If you choose the life of a test pilot, you greatly increase your odds of dying in a crash. Sure, you could be minding your own business and have a test flight crash on top of you, but it's unlikely.
If you immerse yourself in the company of aggressors, you greatly increase the odds of being a victim of aggression- even if you are completely innocent.
It turns out that the girl murdered on the trail here yesterday made that particular bad choice.
Her fiance is in jail for murdering another guy back in 2013, and was already a career thug when he got arrested for that death. Even if he is innocent of everything he has been accused of, it would still be unwise to stay close to him if you value your own safety or the safety of your kids. He was obviously immersed in the local aggressor culture, which she then became a part of by willingly choosing to associate with him. Why would anyone willingly choose to make themselves a part of that company?
No, I am not saying "she deserved it". She didn't. But choices have consequences, even if they aren't "fair". If you surround yourself with people who employ aggression or who hang around with people who do, don't be too surprised when some of it spills over onto you or your loved ones. You can love someone and still understand that, for your sake and the sake of your kids, you have got to drop them like a radioactive diseased skunk.
In a perfect world you would only face consequences for the actions you take. As long as you weren't the aggressor, no harm would come to you. You could love, live with, and hang around with Hitler, a gangbanger, or a cop, and no matter what they were involved in, nothing would rub off on you. We all know the world is not perfect, and you can't just do whatever you want and expect no negative consequences will come of it. It's not fair; it's reality. Go into it with your eyes wide open, and think about whether it is really worth it.
.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
▼
Monday, November 10, 2014
"Sovereign citizens"
Besides some of the consistency problems the "sovereign citizen" folk have in other areas, such as philosophically, the very name they call themselves is completely self-contradictory. "Sovereign"? "Citizen"? Pick one or the other- you can't be both.
"Sovereign" individuals own their own life and the products of that life. It doesn't mean they are immune to being robbed by thieves, but anyone can be robbed.
"Citizens" are owned by a State. They are said, by definition, to "owe allegiance" to that State. That's the opposite of self ownership.
They are basically claiming to be "self-owning property"- a "self-owning slave". That term would make just as much sense. Which is none.
I understand the sentiment- or at least some of it. They want to express their independence, while celebrating what they think of as "their country" or "patriotic heritage". But, really, there must be a more sensible way to express that sentiment. Or, just drop all the contradictions and come to the free side. We have... well, everything worth having.
.
"Sovereign" individuals own their own life and the products of that life. It doesn't mean they are immune to being robbed by thieves, but anyone can be robbed.
"Citizens" are owned by a State. They are said, by definition, to "owe allegiance" to that State. That's the opposite of self ownership.
They are basically claiming to be "self-owning property"- a "self-owning slave". That term would make just as much sense. Which is none.
I understand the sentiment- or at least some of it. They want to express their independence, while celebrating what they think of as "their country" or "patriotic heritage". But, really, there must be a more sensible way to express that sentiment. Or, just drop all the contradictions and come to the free side. We have... well, everything worth having.
.