dozen or so feet away. Where, conveniently, the truck can't lift and dump the dumpster without hitting the wires. So they don't.

Total incompetence.

This means, we have a dumpster, but it is overflowing and hasn't been dumped since it was placed there. The others down the alley have been dumped twice. I'm using them, but my irresponsible neighbors will just keep piling trash on top of the dumpster. I know because it's what they always do. Often, they don't even bother to bag it. Then it falls off/out and no one will pick it up if I don't. Including the dirty toilet paper they dump loose in-- or on-- the dumpster. (OK, maybe you can't flush it for some reason, but put it in a tied bag!)

Back when I lived in a different state there was no monopoly on trash collection. I hired my own trash collector. If they missed my house, I could call and they'd come back and get it, and they'd apologize.

With this company only answering to the town government, they don't care. The government doesn't care. Yet, we are still forced to keep paying the fee for the service we aren't getting-- for more than a month now.

Yeah, I'm irritated over it. If I were this incompetent I'd have to pay a price.

UPDATE 1-31-2023: They moved it late this morning and used a backhoe to press down the trash so it didn't stick up. I guess enough people complained. It was the town that moved it, not the trash collector-- I'm sure they weren't going to travel 90 miles one-way to move a dumpster. I also think it was the town which placed the dumpster in the wrong spot to begin with. I had tried to walk the dumpster out from under the guy-wires the first time it got skipped, but it was too heavy to budge. Couldn't even rock it.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Empathy

I have loads of empathy for some people-- victims, for example-- and zero empathy for other people-- thieves and aggressors, for example.

I have conditional empathy for others-- such as addicts.

If you started down a path you knew would likely lead to a particular destination, my empathy is shallow. I probably don’t want bad things to happen to you, but I’m going to balance that with “You knew where this was going”.

That's part of the reason I don't support prohibition. I don't want to harm everyone by trying to protect someone from themselves. I know that there's probably no one who decides to become addicted, but they knew the chance was there when they took their first dose. 

I'll save most of my empathy for those who didn't choose to start down the path they find themselves on.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Project on Patreon

"Government should ban..."

Government should never be allowed to have the power to ban anything.

ANYTHING.

Nor to control or regulate anything.

Yes, there are things that probably shouldn't exist. There are things you should not allow in your life. There are things that can hurt or even kill you. 

Government power is one of those things. Probably the worst one among many. But government won't ban government power-- it would only ban lesser dangers.

It is your right and responsibility to ban things from your own life if you think you need to. Not from other people's lives; not as an individual nor through political action.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

Every little bit helps.

"Happy, free" social democracies

In response to someone trying to defend "social democracy" with a chart, and saying how much more "civil liberties" people have under it and how much happier it makes them, I said that I would have to know how they define "liberty" and "rights" before I could take them seriously.

Later I dared state there can be no such thing as "too much liberty" so someone decided to educate me on how "too much liberty" is a real threat, and that people's liberty can be in conflict. But they immediately pivoted away from arguing about liberty toward freedom. 

In other words, they changed the subject so they could pretend they proved their point.

I have always said there can be such a thing as too much freedom. And your freedom can conflict with someone else's rights.

You might be free to arbitrarily kill someone, which would violate their rights, but you don't have the right to do so-- you don't have the liberty to kill them until they choose to violate you and put you in a position to need to defend yourself. 

Similarly, you might be free to live on money stolen from others-- the slave labor of others--, but you have no right to do so. 

There is no conflict. 

But, I don't doubt this would make a certain type of person-- a type which is prevalent in societies around the world-- "happier" than the alternative.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

Every little bit helps.

If I seem miserable...

In about 2 weeks, on February 8, I'm going in for the medical procedure I've been dreading for months.

It's the follow-up colonoscopy to the one last summer that had some troublesome results. If that colonoscopy isn't better than the last I'll be going in for surgery-- possibly the next day. If the surgery is necessary they'll be removing a section of my colon.

