If the idea of liberty bothers someone more than the idea of authoritarian control, police, and a government military, they're the bad guy.
There is no "Yes, but". There's no excuse. There is no legitimate justification.
Liberty and government don't mix. They are mortal enemies. Everyone picks a side, and anyone who tries to straddle the fence has chosen the government side.
This time, there was a broken sprinkler head, weak pressure in one group of sprinklers, a nice little "spring" bubbling up about 6" from another sprinkler head (which accounted for the low pressure), and one sprinkler head that simply refused to work at all, beyond a slow trickle when it was supposed to be spraying.
I got things replaced, dug up, and fixed, until I had only the stubborn trickling head left.
Before digging that one up, I tried backflushing it. It seemed to work for a second or so, then it suddenly shut off again. So I backflushed it a second time. Same result. I got a wire and tried to "snake" out the clog, but it didn't change the situation. It was time to dig.
I dug it up and checked each piece as I took it apart. Everything was in good shape. Then it was time to remove the riser piece that came off the horizontal line. I screwed it out and everything looked good with the horizontal line. Then I flipped over the riser- in the bottom of that pipe, a perfect fit, was a marble. I removed the marble (which was easy to do), reassembled everything, and it worked as it was supposed to.
However, my suspicions have been raised.
My parents had a sprinkler company come work on it a month or so ago when they thought there was a different (major) problem. I think the company fixed the issue without digging or disassembling anything, and they didn't charge much for their work, but... where did the marble come from?
I helped install this sprinkler system 16 years or so ago. No marbles were used during installation. It hasn't had this issue in all this time. Marbles don't usually pop into existence in sealed systems.
Would an unscrupulous sprinkler repair company place a marble in the line to cause a problem later? One that would be simple to fix, but that they could get a quick service call out of? The marble was small enough to move easily through the horizontal lines, but a perfect fit for shutting off one sprinkler head like a valve. Like it was made or chosen for the purpose. It is slightly smaller than my standard-sized marbles, but only a little. Was it intentional? I don't know, but I have questions.
It's unlikely an elderly couple would have ever discovered the problem themselves- they aren't going to dig it up. If I hadn't done it, what would the company have "found" as the problem when they came back to fix it?
I didn't mention this quasi-suspicion to my parents. I dislike myself for thinking like this, but there are too many questions, and only one obvious answer that comes to mind.
What do you think? Have you ever heard of this practice or seen a similar experience?
I understand why they do it.
I just don’t think it works well against people who think criminally- politicians, cops, bureaucrats, and other statists. You'd be trying to play a game they invented, by rules they enforce that only bind you.
I'm sure they're secretly amused by anyone who thinks this is how to beat them at their own game. A game where they are the referees, the rulemakers, the scorekeepers, and "the bank".
This is why agorism is necessary. Make them and their game irrelevant.
It wouldn't, unless he's evil or criminally irresponsible. I don't know... maybe he is.
And, they aren't "Second Amendment rights"; they are natural human rights that the Second Amendment makes it a crime for government to violate. Not that government ever obeys this law.
I don't believe you can "give up" rights. You can choose to not exercise them, but they are still your rights, unblemished and yours to exercise if you later change your mind. To "give up" something would indicate (to me) that it is gone. Out of reach, forever. You can't get it back without someone else returning it to you. Rights don't work like that.
This is also why I don't believe you can "lose" rights.
Because I'm a toxic individual, I then said something about the right to use heroin. I choose not to exercise this right, but I can't "give up" the right- nor would I want to. Used or not, the right remains. Someday, although I hope it never happens, I might need to use heroin. In that case, I have the right to do so.
The right to use heroine is likely to harm me if I exercise it, so I don't. Nor am I going to criticize anyone else for not exercising that right. But the right is still there. Regardless of the opinions of regional political criminals and their bootlickers. Anyone who thinks rights hinge on how they feel about them is doing it wrong.
