Random Thoughts Fueled by Too Much TV

I hear that the TV show "Kid Nation" caused an uproar because one of the kids killed a chicken. So? Shouldn't kids (and, for that matter, adults) realize where their food comes from? Life only comes from death. That has been a fact of life since at least the Cambrian Period. If you only feel sorry for the warm-blooded animals you eat, you are not fully recognizing plants as "life". That is discriminatory. Good for that kid for taking responsibility to provide food, even if the situation is contrived. I haven't seen the show, so I really don't know how the matter was handled.

Speaking of eating creatures..... I get really tired of seeing catch-and-release fishermen on TV commercials. How is hooking a fish for no other reason than "recreation" more noble than only doing so for the purpose of getting food? Isn't that just kind of a "feel good" thing? How is it different than going deer hunting and only shooting-to-wound the deer, and then letting it go after your photographs? I'd be willing to bet that a lot of those fish die afterwards.

At least it seems like the glut of "cop glorification" programming garbage has finally peaked. About the only cop program I ever identified with was The X-Files. It was probably the most anti-government program ever on TV. The rest of the shows either show cops as above-the-law or as noble saviours; saving "us" from ourselves. Phooey on that. For that matter, I can't stand the stuff that glorifies freelance bad guys either. Like the mafia jerks or others who murder, kidnap, steal, threaten, and beat up other people without a shred of conscience. Not at all like the decent outlaws of Firefly. Let's have some good anarchist heroes on TV again.

Last and possibly least: Not TV related, but still random: Government, any form other than self-government, is a hideous thing. I know this with every fiber of my being. So why don't more people see this fact? They cling to a stone-age concept that some people should lord over the rest of us. Come on people. Evolve already.

Anti-Gun Racists

Why is it that rural or suburban gun owners, who may or may not be members of that victim disarmament group called the NRA get the blame for "gun crime", and for blocking "reasonable gun laws", when it is inner-city criminals who are doing the vast majority of the shooting?

Then those who pretend to speak for the inner-city criminal/victims call for banning guns. If it were important to stop the shootings (which I think it is), why don't the criminals just stop shooting one another and innocent bystanders? Why keep blaming the people who are not shooting one another? Do you think that your pet criminals will stop killing when the peaceful gun owners are disarmed? What color is your unicorn?

Racism on the part of the gun banners is a big part of the reason. They are racist against the rural gun owners and they are racist against the inner-city shooters. They merely hide their racism behind the curtain of "progressiveness". Sneaky racists like these are the worst kind. They blame everyone else for their shortsightedness.

AARG!

A group that claims to lobby for the "rights" of retired Americans is using, exploiting, children in its TV ads. It is using them as spokespuppets advocating its pet socialist wealth-redistribution schemes. That is pretty low. I realize these kids are actors who are getting paid for their work, and I would never begrudge them that right. They have no clue what they are being used for. They are not the ones who are targeted by these ads.

The kids are a weapon aimed straight at the hearts of their parents; the working men and women who actually have to pay to support the socialized medicine and social "security" schemes being touted by the group. They are being used to manipulate their parents to vote for politicians who will keep supporting bankrupt programs instead of being honest and saying, "Look, we politicians have made a grave mistake. Some of us have downright lied to you. We have been taking your money and making promises that we cannot really keep; not without taking vastly larger amounts of your money to keep the pyramid scheme propped up. It will be unpleasant, but it is better to end this now than to keep crippling our country with these lies. Please help one another, voluntarily and charitably, however you can while our country recovers from these scars of socialism."

If you feel the need to vote, demand that your candidate face reality for once. Ask when they will finally end socialism in America. It is decades past time. Really.

Zero Tolerance = Zero Brains

I see so many instances these days of "Zero-Tolerance" policies, especially at schools. Just pay attention to the news. In the past I have heard of: kids drawing pictures of guns (or gun-like shapes) and being punished; little boys seen kissing little girls (and not even against their will) being labelled "sex offenders" and sent for counselling; kids with fingernail clippers-of -mass-destruction. These are psychologically normal, healthy kids until they are caught and then punished with draconian penalties that will scar them for life. They may even be placed on medication in an attempt to treat their behavior. Possibly, if humanity is lucky, the unintended consequence will be that this inappropriate response to normal behavior will make these kids aware that government and other authoritarians are their enemies to be opposed at every turn. Zero Tolerance removes any need on the part of the authoriturd to actually think. I guess it is easier that way being the thinking-impaired creatures they are.