I hope it all goes better than the last appointment I had.

I recently went in for a follow-up on my liver issue, but I was turned away at the desk because they said my referral had expired. They never even looked at my insurance or anything, just looked at the sheets of paper they had on the desk in front of them (that apparently they'd never glanced at). Why they couldn't have said something before I drove 90 miles, one way, I don't know. They wouldn't even call to get a referral; just "Nope. We can't see you". This was the second time-- out of four appointments-- I arrived only to have them refuse to see me for some bureaucratic nonsense. I told them I will not be coming back.

I realize that choice may kill me.

At least I'm still pursuing the colon problem.

I'd be lying if I said this is having no effect on my attitude and ability to write. It is. I'm trying to not let it, but I can't get it out of my mind. I apologize to you all, and especially to my supporters.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

Every little bit helps.

Taxation is an uncivilized act

So many people are currently arguing over which way to "tax" people is better than other ways.

Some DemoCRAPublicans want a "flat tax". This faction pretends this would be more ethical, while the other pretends this "flat tax" would be in addition to the IRS and other taxing scams. The latter are quick to accuse the former of robbing poor families (but they'll pretend the poor families aren't being robbed now).

Taxation is theft; it is extortion.

All of that is beside the point.

Taxation is unethical because it funds the state. You can't make it right as long as it helps keep a state alive.

A civilized society is what humans sometimes manage to create in spite of uncivilized acts such as taxation.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

Every little bit helps.

Why do highly educated people get so much wrong?

At a certain level of “formal” education, education is almost entirely replaced with political indoctrination. At least the education is so diluted with political indoctrination that it is lost in the fog. 

When you mix politics with anything you are left with nothing but politics. “Everything is political” only if you choose to make it that way. If you mix politics with education you are left with schooling, which is the opposite of education.

This is why the most highly “educated” are often the most wrong on topics that have been or can be politicized.

Yes, there are people who manage to avoid being damaged this way. Not many, but some. The quickest way to tell the good ones from the bad ones is to see who's making the issue political; who is advocating policies and government action. Don't listen to those people. They're the ones getting it wrong.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

Every little bit helps.

Self-sabotage

People sabotage themselves. I know you've seen it. We've probably all done it.

I know someone who is rude to people and then wonders why other people don't seem comfortable around them. They refuse social invitations and then complain that others don't include them. They'll make a point of not participating, and then get angry that the world wasn't revolving around them.

I can see it. Others can see it. But not the person who's doing it. It's everyone else who's to blame. This doesn't seem to be a good life strategy.

When I notice something like this, it always makes me think about myself. What am I doing to sabotage myself right now? Some things are obvious to even me. Sometimes I am able to stop. Those times I am not able to, I am sabotaging myself again; sabotage on top of sabotage. But at least I'm aware of it. I don't blame others.

“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

This isn't only applicable to freedom.

-

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

Punishment and Justice

Yesterday, I had a short discussion with someone who considers punishment an essential part of justice.

I don't. I consider it revenge.

I understand the desire to punish someone who has violated you-- I've felt it myself many times. But, I now think that feeling goes beyond what I have a right to do or demand. If I punished someone (or had the state do it on my behalf) I would feel I had created a debt.

To me, justice refers to the attempt to restore a victim to their pre-violation condition, or as close as possible. This could include restitution. I also realize some things are beyond restitution, but in those cases, punishment also falls short. It seems to me that punishment is desired because "you hurt me so I want to make sure you, hurt, too". This seems inherently vengeful. Am I wrong? I could well be wrong.

If you think punishment is a required part of justice, please explain to me in the comments why you believe it is and how they are related. I might not be convinced, but I'd like to see the other side from rational perspectives.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Do you believe government should keep secrets?

I think you could consider "government secrets" to be a test for government supremacism. If you justify government keeping anything secret, you have some government supremacism in you somewhere.

