Sunday, December 10, 2017

Remember 'innocent until proven guilty'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 8, 2017)




The current witch hunt swirling around accusations of sexual misconduct and rape in the entertainment industry exposes the worst in people. Both those who may have done wrong, and those excited to join the dog pile to tear the accused to shreds.

I understand that few people want bad guys to get away with their crimes. Neither do I, although I probably have a different idea of what "justice" means. I probably also have a different idea of what constitutes a crime.

Those calling for the figurative heads of the various accused on a platter seem hysterical in their vindictiveness and in their certainty that all accusations are true.

As for the less vindictive people out there, I see some of them saying everyone is innocent until proved guilty. This is also a mistake.

Innocent until proved guilty is the standard you want any justice system based on. It should be the default assumption of every juror and judge. Unfortunately, the current American justice system has gone astray by assuming guilt. Anyone caught up in the court system is considered guilty of something, otherwise they wouldn't have been arrested. This has rarely been as dangerous an assumption as it is now; possibly only rivaled in legal miscarriage by actual witch trials and in the treatment of recaptured runaway slaves.

If you are on a jury you have an obligation to listen to all sides, to decide who is telling the truth, and also to consider whether the law which may have been violated should even be a law in the first place. If you've already made up your mind and aren't going to consider that your first impressions may have been mistaken, you have no business being on a jury and holding a person's fate in your hands. The seriousness of the charge doesn't change this. Neither do your personal feelings.

For the rest of us, when you know someone is guilty you are under no obligation to pretend otherwise. Expecting people to pretend a person is innocent when they know he isn't is promoting dishonesty. If you are not on the jury, it's also not your job to decide restitution or, heaven forbid, punishment for anyone accused of a wrongdoing .

It's also quite likely you simply don't really know what happened and never will; not having enough information to form an intelligent opinion. This may be the hardest thing for most people to accept, but it's vital.


-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

There is no "right to archate"



I think most people believe they have the "right" to archate; a right which can never exist.

At least, it sure seems that way to me.

Because of this delusion, they form governments. They let those governments hire cops, bureaucrats, clerks, and so forth. Then they participate in elections to hire even more parasites from the pool of politicians.

But, that's fine with them because they also believe they have a right to share in the fruits of your labors, and don't mind dividing the spoils among the parasites they hired (as long as they also get some crumbs).

All these parasites they hire and elect believe they have a right to assert "authority" over you. They believe this imaginary "authority" comes with the "job".

Cops even believe their imaginary "authority" gives them the right to murder you if they don't feel like you cowered sufficiently before their almighty "authority".

So, yeah, people have a right to believe what they believe, and to live by their beliefs... but only to a point. There is a limit, and that limit comes when they move beyond belief into acting on it by archating. No "job" can move that concrete boundary by even a fraction of an ångström.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, December 09, 2017

Reading minds



Yes, I believe I can sometimes read minds, and I'm willing to bet you can, too.

If you see a guy climbing in your teenage daughter's bedroom window in the middle of the night, with rope and a butcher knife in his hand, do you believe you have a pretty good idea what he's thinking? Or should you wait and ask him before making any snap judgments?

At the risk of triggering those who misapply Godwin's Law, do you have a good idea what was going through the mind of some random guy in Germany around 1940, who joined the Nazi Party, proudly wore the regalia, and enthusiastically participated in the rallies, and never objected to what was being done by other members of his gang (and never tried to stop it and didn't quit in disgust)?

In the same way, if someone voluntarily joins the Blue Line Gang, wears the uniform and other identifying items, do you know his mind?

Do you honestly believe he could keep the "job" without violating anyone, ever. Or, is that a condition of employment? Even if he never commits a traffic stop, never steals money with a parking ticket, never kidnaps or robs anyone over drugs, guns, gambling, or prostitution, is he still guilty?

That's ignoring the fact that the money he "earns" is stolen.

Maybe, when he first decided to be a cop, he had only good intentions. (You'll need to read his mind to see if this is true.) But as soon as the realities of the "job" intrude, he has a choice to make: Keep doing the "job" and remain a member of a gang which only exists because it exercises the power to aggress and violate property rights, or quit and find honest employment. What is going through his mind now? Is he consciously making the choice to remain a cop?

And really, what does it matter what is going through his mind?

Back to the guy climbing in your daughter's window, isn't the fact of his actions enough to make it right for you to defend your daughter from him? What he's thinking-- what he believes about what he's doing-- is irrelevant. Why should cops be treated differently than anyone else on the planet? Why do I have to prove that I know what they are thinking while they are molesting people?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, December 08, 2017

Yes, I'm a "purist"



I don't believe there are any legitimate justifications for believing a person has the right to archate. I am told this makes me a "purist". I don't see that as a bad thing.