Bedtime Story

How about a bedtime story? This is a true story about an evil prosecuting attorney whom we will call "WA" and his chosen victim. This story takes place several years ago in the southwestern part of a mountainous western state.

A friend of mine, we will call him "LW", had an argument with an acquaintance. The man showed up at LW's house with a shotgun. He pulled up in front of LW's house, yelled at him to come out, and leveled the shotgun at him. Fortunately, LW is not a victim type of person. He had his Dan Wesson revolver and pointed it at the attacker, and told the man to leave. Seeing he was outgunned, LW's attacker angrily fired a shot into the air and left.

A few minutes later the cops, those "protectors of justice", showed up and arrested LW for firing a gun (which he hadn't done). They confiscated his revolver.

In the course of the trial LW was found not guilty, much to the irritation of Mr. WA, the anti-gun prosecuting attorney. LW asked for his gun back. You would think that once found not guilty, the government would be obligated to return any property they stole, but apparently you must beg for it. WA told LW that he must fill out paperwork to get his revolver back, so he did. He jumped through every hoop that was demanded of him to no avail. It was never returned.

If I were to speculate, I would guess that WA probably took the gun with him when he moved up to being the District Attorney for the whole region, or maybe he gave it to one of his cronies. Corrupt little anti-gun worm that he is. The end.

Rights Rationed are Rights Denied

Where did the idea that governments can ration our rights come from? Do we have the right to live and protect our lives or don't we? I know the answer that comes from "On High". We have the right as long as we don't try to assert it in places where we might be angry at the authoritards; like courthouses. We have the right as long as we don't try to exercise it on an airplane. We have the right as long as we beg permission for a "permit" if we want to do it in public.
Do we have the right to say what we think or not? We have the right as long as we don't point out the abuses of government too clearly, otherwise we can be declared "domestic terrorists" and disappear into the "justice" system. We have the right as long as we don't try to use any technology to effectively get our opinions out to too many people. The only reason you and I can still speak our minds on the internet is that it is so chaotic and fragmented that few people will find any particular opinion. Still, little girls a continent away who say something online that the authoritards can construe as "threatening" to the Traitor-in-Chief can be harassed and intimidated by his goons.
These are just two examples of how government denies our rights by rationing them. Either something is a right, not subject to limitation except by the rights of another individual, or it is not. Government today does not recognize the concept of rights and is brainwashing the population into redefining rights as privileges; something that the government will permit you to exercise if you have asked the right person for permission and gotten your papers all approved, signed, and stamped. That is just wrong.

Giving Voice to the Voiceless?

Some say this is what I am doing. It isn't true. In the grand scheme of things I am a nobody. We all have a voice that we can use to call government sympathizers on their nonsense. Don't sit quietly and wait for me to speak out. I may not ever get around to speaking out on the issue that is most important to you.

We who recognize government as a bad idea in general are the ones who are right. We need to stop being intimidated just because we seem to be outnumbered. Don't sit quietly ashamed when you hear someone parroting the "official line" or advocating a new "law". The only new laws that are needed are laws aimed at government. On the other hand, there are millions of laws that need to be discarded.

Libertarians have been too polite for too long. I am not suggesting that you pick fights. What I am suggesting is that obvious government meddling and overreaching is shoved in our faces every day. Don't let it pass without being pointed out. Even if you feel it is best to comply, tell that bureaucrat that what they are doing is wrong. Let the people standing in line with you hear it as well. When put through the wringer before you are allowed to buy your cold medicine, tell the clerk that the War on (some) Drugs is an abomination. Don't blame the clerk personally; she probably hates the "rules" as much as you do.

America will never be free unless you and I are willing to speak up, loud, proud, and often, in defense of liberty. Start today. Your enthusiasm might be contagious.

News Channel Polls and Questionnaires

Watching middle of the night TV recently, I see a lot of polls that are touted to be significant by the news channels. As if society should be run by mob rule. Don't you just "love" the way poll questions are phrased? Either you are not given the choice you really want to make, or the question asks the completely wrong thing. Then the answers are proclaimed to mean something. The same thing happens with almost every questionnaire I run into. I am asked to choose between A and B when I see that the real answer should be C, or the question will be about whether the government should mandate X or Y when it is obvious that the government has no authority in the discussed area whatsoever. These polls are designed to manipulate the debate. Yet it seems that few people catch on to this. I think I may just start answering every poll I can find and always choose "other" or the most nonsensical answer on every one.

