Sunday, December 31, 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.

If you are in someone's house, chilly though they are comfortable, it is up to you to put on a jacket rather than insist they turn up the heat. You don't pay their heating bill.

However, if you are wearing a coat to stay warm in their house, your hosts would be uncivilized to demand you remove it. Even if they insist the temperature is fine with everyone else, so it should be fine for you, too. If you dismiss the suggestion to remove your coat, and they tackle you and forcibly take it off you, they are bullies.

When I lived in the coldest part of Colorado, I had a friend who had no heat in his house. When it was 20 below zero, or colder-- as it often was-- it wasn't much warmer in his house. I would offer to have him come to my house, just across the river, but he didn't want to. He said my wood stove made him uncomfortably hot. He also said he didn't want to get used to the warmth because it would make him feel colder at home. So I would go visit him wearing my coat. If I got too cold, I went home without demanding he "do something" to appease me.

Yet this is the demand believers in government make. They can't seem to grasp the idea of accepting responsibility for themselves and allowing others the same dignity. If they are uncomfortable, they insist on making everything the way they want it, no matter who is hurt. Their comfort is all that matters to them, and they'll justify any harm by saying it's for your own good.

This is probably why they see libertarians as a threat when we say they can keep their government, we just want to opt out. They seem to project their own shortcomings on everyone else because they can't imagine leaving others alone to determine their own lives.

-
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

So long, 2017



Here it is. The last day of this arbitrary cycle of 365+ days.

I hope the past cycle of days was a good one for you; I hope the coming cycle is better.

I've been hosting some lovely influenza viruses who hijacked my cells to reproduce themselves, but I seem to be mostly over it now. So, that's a good thing.

Onward, into the future.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, December 30, 2017

Looking through your magic lenses



Some people believe I single out cops as bad guys. But that's only because they single out cops to excuse from the standards of civilized and decent behavior they hold most everyone else to.

I don't like or support anyone who initiates force or who violates property rights. No one. This is pretty much the minimum for being libertarian. If someone habitually violates life, liberty, or property I am not going to consider them a good guy. Their excuses and justifications don't matter to me. If they take a "job" that requires this type of behavior, then they are not "good" people.

There are no good mafia hitmen, no good cops, no good muggers, no good tax collectors, no good rapists. Doing the bad things for money doesn't make them better than doing them freelance. All the above can be nice people when not engaging in the worst part of what they do, but they can't ever be good people until or unless they STOP what they have been doing, make restitution, and never violate anyone again.

Yes, a bad guy can become a good guy in a heartbeat, but it requires facing, honestly, the evil he has been doing. Bad guys are never going to do this as long as people keep excusing them and patting them on the back for their "service".

So, no, I don't single out cops. I am against ALL bad guys, equally. It's only because some people refuse to hold cops accountable that it looks like I am singling out cops. It's an illusion. They are the ones singling out cops.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, December 29, 2017

Murderous scumwad shrugs responsibility

Members of the murderer's gang lying to cover the crime

So, a murderous scum Blue Line Gang member murders a kid while killing a suspected thief, and once again isn't held responsible. Instead, the whole disgusting gang protects him or her (probably "him") from responsibility by hiding the murderer's identity.

Was the claim that the intended murder victim was seen with a gun a lie? Or just a case of "seeing" what the scum wanted to see in order to have a "license to kill"?

You could claim that this wasn't murder, since the scumwad didn't realize the kid was inside the house where he couldn't be seen.

If you were trying to murder an unarmed woman, and you missed with at least one shot, and that shot went through a wall, into a house, and hit and killed a kid, would you be given the courtesy of having your identity hidden from the public, and not being immediately arrested for murder?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Cancerous Cartmanism



If you don't have the right to do something, you can't ever get the "authority" to do it.

If the right to do something doesn't exist due to the nature of rights, you can't have the right to do it.

If you as an individual have no right to do something, a bigger group of individuals can't magically make the right pop into existence, and can't turn that magical "right" into "authority" to imbue someone else with. It just can't happen.

For example, you don't (you can't) have the right to outlaw plants and punish those who grow or possess them anyway, because that right can't exist, so the "authority" to outlaw plants (and punish people over them) isn't yours to claim or give away.

You don't have the right to forbid other people to smoke or ingest plants (or punish them for doing so) because such a right can't exist, so you can never have the "authority" to do so.