Yes, in some cases (pushing someone out of the path of a bus, trespassing to rescue a child who wandered onto private property and got trapped or hurt, etc.) I think you probably need to go ahead and do what you think is necessary under the circumstances, and accept the consequences, but that's different than saying you have a right to initiate force or violate property.

But in many cases, such as with governing others-- personally or by imposing a State on them-- you have neither the right nor a "need" which can excuse you. You need to be shamed if this is what you advocate.

However, purist that I am, I probably won't do much beyond disagreeing with you in most cases. All bets are off if you credibly threaten so that I feel the need to defend myself (or others).

Minarchists give me a sour stomach. But as long as they keep their filthy governing hands off of me and my property, I probably won't lift a finger against them. Most of their victims also believe in governing others, and often, believe in doing it even harder. There are consequences for believing governing others to be a legitimate human endeavor, and sometimes they are unpleasant, but if that's what a person believes it isn't my place to "rescue" him from his foolishness.

So, really, other than hurting minarchists' feelings by pointing out where-- and why-- they are wrong, I won't do anything to them. I don't even believe in punishment. But the way they squeal, you'd think I was proposing setting up re-education camps to make them think correctly. It's kind of funny, considering they, not me, are the ones willing to use violence against the non-violent and against people who are violating no one's property. Projection must be a horrible experience.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, December 07, 2017

Don't act on it



It's a bad thing to hold certain desires or beliefs in your mind, but as long as you don't act on them, bringing them into the real world, they only hurt you.

You can be positive that your "race" is superior to all others, and believe some "races" aren't fully human, but as long as that belief doesn't cause you to violate anyone else, who is it hurting?

Your private desires can be those of a pedophile, but as long as you don't act on it and harm any children, you can't have done anything wrong.

You can be full of authoritarian and statist delusions, but as long as you don't use violence against non-archators, nor send others to do so on your behalf, the malware in your mind isn't violating anyone.

But, can anyone honestly believe something without acting on it? It is hard to hold a belief without putting it into action. It would be best, by far, to purge that kind of thing from your mind altogether.

But, if you can't, the next best thing is to make certain you never act on it.

The problem is, if you truly believe something, you're not going to be very motivated to not act on it. You'll believe you are right and those who oppose your beliefs are wrong. You'll see yourself as the victim if you get caught putting your beliefs into action and have consequences. Your only motivation will be to avoid the "unfair" consequences of being caught.

And this is why criminalizing self defense is always wrong-- it empowers those who believe they are right to violate certain people in certain situations. It is also why no one has the right to violate the right of association for any reason-- if someone holds beliefs you don't like, you should be able to choose to avoid them.

Ultimately, it is why it is best to not hold beliefs that justify violating others in the first place. They damage your mind, they will convince you to act on them, you'll believe you did nothing wrong when you do, and (hopefully) there will be consequences, regardless.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, December 06, 2017

It's not help if it's not wanted

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 6, 2017)




Most people enjoy helping others when they can, and when they see a deserving opportunity. It's one of the best things about human nature.

Yet it's easy to fool yourself into believing you are helping while doing the opposite.

It's not "helping" if it's unwanted...read the rest...

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Year-end subscriber-raiser

Many sites and blogs are doing year-end fundraisers, and I guess I'm ready to do the same. Just a bit differently, though.

I'm looking for 5 new subscribers. I'm not setting a dollar amount goal, just a goal of 5 new subscribers of whatever level: Paypal or Patreon.

If you'd like to join with me, please do. Or, if you know someone else who might be interested, pass the suggestion along to them.

And, as always, thank you to my subscribers, my donors, and all my readers.



Progress report: 5 to go to meet the goal.





How are they good? They aren't.


(The video linked in the picture, just in case you're interested: link)

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, December 04, 2017

Back to the library



After my daughter's friend was murdered in the library, she has not wanted to go back. It's just not the library without Miss Krissie there.

But this weekend we did go back for their annual Christmas program.

Last year, the Library's Christmas program was so pitiful that I wondered if they were losing interest in continuing the tradition. This year they put a lot of effort into it, probably in an attempt to draw people back.

My daughter was still not comfortable there. She wasn't the only one.

I wasn't comfortable because of the heavy police presence. It's nothing but security theater, and is worse than useless. No one is made safer by having cops are around.

I was disappointed, although not surprised, by their new "We don't care if you die!" signage. Why do fools always ramp up the failure after suffering the consequences of their failure? It's a discouraging human trait, I suppose.