"We" Are NOT the Problem

It seems to me that most of government's "solutions" to their contrived problems only penalize the people who are NOT part of the real problem. From the "War on Terror" which only hurts the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to victim disarmament laws which only affect people who are willing to obey laws in general, to the BATFE's disgusting intimidation campaign against Red's Trading Post, innocent people find themselves in the cross-hairs. Why? Because it makes the authoritards look like they are doing something other than giving off greenhouse gases from their orifices.
Government is pretty much helpless against those with real criminal intent, unless regular, honest people help them or the criminals turn against one another. In order to justify their jobs they pick on the innocent, who by their very nature as peaceful people can not or will not, fight back effectively. Look government, if you want to threaten and jail people, start with those in your own house first. Show us, as Americans, that you are serious about right and wrong, and not just about enforcing your nonsense counterfeit "laws". When disgraced government employees outnumber "unapproved medicine" users in prison I will believe you mean business. Until then, leave America alone.

Liberty Geniuses

Why are there no real "liberty prodigies" or "geniuses of anarchism"? There are none that everyone can point to and say "They have it completely right!" We all have our personal favorites, of course, but there is no Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking for libertarians to be dazzled by. I can't help but wonder why.


Is it because we are so individualistic that one size does not fit all? I can recognize when someone is pointing in my direction, even if they do not go as far as I do (or if they go farther). That makes me think that this is not the reason. Is it because freedom is not a science? There is no "E = mc²" of liberty. Or is there? Maybe there is and none of us have found it yet.

Still Breathing

Perhaps you have noticed my lack of blogging recently. Perhaps not. Some things which I can not go into have made me extremely upset. This has made me question .... everything. As disgusted as I am, I have come to the conclusion that this "way" I have embraced is still the "right way", at least for me. I still see no better way of living among other people in a free society.
I hope I can get my enthusiasm back. Thank you for your patience.

"A Farewell to Freedom"

"A Farewell to Freedom" by Kevin Van Horn:

(Sung to the tune of "American Pie", by Don McLean, but with fewer verses.)

[Prelude]
A long, long time ago. .
Who can still remember
That sweet music, hearing freedom ring?
And with our minds and hands unchained,
Our tongues unbound, our wealth undrained,
We were sure we could accomplish anything.
But well-dressed thugs with tongues of silver
Our sacred rights began to pilfer.
The Constitution weakened;
Each year its outlook bleakened.
So as I watched each plane collide
And that cloud of death spread far and wide,
I knew the end had now arrived,
The day that freedom died.

So bye, bye, Lady Liberty sighs,
You made your free state a police state
That I can't recognize.
Well, you sold your soul
For empty slogans and lies,
Now I'm weeping while America dies,
Weeping while America dies.

Read the rest

I wish someone would record this. Any takers?

The Day I Violated the ZAP

I admit, this is probably not the only time I violated the Zero Aggression Principle, but it is the most recent example I can think of. It was my junior year in high school. I was a geeky, nerdy kid with thick glasses. Lanky and klutzy (even worse than I am now), and odd. I was also very reserved and quiet. For some reason one kid (David) decided it was his job to torment me every time he saw me in the halls between classes. I never had done anything to him that I know of; I rarely spoke to anyone, and certainly never in a rude way. However, he began saying "Fag, fag, fag...." every single time he saw me. I wasn't sure why he chose me to taunt, and I ignored him for months. I never got angry about it. Until the day he caught me in a bad mood.

I don't remember why I was irritable that day. I was walking to the bus after school and walked past him. He began his taunts. I felt the rage rise throughout my body and the heat in my face. I dropped my books, turned around, and grabbed him by the collar. While shaking him I warned "You ever say that to me again, I will kill you!". I just remember him dangling there like a rag doll, looking stunned. I set him down, picked up my books, and, quaking with adrenaline, continued on my way. As soon as I was a few steps away from him, he started saying "Come back here and fight". I had control of myself by this time and kept walking.

The next day I was afraid or ashamed to even be at school. I passed David in the hall and he just said "hi". Never again did he taunt me or even act like there was any problem between us. In fact, he seemed like he was trying to be friendly. A couple of years later a friend of mine who was also a friend of his asked me about the incident. It seems David had told him about it and said that he respected me for not hitting him that day. Strange.