The same goes for banning weapons, "legalizing" theft (and otherwise violating the property rights of others), and generally imposing, supporting, or enforcing counterfeit "laws" of any sort.

If you try to do a thing you have no right to do, you are the bad guy. If you claim you have the "authority" to do something you have no right to do, then you are, if possible, an even worse bad guy.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, December 26, 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.

It doesn't have to be that way.

If this is your case and you want out of your rut, think of it not as Thanksgiving day, but as Gratitude Day. A day to be grateful and show your gratitude.

Someone deserves your gratitude. Whether it's gratitude expressed to God or to a person in your life, say it and, more importantly, act on it.

Don't limit your gratitude to the things you think of first when you consider the things you appreciate. Even the thorns in our lives may have a rose if we take time and make the effort to see it. If you look and there's no rose, the thorns could probably be worse. Someone, somewhere, is suffering worse thorns than you. Be thankful you aren't that guy, if for nothing else.

Be grateful to, and for, the family and friends who surround you. If you can, tell them.

Some people aren't comfortable expressing gratitude. It's not my place to judge them for it because I'm sometimes in the same shoes. Don't let yourself be shamed into public expressions of gratitude if you aren't feeling it; it won't be real. Perhaps, when the time is right, it will come. Any day can be Gratitude Day, but for everything there is a last chance.

I'm not going to fault those who are content with the way Thanksgiving day has changed in recent decades. We all find our enjoyment where we can. There is a lot of good to be found in spending the day with whoever you like, doing whatever you want. If you are bothered by the way you've spent the day in recent years, change it. Don't demand others change what works for them just because you think they should be doing something else.

Thank you for reading these columns. I am grateful to have the chance to share them with you.


-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Discussion with a cop supporter



Below is a discussion I had with a supporter of cops* a while back. It may be educational to see the lengths people will go to when they are desperate to excuse the inexcusable and justify that which can't be justified.

"This analogy reflects my perspective: it takes only a little bit of light to dispel a room full of darkness. In this perspective, 'bad' is easily corrupted by 'good,' the catalyst."

It would be nice if that were true, but that doesn't match observation. Good seems more fragile in the real world than bad. If you hang out with "the wrong crowd", which of you is more likely to change their behavior. Yes, sometimes the good might turn some of the bad, but it is much, much more common for it to go the other way. I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that it isn't probable.

"In my experience, people are too complicated to be accurately represented by oversimplified logical proofs." 

 Again, we aren't taking about people, but behavior.

"I'm not denying that this corruption exists or that these things take place. I'm questioning the virtue of the assertion that 'all cops are bad people.'" 

I'm not speaking about corruption, but the fact that the "job", carried out perfectly, demands a person do evil things. You can't speak of "mafia corruption" with any less absurdity than "police corruption". The "job" itself is the problem. 

"What I mean by 'policing' is all the good things police do." 

None of that requires a person to be a cop. The only advantage cops have is the communication infrastructure which lets them be alerted to a problem. That advantage is going away. The problem is that the bad things cops do, they get away with due to their status as a government enforcer-- so the good doesn't require them to be a cop, but to get away with the bad does generally require them to be a cop.

"I'd like to see the results of your thought experiment in which all the police suddenly vanished from the world." 

I'd like to see that, too. I know there would be problems. People have been infantized by being trained to outsource their responsibility to "the professionals". This will have consequences. But, just like someone who has been tricked into depending on a wheelchair, you're not going to get better until you take some painful steps.

"In mine, the person has not yet been forced into such a situation. Maybe he's a rookie cop. Or maybe he lives in a peaceful town and hasn't been pressured to go against his principles. He's served his community with a clear conscience for some time. He's not abusing his delegated power, and maybe he never will." 

Is he paid by "taxation"? Then he's a thief (receipt of stolen property-- if he doesn't help enforce "tax laws") and committing evil. For him to then "arrest" someone for theft is hypocrisy. What kind of things do you expect this unsullied "servant" to do? Can he do those things without violating anyone (besides through his theft)? I've known several cops; even socialized with some. Had a pretty deep conversation with a guy who was training to be a cop. Some were nice, but none were good. It's a logical impossibility for them to be. I don't treat them any different than I treat any other person I know to be a thief or aggressor, but who isn't doing those things at this moment. I would hope they don't act out on what they have been trained to believe it is OK for them to do, as a cop, when out of uniform, but I'm not going to trust one.

"...if you know the person's intentions, you have a better chance of understanding the person's actions." 