I love libraries. I hate that they are so often funded through theft, rather than voluntarily. They could be so much more than they are allowed to be if they were freed from the burden of government control. And, although almost all "private" businesses in the area also fall prey to the superstitious belief that signage empowering murderers is somehow "helpful", government facilities are the only ones "Constitutionally" prohibited from doing so. A lot of difference it makes.

All in all, going to the library just wasn't a positive experience.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, December 03, 2017

Treating vices like crime causes crime

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 1, 2017)




Are you tired of watching government make the same tired mistakes? At least they could have the decency to make some new and different mistakes for a change.

Which recycled mistake caught my attention this time? The government has decided opioid abuse is a "public health emergency".

I haven't seen much mention of making new criminal "laws" yet; just suggestions to use this as an excuse to throw away more of your money. The implication being this prodigal spending will magically fix something.

Opioid abuse is an individual health and psychology problem. Health and psychology professionals need to be left alone to deal with it in an informed way. If this is to be solved, this is how it will happen. Government deserves no seat at the health care table.

But government doesn't actually want to solve this, and you know this will end up with new and bigger criminal penalties. They never let a crisis go to waste.

If government were serious about solving the opioid "emergency" they would end drug prohibition. Completely; not the deceptive way they shuffled the deck with alcohol prohibition.

Government has zero business regulating vices, because vices can never be crimes. If anyone still cares, every vice is a behavior protected from government intrusion by the Ninth Amendment, because the Constitution didn't specifically give government the power to meddle in it. It is therefore off-limits-- not that they are inclined to obey any limit on government action.

While vices are not crimes, treating them like crimes causes real crime. Every time. The only people who dare wade into the dangerous waters created by the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs are those willing to steal and use aggressive violence. This turned the drug trade into a scene of theft and aggression. Prohibition changed a personal problem into a crime wave.

The drug trade should be carried out in corner shops which advertise their services to valued customers, not forced into the back alleys or hidden from view. There should never be incentive to shoot your customers or competitors, and there wouldn't be without prohibition. When was the last time Walmart conducted a drive-by shooting against Albertson's? Drug prohibition ensures crime. It isn't helping anything.

Well, that's not quite true. It does help those who benefit from a growing police state and a world-record prison population, and those who enjoy the inflated profits drug prohibition brings. For the rest of us, though, prohibition is part of the problem, not a solution.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Humans have rights.



Every human alive has the exact same rights.

If rights don't really exist, then no one has any rights, which also means no one can have the right to rule others- so no problem.

If rights do exist, then they don't depend on your IQ, your skin color, your sexual orientation, your sex/gender, where you were born, where you live now, which government enslaves and fleeces you, whether the rights are listed on parchment, how nice you are, or any other metric- real or imagined.

Those who claim to believe rights vary depending on the rights government recognizes are confused about what rights are.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, December 02, 2017

Which forms of government "work"?



What do you mean by "work"?

Fascism doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work. Democracy doesn't work (and is basically communism of a sort anyway-- based on "to each according to his need" of power over others, rather than of property). A republic doesn't work-- it always becomes a democracy. Constitutions don't work. "Rule of law" doesn't work.

The unkind truth is that government-- attempting to govern anyone but yourself-- doesn't work. The reason being that statism, the fundamental belief which leads to the attempt to govern others, doesn't work.

Unless your goal is slavery, death, and destruction, in which case, they all work just fine.

I hear the government extremists whining "Anarchy won't work either", and they are kind of right. Anarchy won't work... if you try to turn it into some form of "system" for "governing". (Of course, it then immediately ceases to be anarchy.) That's because governing others is always a failure. Sooner or later-- and the later the failure smashes into your reality, the worse it will be.

You can successfully govern yourself (or you can fail at that, too), but you can never truly successfully govern others. It doesn't matter how big your gang of bullies (military or police) is. If you are trying to govern others, you have already failed. Taking the government side is failure.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, December 01, 2017

"Witch!"



Am I the only one who sees the current pageant of accusations of sexual misconduct as a witch hunt?

If you are looking to me as a beacon of sexual purity, you're looking in the wrong place. I'm sure I've expressed unwanted sexual interest many times in my life. You never know until you show that you are interested, and showing interest puts your neck on the line and opens you up for rejection (or worse). I've never forced or coerced sexual favors from anyone. I take "no" for an answer. If it's not mutually voluntary, I'm not interested. I've also been the victim of sexual assault-- but somehow I don't use that experience to beat everyone else over the head, or kick them in the crotch. So, I'm sure just about everyone has something in their past they could point to which places them on one side or the other of the issue, or maybe even both sides. Especially if you stretch the definitions as much as some people want to stretch them.