Still, I now realize I was wrong to have reacted the way I did. David had not attacked me in any way. Although his taunts irritated me, there was no real harm in them. In today's school environment, I would have been ordered into treatment for attacking and threatening to kill someone. Possibly I would have been arrested. I would probably have been ordered into sensitivity counselling for reacting negatively to the word "fag" (although I think it wouldn't have mattered if he had chosen the word "human"; it was the tone and ongoing nature of it that made me snap). The potential punishments are not what makes it wrong to violate the ZAP. It is recognizing that I can't claim that this is a universal principle and ignore it myself that makes it wrong. I do much better these days.

Two Wrongs Make a Policy?

Terrorism is always absolutely wrong, but "fighting" it by rejecting liberty and embracing tyranny is just as bad, or possibly worse. The reason it may be worse is that to do a great harm to a country's population while claiming it is for their own good is more dishonest than simply admitting that you hate them and will try to kill them. That kind of honesty coming out of DC would be refreshing for a change. The US government has become the terrorists they claim to be fighting. Do they think the terrorists will go away if they remove all difference between America and any other oppressive regime? Judging by the government's actions, they must. Is the government trying to remove the motivation for attacks? Remove all protections guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights like they have been doing and why would the terrorists attack again? Perhaps only because their tyrants are not the tyrants running the show.... yet. The actions of the US government are moving America rapidly in that direction. If not a Muslim theocracy; then a Police State. I don't buy into the lie that one is better than the other, and in fact the theocracy might be easier to convince the average apathetic American to take up arms against.

Something Awful

The folks over at the Something Awful forum have noticed me again. I have been called by a poster "UFO / evolution skeptic, libertarian, unemployed and violenty (sic) sociopathic Kent.". Wow. I'm not sure where he got that idea. OK, let me go down the list:

• I enjoy reading about UFOs, but I am very skeptical that they are being flown by extraterrestrial (or other-dimensional) visitors.
• I am not an "evolution skeptic". Evolution happens and has been scientifically demonstrated. What is there to be skeptical of?
• Libertarian? Yes.
• Unemployed? I am a stay-at-home dad. I guess that is "something awful".
• Violently sociopathic? Well, I have never hit or otherwise attacked anyone. I feel that most people are basically good. I rarely have any bad encounters with anyone. I trust people to do what is right unless government coercion is involved. I have lots of friends, and no enemies (that I know of). Or do they consider advocating univesal gun ownership to be "violently sociopathic"?

Make up your own mind, but if this is who you think I am, you really don't "get" me at all. That means I am not doing a very good job of communicating my ideas, and that is truly "something awful".

A Blueprint

From The Libertarian Enterprise comes this reprint of an idea to end the US Police State's victim disarmament schemes:

To end the kind of victim disarmament that annoys you most, you must end
all victim disarmament. To end all victim disarmament, you must end all
violations of the Bill of Rights, even those you may quietly approve of. To end
all violations of the Bill of Rights, you must end all forms of socialism.
Socialists got us where they want us by offering us "candy"—social security,
national health insurance, federal highways, national parks, public shooting
ranges. As painful as it may be, it's time for America to go on a diet. Read
more...

ATV Laws "For the Children"

While watching Headline News in the middle of the night I saw a report on the growing (?) numbers of ATV injuries among young children. While I agree that it is a bad thing, I can't understand the knee-jerk reaction touted by everyone who spoke on-air that "there oughta be more laws!"

I am sure some kids are very capable of operating ATVs, while others have no business on one. One size does not fit all. Adults get killed and maimed in ATV accidents as well. Life is risky, remember? Teach your children how to handle a tool of any kind and they benefit. Forbid them from using it and their lives are cheapened. There is also the danger of them needing to use it in an emergency and being incapable.

Some people are stupid. When they reproduce, their children are under increased danger of being removed from the gene pool. That is a shame, but is no reason to punish the rest of society. Everyone does stupid things from time to time. Most of the time we "luck out" and don't suffer for it. Occasionally we get caught by the odds and pay heavily. If you pass laws that are supposedly to protect the children of irresponsible parents, they will find other ways to place their children in harm's way. You can not close every loophole. One unintended consequence of such "laws" is the "dumbing down" of the rest of society as well, making for more problems in the long run. Just like gun "laws" have done.

Protection From Government "Protection"

If you watch the television news you will begin to think that mortal danger lurks around every corner. Fear is the fashion of the moment. Of all the dangers in today's world, the one that seems to get completely ignored is the danger posed by the existence of government. Ignored by everyone except for cranks like me, that is.

When government gets me really angry is when it interferes with my ability to take care of myself and my family. Forcing me to leave behind my gun when I enter some place, which by the presence of metal detectors, has been admitted to be dangerous, is the most hostile manifestation of this. Government fans the flames of fear, yet imposes penalties on the normal person who takes steps to actually protect themselves and their families.

I understand that some people feel a need for a "big daddy government" or a "nanny state". I don't. The fact that government endangers me and my family by its very existence can make me a bit hostile. That gets back to the metal detectors and their "gun-free (in the hands of the right people, anyway) zones". You interfere with my ability to take care of the people I love, and you are my enemy. No excuses; no justifications. I am never afraid unless I am in an area surrounded by organs of the state who expect me to lay down my responsibilities and depend on their "good nature" and abilities. No one is able or motivated to protect me or my family as much as I am. The assumption that if I have a gun I am a "public menace" is absurd. It doesn't matter if I am in the courthouse, on a plane, or in a mall. I am not the problem. No cop or security guard will ever be as capable or willing to defend me and my family as I am. Period. Forcing me to be without my gun in these obviously dangerous places is an act of aggression against me. One that I will not forget or forgive.

Futility

Back to the forum discussion again, a person who claims to be a "former market anarchist" says that the reason he rejected his former position is that "market anarchism doesn't work". He claims that any system will always turn back into something indistinguishable from a government, and that "big projects" that need all of society working on them can't be accomplished with unanimous consent. Here is my response to him, and to anyone else who feels the same way:


I still don't agree with what I see as your very pessimistic view, but assuming you are correct, is there a way to form a society where someone like me can fit in, or should I find a cave where I can hide until I am rounded up and institutionalized as crazy?

Seriously, if your view is correct, what is the point of trying? Do you really think the growth of government will slow, stop, or reverse? Or will it keep getting bigger and more oppressive but "that's OK"? Government is getting more and more restrictive every year and, unless something stunningly unexpected occurs, will soon reach the point where it has pushed further than I can adapt. Everything I enjoy is becoming illegal or, because of regulations, too expensive or inconvenient for me to engage in. What kind of existence is that? Should I be ashamed of my "likes"? Should I get therapy to change the things I enjoy? Previous generations would not have thought I was doing anything wrong; only the current police state has a problem with me.

Do I just allow myself to be numbered, "chipped", disarmed, and loaded into the cattle car? Or is liberty something worth fighting for? Is "a little liberty" OK, within the confines of what an overbearing government will permit? Is that liberty at all or just privileges? Do people like me need to be eliminated so everyone else can go about their business building a perfect, fuzzy-safe police state? Where does it stop?

Human Nature

In some discussions I have had on some forums, I have come to the conclusion that one reason I feel anarchism is a viable "system" is that I think people are generally pretty decent. I also see that the people who feel that "freedom won't work in practice" think that people are generally just barely holding back their urge to kill everyone around them.

How do you view humans? As basically bad or basically good? I think that most people do seek out their own self interest, but not if it obviously hurts other people. If they find out they inadvertently hurt someone, they usually change their behavior. Most people also understand that it is in their best interest to not defraud or take unfair advantage of others. At least in my experience. There are obviously some truly evil people out there. Many of them seek government positions where they can use force to destroy lives and fortunes with less risk of repercussions. The others become freelance criminals (or just jerks).

There was a time when I truly thought the worst of people. I was a hermit at heart and wanted nothing to do with the rest of my species. Now I see that any negative experiences I was having were a direct result of my attitude. If you act like you expect that people are bad, they will respond accordingly. Likewise, if you expect that people are good, they will probably strive to live up to your expectations. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but be willing to protect your interests. In other words: Be nice and carry a gun.

This is why I see a great future for anarchism.

Hiding Behind Magical Portals

Courthouse metal detectors are designed to keep out the good people who are armed. A bad guy would just crash the door and start shooting. The best way to defend against that would be to have as many armed people inside as possible; ideally everyone inside should be armed. Obviously the people who work in courthouses and such are more afraid of honest people with guns than they are their competitor criminals. There is probably a good reason for this.

Much of what goes on behind those magical portals is rotten to the core and should be stopped. Rulings are made on a daily basis that are completely opposite of "liberty and justice for all". Juries are lied to and instructed to convict the defendant no matter how bogus the "law" may be. "The Law" must be upheld even as its fetid fluids drip down the arm of Justice. Real justice is swept aside while activist judges work to cripple any chance of freedom against the police state. It's no wonder the amoral beasts inside the courthouses feel safer with the layer of protection between them and us.