The right to own and carry weapons doesn't violate anyone. Including myself. I want you to exercise this right. My respect is diminished for those who won't- unless they are under close government supervision, such that it would result in them being caged or killed. My respect for those in that situation who do so anyway is monumental. Just don't be yapping to me about it if it's not safe to do so.
You and I have the responsibility to not violate innocent people with our weapons, but that's a separate issue. One usually ignored by anti-gun bigots looking to make (what they imagine is) a point.
If you choose, for whatever reason, to not exercise your rights, that's your prerogative. You aren't giving up your rights, though. You don't have the right to make this choice for others, and trying to do so anyway makes you the bad guy. Every time. Spreading the lie that this choice would save lives makes that guy a despicable excuse for a man.
I'm sure you've seen the old meme, "Life is hard. It's harder if you're stupid".
Well, politics makes people stupid (and causes them to embrace evil), so it could be said, "Life is hard. It's harder if you're political."
Same true message. Regardless of who said the original quote.
Centralized power grids make everyone vulnerable. If everyone creates or captures their own energy, and I lose mine, my neighbor probably won't. If I have power and my neighbor doesn't, I'm available to help them out. When the whole region blacks out, you'd better have alternatives because no one near you who is dependent on the grid is going to be better off.
Centralized bureaucracies and governments become tyranny. Controlling life through force and ignorance. It's better if everyone can take care of their own stuff.
Centralized defense- police and military- become tools of the tyrants. They defend those who are the problem rather than "the public" they are supposedly responsible for defending. Everyone is better off if they take responsibility for their own defense, and then help others who are helpless or worthless when they can.
If there's only one food distributor, starvation is likely.
If there's only one "approved" source for anything, you're vulnerable to shortages or manipulation.
The more paths to get to where you need to go, the better off you'll be. The inclinations of those who believe in governing is to cut off all paths other than the one they control. Then, when you need it the most, they can cut that cord, too.
I did have a small tear and an area that was in the process of detaching (the scan looked to me like it was already detached). He fixed it with a laser in the office. That was more painful than it sounds, and today my eye still hurts- although I think it's mainly the muscles around my eye that are hurting now.
Blindness averted yet again. I have a follow-up appointment next month.
He indicated that my insurance will "cover" this, or at least approve it- although I probably won't really know for a while. I'm not sure what the difference is, or if he's just being hopeful on my behalf.
Yet, so many government supremacists love to position themselves as "tough on crime". It would be funny if it didn't have such disastrous consequences/
The way they get away with this deception and diversion is by misdefining crime as something government forbids, rather than as an act which violates someone's rights. It's dishonest, yet many people fall for it completely.
Owning a machine gun without government permission isn't a real crime. Enforcing a counterfeit "law" against the person who owns a machine gun without government permission is a crime. But it's a crime government loves to commit, with the approval of these lying "tough on crime" types.
You could find myriad examples. If there's not a specific, individual victim, it's not a crime. To treat it as though it is a crime is criminal. "Tough on crime" people need to suck on that for a while.
It shows that the Leftist "intellectuals" aren’t as smart as they believe they are.
They are, however, very confident in their superiority and very committed to remaining wrong. They can see so clearly where "conservatives" go astray, but are completely blind to their own cognitive errors and biases.
"Liberal" is on the side of liberty; it is generous and respects the rights of all. This is as far from modern Leftism as it is from modern "conservatism", both of which are entirely authoritarian. It's a shame that the Leftists have co-opted the word "liberal" and made it mean the opposite of what its root, historical meaning was.
It takes a view from a higher dimension to see it clearly.
But I don't fly it alongside other flags that negate its message.
Whenever I see a Gadsden flag flying beside Holy Pole Quilt or a disgusting Blue Line Mafia flag, I can't help but shake my head.
Or Holy Pole Quilt and a Christian flag together.