Honestly, it feels a little satisfying that so many of the accused hold themselves up as our moral betters-- either oh-so "progressive" on social issues, or so deeply moral in traditional religious ways, that we should just bow down to their obvious superiority and let them tell us how we should be living. Their troubles seem somewhat deserved. Yes, it's schadenfreude.

I have no clue whether the accusations are truthful. No doubt some are, since, as I've realized, everyone has probably done something someone else would find offensive, and a great many people have probably crossed the line into doing sexual things that are coercion or even initiated force. And initiated force or coercion are never something anyone has a right to do.

But why is the act of making accusations suddenly so trendy? Maybe it's just a snowball effect, or jumping on the bandwagon. The more who accuse, the easier it is to come forward with your own accusations.

To me, it has become such an avalanche that it lessens the impact of each individual accusation, and maybe that's the reason behind it anyway. Get it all out of the way, then forget it and move on to the next crisis-- letting those "betters", or the new ones who replace them, continue telling the rest of us how we should be living; which liberties we need to give up for the common good. What rights don't matter anymore, or no longer fit in the 21st Century. Because we can't be trusted, or so those who've shown themselves to be untrustworthy declare.

And then they'll go back to behaving as they always have. Because they are entitled. We just can't relate to the pressures they face. Right?

(I'll bet I even committed some sexual offense by choosing to illustrate this post with a witch I find sexually appealing.)

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Malcolm and Harry


A while back I was struck by the similarity of these two characters' poses. Both seem to mean business. Both are properly armed for the task at hand. And both are confronting archators in the proper way to confront them- most of the time.

Both could be considered heroic.

Both characters have their fans; there's probably even a lot of overlap. But I still like one of these a lot more than the other.

If I had to choose, I'd prefer to be friends with Malcolm Reynolds. Dirty Harry chose to be a tax junkie, and an enforcer of "laws". Not a good guy in my eyes, even if the thugs he went up against were worse.

I might even like the actor Clint Eastwood more than actor Nathan Fillion, but as for the characters portrayed above, it's no contest.

-

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Comfort shouldn't impose on others

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 29, 2017)




Everyone likes to be comfortable and avoids discomfort when possible. It's human nature. Yet your quest for comfort doesn't give you the right to make everyone else uncomfortable. If you are uncomfortable, change your own situation; don't demand others make themselves uncomfortable for you.

While the world is under no obligation to change to make you happy, it also has no right to impose its own version of what's best on you. As long as you aren't harming anyone, you have no obligation to change...read the rest...

-
I got internet back at the expense of other needs. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Presidential material



The recent death of Charles Manson left me pondering.

As a result of this pondering, I realized I would have preferred a President Charles Manson over a President Hillary Clinton.

I have no use for presidents, and I most certainly don't support Trump. However, I am still convinced Hillary would have been much, much worse. So much worse that I'm positive even Charles Manson (assuming he did what he was convicted of doing) would have been better.

After all, everyone knew he was crazy, so there wouldn't have been too many people openly supporting whatever agenda he would have been pushing. He was also old and in poor health, so there was a good chance of him dying instead of finishing his term- as it so happened. Probably... assuming his presidential health care didn't extend his horrible life.

Now, might all those points also mean he would have been a better president than Trump? Maybe. All I know is that dead presidents are the best presidents. At least, they can't hurt anyone anymore, unless evil idiots continue to enforce the opinions they imposed while alive. But at that point, it's the fault of the evil idiots who continue to enforce the opinions of corpses, rather than being the fault of the corpse where the opinion originated. Don't blame a corpse for the evil actions of the living.

But, isn't it bizarre to think how bad politicians must be to make Charles Manson seem a thinkable alternative?

.

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, November 27, 2017

Violation can't justify more violation

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 25, 2017)




In the aftermath of any mass shooting, it is disheartening to see well-meaning people express their outrage over innocent people being violated by immediately demanding politicians violate innocent people.

I understand feeling "something must be done", but I can't support any plan which violates people's indispensable rights. The horror of someone violating people can't justify violating more people.

No one has the right to murder, and very few gun owners commit murder. No one has the right to create anti-gun "laws", yet every government does. It is wrong to violate people who have harmed no one. People clamor for more laws, even as the attempt is doomed to fail and will only make mass murders easier to commit.

Each and every person has an absolute human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon they see fit, everywhere they go, openly or concealed, without asking permission of anyone. This right can be respected or it can be violated. Rights aren't subject to majority opinion, feelings of fear, or claims of necessity. Rights don't come from the Bill of Rights-- abolish the amendment and the right remains unchanged.