Which is why I have (in the past) socialized with some cops, under some circumstances. I assume they won't steal of molest while not on the "job", due to their "intentions". But it does happen.

"He may actually be there to help you, but you've already decided that's impossible." 

No. I actually haven't. I have written extensively on topics such as this and don't really feel like rehashing it all. Here's one example that pertains to your assumption.

"My point is that intentions are important, because even if they don't change the outcome of the action, they change your perception of both the action and its outcome." 

So, if an attacker only intends to rape, and the murder of his victim was an accident, I should excuse the murder? Sorry, but my perception is that if you initiate force/steal as a matter of course, you are a bad guy. If the realization of my perception offends the guy doing it, he could stop.

"I was talking about something closer to 'opinionated conclusions' and 'hypercritical thinking'." 

I still believe it is important to be opinionated about certain things (and refuse to excuse or justify them), and the opposite of "hypercritical thinking" is either gullibility or the lack of thought. Maybe a combination. Truth is truth, even if it makes you uncomfortable, or even if you'd rather equivocate. 

"I'm not talking about 'looking the other way' in the face of archation. I'm talking about expecting what you don't want." 

I don't want a tornado to hit my house. I don't "expect" it, but I would be foolish to ignore the possibility. I don't expect a cop to attack me-- unless he initiates contact. Then, whether it's a "traffic stop" or some other "contact", he has already aggressed against me. My expectations are irrelevant at this point. I don't "expect" him to escalate the situation and murder me, but it happens more often than cop supporters want to know. To ignore the reality of the situation: that an armed aggressor has accosted me, and quite probably intends to rob me, might decide to kidnap me, and will murder me if he gets nervous, would be foolish on my part.

"...but what do you do with cops who insist they're doing the right thing, trying to clear the corruption from the system by being a good example?" 

I try to educate them as to why they aren't doing the right thing, and that the system isn't corrupt anymore than the mafia is corrupt. It is as it is designed to be.

"How do you decide that point at which you switch from your perspective to theirs?" 

When I reject principles and ethics.

"I also see that violence may not be the only effective response to archation. " 

Never assumed it was. That's why I write.

"You might define the label by a set of actions, but when you use that label on a person, you are labeling that person." 

When a person willingly associates himself with, and gets a large part of his identity from, those behaviors, what would you do? They label themselves. I simply accept their identity.

"If you don't think there should be a next generation of police, I'd like to know how you see the path to this reality." 

By getting people to see that cops are unnecessary and harmful to society. A net negative. That they are anti-society. I have no illusions that I will accomplish this myself. But it is enough to see people throw off the veil and see the "job" for what it really is. And I am seeing more and more people grow out of the superstition every day.

"'*Copsucker' is a label to which you've attached negative characteristics." 

Because blind support of police is a very negative personality flaw. People should be ashamed for exhibiting this trait. Are you going to make nice euphemisms for people who support other thugs and bullies?

"'Good person' and 'bad person' are labels, too. When we use them to refer to people, they become abstract and simplified..." 

Labels aren't bad when they are accurate; only when they are deceptive. Everyone can do both good and bad, but then the scales tip by the majority of a person's actions, the label can be very helpful in discerning who you should trust and who you shouldn't.

"Using the worst definition of 'cop' to justify other labels..."

OK, define cop or "police officer" in a truthful way.

"The kind of peace I meant here was freedom from war and archation." 

Probably a pipe dream. There will always be archation (whether it is "war" or not is probably irrelevant), even in a free society. I don't necessarily seek freedom from archation, but I do seek an honest assessment of it, and removal of the veil of legitimacy for those who commit it as a part of their "job". This includes politicians, muggers, and other archators, not just cops.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, December 24, 2017

Merry Chrisolstikwanzakah



Enjoy the winter solstice holiday of your choice.
Thank you for being here for me.
I'll be back in a couple of days.



-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, December 23, 2017

Sneaky lying cheaters who archate



The person I know who is the most concerned with whether other people are being sneaky, and sees (and condemns) sneakiness in everyone, is also the sneakiest person I've ever met.

This is a pattern I've noticed in many things.

The person who hates cheating the most is probably the biggest cheater.
The person who believes everyone else is lying is probably a liar.

So, recognizing this in others makes me examine myself more closely.

I don't like archation in others. Does this mean I am prone to archate?

I know I have the capacity. I've done it more times than I want to admit. I do believe I am getting better at not doing so. When I feel the urge to archate, I notice and stop myself-- in almost every case. Sometimes, I notice after it has already happened, and then I am ashamed of myself. If I can, I apologize.

I know I am capable of being a monster, and life is a constant struggle to not act it out. I suspect that is just part of being human.

If I do archate, I want people to call me on it. Unlike the sneak, the cheater, and the liar, I am willing to face my flaws. That doesn't mean it's not uncomfortable, or that I will take it well when it is pointed out. But I try. I want to be better than I am.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, December 22, 2017

Those thieving thieves and their schemes



I know practically nothing about the most recent tweaking of the gang's theft conspiracy. I hadn't been keeping up with developments, details, or news about it, and I don't care enough to research it.

Some people claim it means they will be stealing slightly less. (I sort of doubt it, because they always seem to manage to make up their theft quotas elsewhere, but I can pretend for a moment.)

Some other people are having a conniption because some people are happy if it's the case that slightly less will be stolen. What?

I am against theft. All theft. That being said, in my opinion stealing less is always preferable to stealing more (or the same). Right? How can anyone object?

If I get mugged, and manage to not have the thief steal as much as he might have stolen, I'm not going to be happy about the mugging, but I will be happy to have retained what he didn't get.

I oppose the self incrimination ritual that occurs when people have to ask for some of their stolen property to be returned. I understand it's not really about giving back the money, but about social manipulation to give it back. "Incriminate yourself and jump through these flaming hoops, and we'll see if you deserve to have the property we stole returned to you."

I also understand whiny statists complaining that without the stolen money, government can't "provide" as much. Good!! I don't want anything from government except to be left out of it.

But, really, complaining that a mugger will possibly get less money than he did previously seems misguided.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Overprotection brings irresponsibility



I think the current overprotection of children is harmful. I know I'm not the first to point this out, but I don't think it can be said enough-- until it stops.

No one can learn responsibility without being given the opportunity to be irresponsible. And unless they've been given this opportunity in small doses all along, just suddenly handing them a lighter, a knife, or a loaded gun might bring disaster. This is the fault of those who have restricted their access as much as it is theirs.

Because yes, kids should have easy access to lighters, knives, and loaded guns. And they need to learn that actions have consequences.

It helps if responsible adults, who have good familiarity with guns, knives, fire, and all sorts of dangerous things, are there to provide guidance at first. But keeping kids away from guns, knives, fire, etc., means there will not be any adults qualified to fill this role before too long. This won't end well.

Yes, there is the risk of kids maiming or killing someone if they have access to dangerous things. The problem is, keeping them away from dangerous things doesn't make anyone any safer, it just changes the nature of the risk that you are practically guaranteeing.

The current way has been an utter disaster. Keeping guns "away" from kids leads to mass shootings. for one thing. This world is full of dangers. You aren't doing anyone a favor by raising a generation of ignorant people who are unequipped to deal with reality.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Statism is...



Statism is lazy.

Statism is unethical.

Statism can be cowardly.

Statism is irresponsible.

Statism is dishonest.

Statism is archation.

And statism seems to be everywhere.

Growing up statist can have consequences. Once you learn to justify statism you are prone to self-justify or excuse any archation. They aren't different things.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, December 18, 2017

Imagine...



Imagine a world where people don't fight over their imaginary friend.

Imagine a world where people don't kill each other over disagreements about how their imaginary friend is worshiped, or how the holy symbols of the imaginary friend are treated.

No, I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, or any of those sorts of belief systems. I'm talking about statism: the world's largest, most popular, and most deadly religion.

The State is an imaginary friend. It only exists in the mind, and there is nothing friendly about that belief. Belief in the State is expressed in many ways, but people don't usually want it expressed in opposing ways and continually kill each other over their differences. The belief in this imaginary friend is very harmful. It would be better to give it up. In fact, it is suicidal to not give it up.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Sunday, December 17, 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.

A right is anything you can do without crossing the equal and identical rights of others. If it violates someone or their property, or obligates others to provide you with something at their expense, it isn't a right. However, no one has the right to not be offended. If you are only offended, you haven't been violated.

No one has the right to violate other people. This is what responsibility is: to avoid violating rights or preventing people from exercising their liberty.

Rights can be expressed better by pointing out what you don't have a right to do. You do not have the right to use violence against people who are not being violent nor harming private property. You do not have the right to take or damage property which belongs to someone else. Nothing can change this reality or create the right to do those things.

Look at recent news in this light.

You do not have the right to coerce someone into sexual acts in exchange for a job, no matter your position.
You do not have the right to make up laws which authorize you to take money or property by calling it a "tax"-- not even if you promise to use it for good.
You do not have the right to vandalize cars, houses, or businesses.
You do not have the right to shoot people who aren't violating others.
You do not have the right to send people or devices around the world to break stuff and kill people-- not even if you call it "spreading democracy" or "peacekeeping".
You do not have the right to vote to limit or eliminate anyone's liberty in any way, even if it's on the ballot.

Living within your rights is your most grave responsibility.

You have the right to resist any violation of your rights, or the rights of others, with whatever force it takes to stop the violator. This is why those who make a living violating the rights of others despise rights and pretend rights are inferior to responsibilities-- and they also insist on defining "responsibilities" in a way which protects them from their victims. They deny their greatest responsibility.


-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Freedom- I won't.



There are some things I simply won't voluntarily do.

I won't participate in Nazi/socialist rituals, even if everyone around me gets bent out of shape by my refusal. Nor will I sing or "honor" national anthems.

I won't socialize with cops. Not anymore. Nor will I pretend they can be "good" people, even if they are nice.

I don't demand everyone else stop doing what I won't do. Even if people demand I join them in doing those things I refuse to do.

Beyond that, I won't pretend "laws" are legitimate, that "taxation" is anything other than theft, that government employees are anything other than bullies, or that "public schools" (kinderprisons) are about education.

You aren't required to think the same, nor will you earn a Browncoat badge by thinking the same way I do.

These things are just me.
-

(The title comes from this story, which you probably already knew.)

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Saturday, December 16, 2017

Confusinitions



I think it's really unfortunate, and confusing, when one word is used to speak of two concepts which are totally unrelated-- or even at odds with each other.

Sometimes, such as with the word "ring", no one confuses one definition for the other, and even if they did, probably no harm would come of it. But sometimes the completely unrelated meanings are extremely dangerous to confuse.

Such as with the word "authority".

The word can mean "expert" or "competence". This is a positive concept; the good kind of authority. This is the kind of authority which deserves respect.

But, when used in the political sense it refers to a bully or an act of bullying. There is nothing positive about political "authority". This kind of "authority" deserves nothing but contempt. Being competent at bullying isn't a good thing at all.

With the same word being used for both, and the confusion being encouraged, most people get very mixed up and wind up believing political "authority" means the same as the other meaning of "authority", or that they at least overlap. It doesn't, and they don't. Not even close. But political "authorities" would love for you to fall for the deception-- it's a very useful lie. Useful to them; devastatingly harmful to you.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Friday, December 15, 2017

Making people unhappy



I need to stop having such high expectations for other people (in general). I'm completely serious. It makes them uncomfortable or unhappy.

It's not that I would ever do anything to anyone who didn't meet my unreasonable expectations, but they don't like hearing what I expect of those who call themselves "libertarians" when they aren't willing to live up to it. I'm not even talking about calling out specific individuals-- I don't usually do that-- just pointing out what libertarianism means, and pointing out things that don't meet the criteria.

I'm actually harder on myself than I am on others. I usually know the right thing to do, even if I don't manage to stay on course. I suspect others are the same.

I guess I shouldn't point out ways in which people who call themselves "libertarian" don't live up to the label they claim in certain areas. I shouldn't point out inconsistencies in what they advocate that could lead observers to the wrong conclusion.

Just like Christians should be quiet about some guy who worships Satan while claiming to be a Christian. Who are they to say he's not acting like a Christian? He may be doing the best he can, in the society and circumstances in which he finds himself. Expecting that he pick a side and either stop claiming Christianity or stop worshiping Satan is unreasonable. Right? How much Satan worship can a Christian engage in without tainting the label "Christian"?

Well, how much State/State employee worship (or apologetics) can a libertarian engage in without tainting the label "libertarian". I'm thinking none. Maybe that's just me.

If there could be a State that wasn't built on theft and aggression, and if there could be State employees who didn't advance the agenda of the State in any way-- not even by giving it a veil of legitimacy-- and who NEVER participated in the State's theft and aggression, and never supported those State employees who do, then maybe a little Statism would be OK. But that's a magical unicorn of a different color.

