Saturday, December 18, 2010
"Love it or Leave it"
Suppose I am the "head of the household", and as such I claim to have certain rules for living under my roof.
Say I reserve the authority (not "the right" as no such right could ever exist) to stop and search any family member at any time. Not just while they were under my roof, but anywhere they might be.
Suppose I make up rules regarding how fast they may walk in the house (even in their own room, and even if no one else is present), what they are allowed to buy with their own money, and how much of their money they must turn over to me- not for rent, which is charged separately, but just for the privilege of existing. Suppose I dictate what color sheets they are allowed to put on their bed, or what they can read while relaxing there. Suppose I make them pay a ransom on each thing they buy with their own money.
Suppose I tell them I own their body and dictate what they can and can't do with themselves. What they are allowed to eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise ingest.
I will also demand they allow me to photograph them naked or grope their body in an intimate and invasive way before they leave the house, or perhaps even when they try to go from room to room in the house.
I, backed up by the other members of the house who see nothing wrong with this system, say "if you don't like it, move in with another family somewhere." If the unhappy person decides they don't like living in the house, under my rules, they can theoretically move out, but only with my permission and under my conditions. Even if they move out they will still be ordered to hand over a percentage of the money they will earn. Plus, I will demand they give me most of their property before they leave. If they don't want to abandon their property or other loved ones to the abusive "head of household" they are told "then shut up and stop complaining!"
Such a "head of household" would be an abusive, insane, monster who would be subject to self defensive actions by those he abuses.
Welcome to the America of the "Love it or leave it" taterheads.
(See the video version, too!)
*
In Albuquerque news: A "fugitive" is being sought by The Law after slipping out of his ankle monitor. Seems to me he wasn't "a fugitive" until after he got rid of the tracking device.
He has been convicted of nothing yet, but is said to be a "Mexican national" and is facing "federal narcotics trafficking" charges. Neither of those things are wrong, and if he actually committed aggression or theft, why are those things not the crimes he is being charged with? Because the law is a sham.
*
Elderly woman told she has no authority over her own life or property
Elderly woman told she has no authority over her own life or property
Donate?
Albuquerque "authorities" have violated another person's property rights- and more. With the help of neighbors who did the wrong thing, probably because it was easy.
The neighbors called the city complaining about "the house". That involved the authorities who decided it was within their authority to tell the woman she couldn't let her adult sons live with her. So, while checking up to make sure their edicts had been obeyed, LEOs found "drugs" in the home and arrested two of the sons.
Of course, the city claims it has the woman's best interests at heart. Conditions in the home were "terrible". "It's not safe for her," the spokescritter benevolently proclaims. And they also have the common good in mind with their acts of aggression, coercion, and theft, saying "It's not safe for any visitors, and it's certainly not safe for the neighborhood."
Shame on the city and shame on the bad neighbors who instead of seeking to help, bludgeoned this elderly woman with The State.
*
Donate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)