Of all the unpopular rights, the right to free speech is probably the most dangerous when misused. If you disagree, you might want to take a closer look at history. Yet, no one has the authority to prohibit or place limits on speech, even if governments pretend they do. You will always have the absolute right to speak your mind regardless of any law.

Governments have no authority to limit any right; by doing so they only delegitimize themselves. Creating or enforcing anti-gun "laws"-- commonly and incorrectly called "gun control"-- is a serious crime; no better than committing a mass murder.

People who have no moral objection to murdering will happily ignore another anti-gun "law". Imagining otherwise is a fantasy. Only people who have no intention to murder will be affected. The more anti-gun "laws" you make up and enforce, the more you empower murderers, and the more victims you serve up for their pleasure.

Author Robert A. Heinlein observed "An armed society is a polite society". A related truth is that an unarmed society, where only the police, military, and freelance criminals remain armed, is not a society at all. It is a prison. A slaughterhouse. I refuse to endanger you just to make myself or anyone else feel better. I will not appease bad guys of any sort. Not ever.


-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Still without internet



I need at least $65 to get internet turned back on at my house. I realize this isn't an Earth-shattering crisis. But I'm tired of neglecting the blog.

As always, please don't donate if you can't afford it, have better things to do with your money, or just don't want to. Because that would make me unhappy. More unhappy, I mean.

Thanks.

Saturday, November 25, 2017

'Twas the night after Thanksgiving...



I just had a rare pleasure- in fact, a singular one. I hosted a friend of the blog in my home last night. I was favorably impressed by his intelligence, kindness, and personality. He was every bit as nice as I would expect of my readers. Everyone in my household (including the cats) enjoyed his visit.

So, why doesn't this happen more often? Because I'm off the beaten path. There's no interstate nearby. No scenic attractions. A few historical sites, mostly involving Buddy Holly and Billy the Kid, but nothing people put on their bucket lists.

But I'm glad to have been available to provide a way station on his cross-country journey, and glad to have met him in person. It was the highlight of my Thanksgiving holiday.

-

I'm still without internet at home, but I think I'll be back to my regular blogging come Monday. If things go as expected.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Happy Thanksgiving/Gratitude Day!

I'm still without internet at home. I'm hoping to get it back soon. Until then, I am grateful for each of you. Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Turn Thanksgiving into Gratitude Day

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 22, 2017)




When something has been around a long time, it's easy to take it for granted and stop seeing it. Sometimes you need to look at familiar things in a new way; from a different perspective. If you don't like what you see, you can always go back to overlooking it again.

Maybe it's time to change your perspective on the day called Thanksgiving. The word "thanksgiving" has come to mean-- to most people-- turkey, big meals, and football, with any actual thanks being given as almost an afterthought...read the rest...

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, November 20, 2017

The economy- well, mine anyway

I'm

in need of an infusion of money. I know it's annoying when I mention such a crass subject. And I know this is the worst time of the year to mention it. But the internet is unlikely to be turned back on before they get paid, and it's cold enough I'm probably not going to ride my bike to borrow WiFi. I'm posting this from my phone, which isn't conducive to writing.

And the internet isn't the most critical thing, just the one most likely to be noticed by the outside world.

Please don't donate or subscribe if you can't afford it, have better things to do with your money, or if you just don't want to. Voluntaryism all the way.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Libertarianism can and does work

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 18, 2017)




From time to time someone will tell me they really like the idea of libertarianism; they only wish it could work in the real world. This reminds me of someone confessing they like the idea of electricity, if only it could actually work. Because not only can it work, it does.

Libertarianism doesn't just work; you are surrounded by it all the time. In fact, you practice libertarianism yourself, even if you never realized it. And so does everyone else-- other than the noticeably rare, unpleasant monsters. If this weren't the case, civilization would be impossible, and society would collapse into relentless chaos and death.

Every time you buy something instead of stealing it, you've put libertarianism to work. Each time you choose to not punch someone who annoys you, you've made the libertarian choice. If you recognize the right of self-defense against people who would injure, kidnap, steal, or vandalize-- or threaten to do those things-- you've joined the ranks of libertarian thinkers. How does it feel to successfully use something people claim "can't work"?

Libertarianism is nothing more than accepting that you don't have the right to attack people or take their stuff. You probably learned this as a child. When people say they don't see how libertarianism can work in the real world, it's often because they desperately want to allow some exceptions, either for themselves or for others. Especially where certain jobs are concerned.

Any exception is imaginary-- right and wrong don't change depending on your job.