As I see it, if you are OK with some aspects of the State, that's between you and your conscience. I'm not going to excuse those parts of the State you like just because I like you or agree with you in every other area. If you truly believe you are right, then don't worry about my opinion on that point. I'll be disappointed, but I'll survive. It's my problem, not yours. As long as you keep your filthy government off my life, that is.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Thursday, December 14, 2017

The re-education of Kent



The people have spoken: Not all rapists are bad people. I have been shown the error of my wrongthinking ways. I'm sorry!

Some rapists never rape (never mind that the identifier comes from that particular action and nothing else), and besides, I'll alienate the people who love them if I can't see that they can be good people, and necessary for the functioning of society. If I don't allow rapists to do what they do, other rapists-- who might be even worse-- will have free rein to prey on innocent people.
I shouldn't have condemned them collectively, based on the acts a rapist, by definition, commits. Until I've sat down and talked to one, walked a mile in his athletic shoes, I can't know his motivation for doing what he does. He may have become a rapist with the best of intentions- truly seeking to help people who need it.
We probably all supported rapists and what they do at one time-- so I should understand those who support them now, and those who want to praise them for the dangerous job they do. I mean, would you be willing to do what a rapist does? I thought not!
Besides, in a free society, some people would still demand to be provided with rapists.

It's not nice to think of people as only what they do. They shouldn't be judged solely on the basis of the actions from which they get their identity. They are so much more than that. They are individuals first and foremost-- they have families and friends. Just because I don't like what they choose to do doesn't mean they are wrong. It means I was wrong for judging them.

I'm just being unreasonable when I expect people to stand against archation. I'm truly sorry for my hardline stance, and for refusing to think of the children and widows before staking out such an unforgiving position. Rapists are people too, no different from anyone else. Certainly no worse.

But it is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. I have won the victory over myself. I love rapists.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Embarrassing borderism fail



I just read what should have been one of the most embarrassing justifications for borderism I've ever seen passed off as thought. I won't mention the particular thinker who squeezed it out.

It goes like this:

  • People have property rights, including the right to invite or exclude whoever they choose onto, or from, their property.
  • The State violates this right by prohibiting its full exercise by property owners. 
  • The State then substitutes its idea of collective property rights for actual individual property rights via "national borders".
  • Therefore, the only way left to defend your property rights is by demanding the State enforce its "borders" even harder.

The 3 points are dead right. The conclusion doesn't logically follow.

He even tries to base his jumping off point (that people have property rights which they have a right to defend forcefully), correctly, on the "non-aggression principle", and then ignores how it invalidates his conclusion.

Apparently "collateral damage" is acceptable.
Apparently, there's no point in striking at the root when it's easier to make the State bigger and more powerful.
Apparently, only "immigrants" can trespass, vandalize, or steal (or, are the only ones you need to defend your property from)-- there's no need to defend your property from US "citizens" or government employees.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

Monday, December 11, 2017

Delusional support for cops is EVERYWHERE



Most of my posts of the past few days have been inspired by my frustration over a discussion in a liberty-oriented forum. Where I am the only one apparently willing to admit there can be no such thing as a "good cop".

It's a little disappointing, I'll admit. I expected more.

I can give all the reasoning which leads inevitably to the only rational conclusion. Those who disagree with me give feelings, anecdotes, objections, and whatever else, but have nothing to contribute to make an actual argument to the contrary. They just engage in wishful thinking.

Which leads to one inevitable conclusion: People desperately want to believe cops are good. Even those who are otherwise "pro-liberty".

By pointing out the logical, inescapable reasons why cops can't be good, you threaten their beliefs. By pointing out that "cop" isn't a person so much as a set of behaviors which violate life, liberty, and property-- exactly in the same way "rapist" is-- you offend them.

Not only this, but in order to bolster their "argument" they put words in my mouth, they make assumptions about my motivations, and they leap to conclusions as to what I propose doing about the situation.

Why this childish attachment to a set of destructive behaviors and the gang members who commit them? Is something akin to an "archation culture" being exposed here?

I guess it's a pointless battle, even among the pro-liberty crowd. I'm still right, but I will walk away from the discussion. You can't get through to those who are so desperate to not understand.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

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

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.
Progress report 2:  4 to go to meet the goal.
Progress report 3:  4 to go to meet the goal.
Progress report 4:  4 to go to meet the goal.

Final report: Thank you to my new subscriber. I had hoped for more, but I appreciate what I get.





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

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.

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.