A few miles out of town, there's a house that flies Holy Pole Quilt, a Texas flag, and a "Confederate" flag. All together, every day. It's weird! That's like flying an Israeli flag and a Nazi or Palestinian flag together, or a Ukrainian flag with a Russian flag. Make up your mind what you're supporting here!
I guess the message a flag sends to the world gets lost on some people.
"Believe it or not there used to be a time when the government worked for the people, and helped the people with their needs and they ran programs to keep society functional."
I said, "I don't believe that fairy tale. That's what statists told their children, but it was never true."
What about you? Do you believe that? Am I wrong? Or, is it indeed a fairy tale told to gullible children to disarm their critical thinking and observational skills?
Update: Unfortunately the guy was serious. He is sure an ethical system of government is possible.
I was skeptical to begin with, because efficient government is the last thing I want- I want government crippled and abolished. Piece by piece or all at once. I'm not picky.
DOGE wanted to use a chainsaw instead of a scalpel to cut away waste and fraud- but it would take a woodchipper.
But, whatever the goal of DOGE, it failed.
It didn't stop waste and abuse- judges who depend on fraud and abuse saw to that.
It didn't save money- congressvermin who saw any potential "savings" as money to spend on their own pet projects saw to that.
Government isn't something that can be fixed. It is something that's going to have to be eliminated for human liberty to survive and thrive. No constitution can limit it. No election can save the population from it.
I wish that weren't the case, but it's delusional to believe otherwise.
It’s why anarchists understand the arguments made by statists better than statists understand the arguments made by anarchists. Anarchists are more familiar with the arguments, pro and con, than the statists are.
One example: sometimes I sort of believe in the alien explanation for some UFOs. I can at least sympathize with the believers. But when I hear a nonbeliever shooting holes in the arguments in favor of "alien origin", it's clear they are familiar with and understand the arguments the believers make. They just don't buy them.
But I don't get the same sense from the believers when they try to address the arguments made by the nonbelievers. It often doesn't seem like they understand the nonbelievers' arguments very well, and certainly not as well as their arguments are understood by the other side. Often, it seems like they aren't even familiar with the arguments made by the nonbelievers.
And this is definitely what I see happening when statists- those who "believe in" governing others- try to address the arguments made by anarchists- those who don't believe in such behavior as an ethical thing. The statists don't even seem to know what they are talking about, but they certainly have a lot of confidence.
Be familiar with, and try to understand, the arguments made by those who disagree with you. Then you won't be relying on straw men or grasping at ad hominem attacks when you get frustrated by their stubbornness. You may not even get as frustrated.
-
Thank you for reading.
Show your support.
You don't need to wait to see what effect tariffs have. Imposing them is unethical because they are a tax, and taxation is theft.
You don't need to wait to see if the next anti-gun rule reduces murder or suicide, because disarming people is wrong.
You don't need to wait to see if banning food dyes- or mandating vaccinations- improves "public health", because such edicts remove personal options concerning personal health decisions. This indicates you are someone else's property- a slave. Slavery is unethical.
You don't need to wait to see how ending drug prohibition would turn out. No one has the right to control what someone else consumes; doing so anyway "for their own good" is wrong. As is criminalizing defending yourself and your property from those under the influence of drugs.
When doing something you have no right to do, the only reason to say you need to "wait to see how it turns out" is because you are addicted to controlling things that are not yours to control. You are rejecting ethics in favor of pragmatism.
Cop: "I'll need you to hand over your gun for both our safety."
Innocent person: "I'll need you to do the same, for both our safety, since cops are statistically much more likely to kill an innocent person than I am. We are both safest if we each keep our own weapon."
The cop then shoots and murders the innocent person for non-compliance, thus proving the victim's point. He's right, but dead.
Copsuckers: "He should have just obeyed! You have to obey, even if the officer is wrong! If the officer is wrong, stay alive and work it out in court later. He was just doing his job and the criminal made him fear for his safety!"
Liberty continues to die a little more each day.
The End.
It’s important enough to go through the pain of facing reality and rejecting things that stand in its way. Things such as your biases, government, laws, "authority", and even loyalty (when it’s misplaced).
Does liberty matter this much to you? It does to me, which is why I've questioned and examined each and every one of those items on that list at one time or another. I expect to keep questioning and examining these things- and more- in the coming years. Regardless of how things turn out.
Even if one ruler respects liberty, the system is designed to destroy it. Because the next ruler probably won't- few, if any, have ever understood or respected liberty. It's not in their interest to do so.
But, if one did- You might have liberty until the next ruler comes into power, and then you could lose it all. Then the next ruler after that might be better again. Or worse. It’s a terrible system.
If rulers were scared to violate liberty- and I mean scared to death to violate liberty in the smallest way- then, perhaps, tolerating rulers might not be the worst thing. But the system isn't designed to protect liberty, it is designed to protect those who violate it. Again, it's a bad system. One that's incompatible with human flourishing and liberty.
Those who support such a system don't understand or support liberty. That's why they tolerate government. They want everything to be subject to government permission. They can't even think outside that box.
If you tell them that you don't like something, they automatically think you are saying it should be illegal and people should be punished for doing it. Even if you clearly say that's not what you're saying, it's as if they can't see those words. They hallucinate that you are advocating that liberty be violated. They literally can't think outside the statist box. And these are the people who are empowered to v*te to violate your liberty.
It's fascinating to watch happen in real time. It's frustrating to try to communicate with such people. Because you can't. They are immune.
These are the type of people who put their support behind a broken system and demand everyone play along. Liberty doesn't register with them. They just want their anti-liberty side to "win" for now. They are willing to hurt themselves to further that goal.
"Paying taxes" isn't helping.
It can't be entirely avoided, so I don't blame the victims. I only blame those who are proud of being "taxpayers", and those who want others to also pay, or pay more.
The only right, ethical level of taxation is zero. If you can't fund the projects you want under that condition, then your projects are harmful to society and to the individuals who comprise it.
It goes like this:
No reasons. No counter-arguments. No good points I missed. Just knee-jerk typing. Often, however they respond completely misses, misinterprets, or ignores what I said. It's chess with a pigeon, without the amusement of watching a pigeon strutting around on a chessboard. Instead, it's a statist strutting around on a keyboard. It's a spectacle of its own sort.
Today should be a reminder of why government is your enemy. The Ancestral Enemy. Why routing one government to install another government is a foolish waste of lives and will not turn out well.
Use the occasion to give government all the respect it deserves.
It's so much easier to react than to think. Or read.
Friends and relatives jumped on me over this, and yet it was obvious not one of them had bothered to read the post. They might have still gotten angry- cultlike behavior leads to anger- but they could have at least addressed the actual post rather than simply reacting to the caption.
I was called "stupid" and "immature" and told "it wasn't Trump who said that" (duh- I know!)
MAGA is just as much a cult as TDS. Both seem incapable of thinking or reading anything beyond the surface. I've realized this for as long as MAGA has existed, but it's like they really want to show me.
Politics makes people stupid. Politics is a battle of the cults. It makes the followers behave badly, and it fosters ignorance.
Stupid enough to wear a shirt honoring murderer Luigi Mangioni, like one of my daughter's work friends was doing the other day. The shirt tells me she's a Left-statist, has poor character, and isn't too bright. Just like those attacking me over a caption are telling me similarly embarrassing things about themselves.
I don't think anyone has been more balanced than I have been. I clearly say when Trump does something right; I clearly criticize him when he does something wrong. I'm accustomed to this triggering the cultists on both sides. If I don't get called a Leftist and MAGA in the same day it's a strange day, indeed. Something about this post really got noticed by the MAGA cult this time.
So what did I do, after replying that they really need to read the post that the picture goes along with, and it being obvious from subsequent comments that no one did? I posted another link to the blog post, along with the illustration. Along with a short paragraph chastizing those who comment without reading. As if that will change cult behavior whatsoever.