Everyone says they are against bullying, but almost everyone supports the bully they believe is on their side. They dream up excuses to rationalize how this bully isn't a bully, even as he attacks people. They fantasize that the bully's gang isn't a gang, or that his victims deserve it. They claim society couldn't function without these exceptions.

Almost everyone knows stealing is wrong, but most people try to find ways around this when they want something badly enough. They use dishonest words to make it sound different. So, instead of "theft", they call it a tax or a fine, a property code or a license fee.

This lack of consistency is the trap which leads people to conclude libertarianism "can't work", even as they live the vast majority of their lives by its principles.

Welcome to libertarianism. Feel free to drop the exceptions you've been trying to justify, because they are only holding you down. Libertarianism works for everyone.


-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Are you still trusting liars?



Cops lie. Court employees lie. Prosecutors lie. Crime labs lie. The mainstream media usually accepts these lies without question and passes them along, in the form of "press releases" or statements by those government employees, to a gullible public.

The "information" is created by those who want their target to look guilty as possible, so the truth will be twisted (or ripped apart) to give the appearance of guilt. This misinformation is then passed along without fact-checking and spread to those who hunger for drama and don't care about the truth, but only want to think the worst.

And that doesn't even address the issue of whether the "law" said to have been broken was counterfeit.

This is why I never believe police reports or arrest reports without first-hand knowledge. I assume they are not completely truthful.

I know of a guy who got into this position, and was deceptively smeared by the cops and their co-conspirators, a while back.

But, as he said to me, what can you do when this happens?

Very few people care about the truth, and too many people automatically believe the liars in government.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Speeding, drunk driving, and guns



"...there are laws against speeding and drunk driving. Those are acts that endanger others. Yes, absolutely it makes sense to have such laws even though criminals won't obey them, because if and when they're stopped or caught they deserve to pay for the damage they've done. No one argues otherwise about guns."


Well, not exactly.

I assume the anti-gun bigot he was responding to was trying to make a point that guns should be banned for the same reason speeding and drunk driving are banned (but I didn't subject myself to the video), but the gun rights activist quoted above also missed the boat on this one.

The "laws" against speeding and drunk driving are every bit as illegitimate as those against gun ownership, and for exactly the same reasons. Those caught and punished under those "laws" have usually caused exactly zero damage before they are "caught". And yet, he's in favor of this. And it's the exact same argument made by the anti-gun bigots about the potential for damage by guns.

Every act is potentially dangerous. If the danger rises to the level of a credible threat, then defensive action can be taken without you being guilty of archating. But in the vast majority of cases, what passes for "speeding" and "drunk driving" falls short, and "drunk driving" has been redefined into absurdity.

Yes, if you cause harm to life, liberty, or property, you owe restitution. If you pose a credible threat, you can be stopped before you cause harm, but you probably "owe" nothing in that case. And "pre-crime", the way the State conducts their war against "potential threats" as though they are actual harm, doesn't cut it. Not with cars or with guns.

This is why those on the side of liberty have to be extremely careful about supporting ANY government behavior, even on things they agree with. It can lead to the statist side so easily.

I realize people don't like to hear that. They want to believe "laws" help.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, November 17, 2017

Hanging on



To be perfectly honest, I feel like I have been barely hanging on these past few weeks.

Today is the second anniversary of Cheyenne's death, and for some reason it is hitting me harder this year than it did last year.

Maybe it is because other bad events have happened in the past few months. Maybe it's other things.

Whatever the reason, I'm going to try to take the day off.

.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Copblocked



A week or so back I was trapped in a parking lot; blocked in a space by a cop car while the badge-scum who arrived in it molested some guy parked next to me.

The guy he was bothering may actually be a bad guy. Who knows. It's irrelevant. That is no excuse to park in such a way as to block people in and then stay there 10 (or more) minutes after the blocked in person gets to their car. Cop-guy had to perform the "cuff, hassle, release" dance, and then have his victim sign something, and that took a lot of time.

How would the tax addict have reacted if I had blocked him in? You don't even have to answer because we both know.

Cops are worthless vermin. I despise them. So do others.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Living within rights grave responsibility

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for November 15, 2017)




How different the news of recent weeks would be if more people understood their rights and responsibilities.

Some say people who care about rights are trying to downplay responsibilities. For anyone who actually understands what rights are, nothing could be further from the truth...read the rest...

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Could I be wrong?



Yes, I could. How might I be wrong? This is a question everyone needs to ask of themselves now and then. And, it's a question which needs to be considered carefully enough that the answer makes itself known to you. Making sure you know how you might be wrong isn't self-absorption. It's self awareness and a recognition that you can be wrong. Anyone can.