L. Neil Smith had said that government secrets should be the only capital crime. Of course, since government is the entity that carries out capital punishment (killing in defense isn't capital punishment), that would never work. Nor do I believe capital punishment is anything other than murder in revenge.

Since I don't believe in the right or "authority" of government to do anything (kill people, keep secrets, exist, etc.), I'm not on board with that, but I do agree that government keeping secrets from its superiors (anyone you could think of) is an unforgivable wrong. 

You and I have a right to privacy from government's prying eyes and probing fingers, but governments have no rights at all-- they can't.

You may point out that what I consider wrong isn't going to change the criminal gang's behavior one bit. True.

Government cares about my opinions exactly as much as I care about its opinions. Still, I think it's a useful observation to make so you know where someone stands-- if they'll stand with you when the chips are down or if they're likely to sell you out because government says so.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

From the archives, on pandemics

I was looking back through old blog posts searching for something on a different topic when I ran across this from 2009. A reader had asked the question: 

How would 300 million of us, as we "governed ourselves" react for instance to... a pandemic?

My response back then was:

With a pandemic, people should be allowed to seek treatment from whoever they trust, using any medications they wish, without government intervention. Government "help" has a history of making things worse by not foreseeing the unintended consequences. 

Innovation is crushed under the government's regulations and by its FDA. No one ever talks about the people who died while the FDA wraps new treatments in a mummy of red-tape and backroom deals. Doctors are rationed by a broken licensing scheme that only rewards the ones who play politics well. Then you have the pharmaceutical company/government partnership. If pharmaceutical companies develop a vaccine, many people would choose to buy it. If it really works as advertised, the vaccinated people would have nothing to fear from those who chose other methods. You seem to also be ignoring the fact that wars, the main business of government, are prime causes of pandemics throughout history.

I think that held up pretty well. But, then, liberty always does.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Political goggles make things worse

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 14, 2022)

Have you ever heard the term "beer goggles", where the more you drink, the more attractive someone looks? Politics works the opposite. The more you see things politically, the worse everything looks.

Once someone starts looking at things through the distorting lens of politics, there's no telling what they'll think they see. Even without politics, people see what they want to see, what they expect to see, or what they've been told to see. Politics make this effect worse.

With politics, people see the worst possible interpretation of what's in front of them. Is this how they want to see things, or is the expectation so strong it traps them? Has someone else made everything political in order to manipulate people into reacting a certain way?

If I say I'm against a certain practice, those in favor of it are likely to imagine they heard me say I want government to forbid it and punish those who engage in it. That's political and it's not me. I think most bad behaviors bring their own punishment.

No matter how much I oppose something, I think there is a better way to deal with it than by throwing government at it. Yes, even things like murder.

You might say a unified standard for handling things is necessary, but since rules vary by country, state, county, and city, there is no standard in any real sense, only the illusion of a standard. Often, the rules are completely wrong anyway, so even if there were a standard, it would be more harmful than helpful.

There are many behaviors and practices I consider wrong even though they are legal and widely accepted. When I say I believe they are wrong I am not saying I want them made illegal.

This has nothing to do with a China-style "social credit score", either. Nor does it encourage censorship or canceling anyone. It is me, as an individual, acting on what I see as the wrong thing to do.

If someone does those things I'll consider them a bad person and I will not want to have anything to do with them. I may also be giving a warning that I could feel the need to defend myself if those things are done to me.

Even if I tell you why I am shunning someone, I'm not going to demand you do the same. That would be political.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"You will own nothing..."

The part that gets left out of the World Economic Forum's assertion that in the future "You will own nothing and you will be happy" is that someone will own all the stuff. Just not YOU. 

I guess that's OK in their view. It's only a problem (to them) if you own the things you need to survive. Why is that?

I think we can assume they are assuming they (those associated with their organization, who they would consider "elite"-- better than you) will be the ones owning the stuff they will rent to you... if they determine you are worthy. And if you can pay the price and agree to the terms of service ("Take the jab", "No guns") they demand.

If they own all the stuff, does this mean they are forgoing their own happiness for your sake? I mean, if owning nothing is what brings happiness, that must be it. How compassionate of them.

Unless they are lying.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Vaccine side-effects

I've been called an "anti-vaxxer", mainly over the past couple of years concerning the Covid shots. That has never been true about me, but I am anti-mandatory. 

I am also unconvinced it is a good idea to flood a newborn's system with a cocktail of vaccines, but that's a different issue.

As far as not being anti-vaccine, I present evidence in the form of reminding readers I got the first part of a shingles vaccine back in early October. I got the second part on Sunday.

Both times, by bedtime my arm began to feel like it had been punched hard, repeatedly. Last time, the pain slowly faded over the next couple of weeks, but lingered to some extent for a month. I'm ready for it.

In October, this pain in my arm was the only side effect I noticed (or remember). This time I also have a headache and feel sore and listless. Of course, it may be completely unrelated to the shot. Maybe I'm just having an off day.

I don't want shingles. I've been around people who had them several times. Doesn't look like a good time! I'm more than willing to suffer some discomfort to avoid getting shingles. 

I've said in the past that I'd be willing to get an experimental mRNA shot that looked like it had a good chance of preventing (or curing) cancer, or reversing aging. The benefit (which is always subjective) has to be greater than the risk or discomfort. The shingles vaccine meets that bar; the Covid shots don't even try.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Theft, defense, revenge, justice

People have tried, for years, to make the argument that if it were my kid robbing someone, I would want no one to fight back and hurt or kill him. I would want them to cooperate and let the police handle it later.

No. They don't get it.

If one of my relatives tried to rob a group of people and was killed by a defender, I would be ashamed and angered by what my relative did. I would never defend his actions or seek "restitution" [sic] from the defender who killed him. To do so would make me just as bad, in my own way, as the thief. In fact, I would probably praise the actions of the defender as heroic (if I spoke up at all) even in my pain and shame.

If one of my relatives shot and killed a robber, I would be proud that he helped victims, both current and potential future victims of this robber.

If both robber and defender were relatives of mine, I would side with the defender. No matter which one I was closer to before the event. Choosing to steal, and especially to violently rob people, is a deal-breaker.

I think theft is one of the worst acts a human can commit-- right on the level of rape, murder, kidnapping, etc. I have no issue at all with thieves being killed in the act, and even less so if they are robbing people under threat of harm or death; at gunpoint or knifepoint, for example. Even if it's a toy gun or a rubber knife, unless they are willing to hand it over for you to examine so you can make sure it's real, you'd better assume it's real and act as though it is.

If someone steals your property they are stealing the hours of your life you traded for that property. Parts of your life you can never get back. They don't care. They've made their choice. Sure, some would argue they aren't taking your whole life, and you aren't taking the robber's whole life either, just whatever amount they would have had left after they tried to rob you. It might have even been far less than they were trying to take from you (judging by their poor choices). They might have walked in front of a speeding bus, overdosed on something they bought with your stolen property, or "died suddenly" from clots ten minutes later. That's unknowable. 

Once someone has shown you they don't value their own life as much as they value taking your stuff (which can include your life, and since you can't read their mind you don't know their intent) why would you value their life, in this case, more than they value their own?

This doesn't mean I think you should track the thief down the week after the attack and shoot them as they sleep in their bed. That would be revenge, and I oppose revenge (while understanding the hunger for it). 

Self-defense at the scene of the attack, in the heat of the moment, isn't something I'll second guess. 

But what about justice? Self-defense is not exactly justice; it eliminates the need for justice. Revenge, when the event is history-- including legal punishment through the government-- isn't justice. Restitution is justice. Let peaceful arbitration, and restitution, sort it out at a later date if there is anything to sort out.

-

Please support the Tobbles Project on Patreon