The metal detectors should be removed so that the authoritarians behind them would be more accountable for their actions. Of course, I feel that should be the case for every level of government. There is little danger of assassination if you do not spend your career destroying the lives and fortunes of the productive people in society. Since those who hide behind the magical anti-gun portals can't leave behind their life of parasitism and get an honest job, they fear us.

Demand a "Penalty Clause"

It is time for "The Penalty Clause". Recently I have read new writings from Bill St. Clair and L. Neil Smith calling again for a "penalty clause" in the Bill of Rights. The idea is that America needs a way to enforce the Bill of Rights against government predations. I have read of this idea several times and feel it is getting more critical all the time. I usually despise the very idea of any new "law". This is different. It would not affect anyone in any way unless that person chose to work in government "service". Don't want the law to apply to you; then stay out of government.

When some thug wanna-be gets a job with the government, or takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, they need to understand that they have an obligation to really obey that law. Not "interpret it" as they wish it to be, but to live and work within the very clear, plain language that sets down absolute boundaries limiting what they are allowed, under the law, to do. They need to realize that if caught violating the Bill of Rights there will be definite, personally painful, punishments. No hiding within the bureaucracy for them anymore. No hiding behind some corrupt judge's ruling that the Bill of Rights doesn't mean what it actually says.

The Constitution is by no means the "be all - end all" of liberty. I did not agree to submit in any way to the government it established. Still, it is a good way to illustrate that the monsters in DC have completely turned their backs on America and pledged allegiance the US Police State. The government hates liberty. They won't even stay within the bounds of the neutered liberty allowed by the Constitution, much less real freedom. Let's force them to show their true colors by demanding that the Penalty Clause be enacted.

Under this new system the BATFE would no longer be a dangerous threat to peaceful Americans, but would be running for their pathetic lives; knowing that their treason was no longer protected by counterfeit "laws" and collaborators in Congress.

So until we can jail the BATFE, let's starve those traitors.

Blog Anniversary

Today is the one-year anniversary of my blog. In the beginning I was very hesitant to start blogging. I didn't think there was any way I could come up with much to write about. I guess that fear was unfounded.


If you have been reading from the beginning, or have gone back through the archives, you have gotten to know me better than you may have wanted. I tried to keep my personal life completely out of the blog while I was actively campaigning. Recently, I have let that self-imposed prohibition slide.

I hope you have enjoyed reading my thoughts, whether you agreed with them or not. I also hope that in some small way, the words I have written have made someone, somewhere decide to embrace liberty in a way they would have never considered before.

Thanks for reading!

Keep Your Filthy Government Off My Child!

This past week was an eventful week, to say the least. It has been educational as well. I feel that the hospital employees and doctors did a fine job of caring for my girfriend and our new baby. There was only one think I take issue with, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of care they received. With the new baby, I see that the hospital staff makes the assumption that every child will be numbered and signed up for Uncle Sugar's handouts. Refusing completely bewilders them. They just keep pushing and pushing and then saying "Do you mind if I ask why?" Yes, actually I do mind. Why must I sign my child over to the state? When did the assumption that your baby belonged to you and you were going to take care of her by yourself die out in America?

The USA's Political Prisoners

It used to be that people in prison were there for actually doing something bad. Whether they were guilty or not is a different issue, but they had been convicted of committing some act of force or fraud against an innocent, individual, victim. Not so anymore. Now while there are still bad people in prison, the average prisoner is strictly a political prisoner, convicted of violating some nonsense "law" and "victimizing" the government which falsely poses as "society".

Things that should be treated as a medical or emotional problems, like severe addictions, are punished in harsh ways, causing innocent lives to be destroyed. Not submitting to the government's theft schemes is a big no-no today. Caesar must be given tribute. Things like peaceful gun ownership are punished with draconian penalties that would have been ridiculously unthinkable a generation ago, even though the "law enforcement culture" was not that good even then.

There is also the problem of the average juror not knowing their responsibility to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. In this way, many people who deserve no punishment are railroaded into prison by corrupt judges who work for the government; the very government which is the problem. What do they say about letting the fox guard the henhouse?

We all need to stop automatically thinking of people in prison as criminals. Now that the criminals run the "justice system", the distinction is rather dicey.