So, take the things you know and make sure they hold up.

Considering my own knowledge, might I be wrong about some things I take for granted? Things I have tested and decided are true?

Could it actually be OK to take things which don't belong to me? Does my need come before your claim of ownership?
Could it be fine to attack people who are minding their own business, but are doing so in a way I don't like?
Might government actually be something other than a gang of thugs?
What if taxation really is voluntary, and is therefore not theft? What does voluntary mean?
What if cops really are the good guys, and they are only doing their job by enforcing the laws that my neighbors want them to enforce?
What if it really is everyone's business if a person chooses to do things to themselves that could cause harm? What if you don't actually own your body?
What if property really is theft?
What if guns are too dangerous for regular people to own or carry, and banning them would actually be OK and would work?

Of course, each time I examine these ideas, no matter how carefully I pick them apart and consider them, I decide I'm not wrong about them, no matter who disagrees. NO matter how strongly they disagree, or how angry they get at me over the disagreement.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, November 13, 2017

What am I for? What am I against?



It's important to know what you are for, and what you are against. Those are two sides of the same coin. Knowing what I am for should tell you (and me) what I'm against.

I am for rights. I am for responsibility.

I am against archation.

Specifics?

Well, those are just different ways of saying the same thing.

Does an act, rule, or policy violate someone else's equal and identical rights? Does it make it harder for them to exercise their Rightful Liberty? If so, I'm against it. Even if it might seem to "help" me in some way.

If it does none of the above, I'm either for it, or I don't care one way or the other because I understand it's none of my business.

It's really not a very complicated question for those with principles, even when they aren't perfect.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, November 12, 2017

Try to make the world a better place

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 11, 2017)




People are always wanting to know the meaning of life. There is probably more than one, but a very good one is: Make your world a little better every day.

You don't have to think big. Start where you are, doing what you can. Begin with easy stuff, but push yourself beyond the edge of your comfort zone.

If you are hurting an innocent person, stop hurting them. Instead of staying silent while someone else is hurting an innocent person, get up, speak out, and don't let it continue. If you see someone being bullied, stand up for them. Even if the bully has power, or if the law is on his side. Especially if the bully is the law.

Confront the bullies with kindness at first, if possible. Don't make them feel bad unless they refuse to stop. If they won't stop, they need to feel bad. Otherwise they are lying to themselves.

If you see some litter, pick it up. If someone is kicking and stomping a toad, rescue it.

If you see someone on a path you believe will hurt them, warn them. If they won't listen, respect their choice. Yes, it's hard to do, but it's right.

Don't mistake errors in judgment for wrongdoing, nor moral shortcomings for crimes. Don't seek to punish people for mistakes. Justice is about honest restitution, not punishment.

Be good, be kind, have worthwhile principles and stick to them. Realize that "good" and "kind" aren't necessarily the same thing. Not all who are kind are good, and sometimes being good means you can't be kind. It's better to be good than to be kind. If your principles get in the way of being good, you need better principles.

After you get practice improving your personal sphere, you have a foundation from which you can spread out into the world, if you want.

If you do choose to expand your influence beyond your home turf, keep in mind C. S. Lewis' warning: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” That would be the opposite of making the world a better place.


-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Guns, criminals, and the mentally deranged

.
"We must find a way to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally deranged." ~ Lying cowardly loser
Who do you mean by "we", since I'll have no part in such a scheme? How do you propose "we" do what you suggest? Who do you give the imaginary power to carry this out? A gang of proven unethical criminals called "government"? Yeah, that always goes well. 

Who gets to define "criminal" and "mentally deranged"? Or even "weapons"? I know-- those same proven, unethical criminals of "government", right?

How would you implement this plan without violating some number of innocent people? Or do they even matter to you? Are they just "collateral damage" to be ignored and discarded for your Big Idea? That does seem to be the standard practice of your favored vile gang.

Are you personally willing to go door to door stealing guns from people and murdering those who resist? Or would you continue to be a sniveling coward and send other vile parasites to die on your behalf?

Do you take personal responsibility for those killed when denied (or fatally delayed while awaiting your approval) a weapon they needed for self defense? Because if you support this kind of thing, I will hold you personally accountable. Each and every time some innocent person is murdered in one of your "gun free zones", or even in a place where the "laws" and policies make it even slightly less likely that good people there will be adequately armed, I hold YOU responsible if you support anti-gun "laws" and policies. Yes, YOU. You are on the side of the murderers who need unarmed victims and slaughter zones to keep them trapped.

Yes, I grant that anti-gun "laws" may save some lives. They will also cost some lives, and this you carefully ignore. What makes you the god who gets to decide to roll the dice and let randomness choose who lives and who dies at the hands of your "laws"? What made you so cowardly that you either refuse to contribute to the defense of those around you, or fear those who do step up?

No one has the right (or the "authority") to make up rules banning or "regulating" weapons. Not you, not a president, not the BATFEces gang, not judges, not "community activists", not congressvermin, not cops, not mayors or governors. No one. That right doesn't exist and can't be created.

And, I even break away from some of my co-travelers in that I know rights can never be lost-- not even if you are a criminal or are mentally deranged. No one has a right to forbid you to own and to carry weapons, but they do have the right to shoot anyone who chooses to archate. That's just reality, and if it doesn't suit you, you are free to leave the realm of reality in hopes of a more suitable afterlife.

This "plan" will go nowhere, because it is both wrong and impossible. You are free to yap about it and pretend it's an option. You are probably able to make up "laws" and murder people who break them. I will not comply, not will I expect anyone else to comply. I will not report anyone I suspect of violating your made-up rules. I assume everyone is always armed, anyway, so why would I act otherwise? I will never cooperate in taking weapons from anyone who isn't archating, and then only when it is defense.

You are a disgusting coward for believing this plan of yours is an answer or a solution, rather than an escalation of the foundational problem. You are also an idiot for not seeming to realize that other nasty cowards and control freaks have made the same suggestion throughout the mists of time. There will always be lying cowardly losers like you, wanting to be "pragmatic" in violating others. You are nothing new. Get lost, worm.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, November 11, 2017

"Safe spaces" for nationalists



Borderism is just another manifestation of the toxic and whiny "safe space" movement. No different than the other forms seen on university campuses. Childishness mistaken for maturity.

Once seen in that light, you may never be able to unsee it. Or to take them seriously ever again.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, November 10, 2017

Worse than the worst



I'm sure you've heard of the "knock out game", where some loser just punches a victim in the head without warning, intending to knock the person unconscious.

Yeah, it's a disgusting thing to do. Those people are the worst!

But, to me it would seem even worse to torture the person first by tying them down, taunting them a while, then punching them unconscious. There's the added factor of psychological torture.

And to me, this illustrates the tactic behind State "executions".

Yes, I actually think losers who play the standard "knock out game" are probably less ethically reprehensible than the losers who clinically murder people for the State. And that's a really law bar to begin with.

That's when I ignore the number of those on the death assembly line who have been discovered to be innocent, but railroaded by a corrupt "criminal justice system", "crime labs" that come up with whatever results the cops and prosecutors want them to come up with, and "judges" who have no business judging anyone but themselves. Murder carried out under clinical conditions is still murder-- or maybe it's murder plus.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, November 09, 2017

"The law" is no excuse



Statists make the absurd claim "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", but that's obviously nonsense. If you aren't aware of some random, arbitrary rule made up by some ethically empty control freak, how can you be expected to act counter-intuitively and "obey" it?

Only an idiot would expect that.

Ignorance of the "law" is normal, natural, ubiquitous (even by those who worship and enforce "laws"), and it is most definitely the best excuse.

I would turn the statist's claim around.

"The law" is no excuse to molest, kidnap, rob, and murder people. The "law" is never justification to archate. And anyone who believes it is is a nasty goon.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Same language, different thoughts, no communication



I'm talking about when a discussion gets bogged down because of the different ways people use words, and different definitions... and it results in no communication taking place. No fun!

And I really do try. Normal dictionaries are no help. You can always find a definition somewhere that fits your thinking, and is contrary to the other definitions. Probably under the same entry.

So when this happens I tell them what a word means to me. I link to the "dictionary post" entry. I try to explain what I mean by the word, contrasted against what they mean by the word. Just as a way to get us talking about the same concept, even if we use different words. Deaf ears. They invariably refuse to listen.

For example, to me a right is anything you can do without violating another person, therefore you need no permission to do it. Anything. There are lots of ways to expand that thought, of course, but that's the basic point.

And then I attract attention from people who want to argue over privileges while calling them "rights". Or they want to change rights into privileges by allowing government (or some other gang) to hand out licenses for engaging in that behavior. Ugh.

Yeah, I realize almost no one out there "gets" rights. Too much conditioning, I suppose. Too much belief in "authority".

Sorry, but if it can be lost or taken away, it isn't a right. A right can be violated, though, but that's not the sticking point they usually want to focus on. They simply can't get over their point debating how and when rights can be lost or removed, to justify violating people's rights in one way or another. Because that's where it always leads.

And this same tactic goes on over many other concepts as well. It is frustrating.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit