"... for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse."~ Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, Chapter 3, 1513)
And so it still is, with every election and revolution.
Vote for this parasite, because he's better than that bully and you'll be more free if he wins.
Yeah, right.
Every president is worse than the ones before- each builds upon the abuses and violations of their predecessors and make up their own. If they claim to be reducing government, you can bet they are lying and building bigger government behind you back while you are distracted. When any president leaves office your liberty will be damaged a bit more than it was when he took office.
Because liberty NEVER comes from politics. You have to make it yourself. And TAKE it yourself. You can't exercise your liberty while obeying "laws"- liberty is the province of the outlaw.
Don't initiate force. Don't violate private property. Defend yourself and your property from those who violate you. Realize that defending yourself from violators will have consequences- and the consequences for defending yourself from certain serial violators will be steeper than for defending yourself from others- so be smart and choose your battles. Liberty-lovers have enough martyrs already.
Stop worrying about trading one bully for another, unless you know for certain you can trade for a weak, frightened bully you can easily get rid of without replacing him or her with anything.
And go out and live.
.
Bullies make life liberty and pursuit of happiness impossible. The right to defense applies. Kill 'em all, let god sort them.
ReplyDeleteWhere can I find a large arsenal of WMD's to kill 7 billion bullies?
If you want to harm or kill someone who has not harmed or tried to kill you, that makes you the fucking bully.
DeleteYou're effectively saying that you advocate killing every person on the planet. The personality type that it takes to think in such a way coexsists perfectly with the ideals that you are pretending to go against, which ironically also makes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness impossible as there'd be nobody to practice such things.
DeleteI wouldn't vote for you, but I imagine you have a future in politics.
@Kent - Excellent column, as always!
ReplyDelete@Anonymous - You were fine for all of two sentences, then you went off the deep end and ended up sounding like a Statist. "7 billion bullies"? You seriously think every other person on the planet is a bully who wants to screw you over? I didn't think anyone could be that paranoid.
There are 7 billion bullies after you too. They are after you and I and each other, and everyone else.
DeleteI find it interesting how you can characterize me as going off of the deep end, as if killing a 7 billion member criminal gang is unreasonable.
It isn't. They organize to violate everyone, but somehow an effective defense strategy is crazy?
If one person violates you, defense applies.
If two people violate you, defense applies.
If two hundred people violate you, defense applies.
If two thousand people violate you, defense applies.
If two million people violate you, defense applies.
If two billion people violate you, defense applies.
If seven billion people violate you, defense applies.
It matters not their reasoning or numbers or intent. It is much simpler than that. They violate, refuse to acknowledge and correct it, thus defense applies.
Kill 'em all. Let god sort them.
Rob- That's Gomer the Destroyer. He's not a very deep thinker; a petulant child looking for an adult to clean up his murderous mess.
DeleteDo you do anything to contribute other than criticism or ridicule?
DeleteDo you have any good ideas? Can you offer a better solution? ...or do you just like being a serf?
While everyone is bitching and moaning, I am trying to find an effective efficient solution to billions of idiots who think they have a right to violate.
Get with the program, rogue. There is a GREAT BIG statism problem that needs resolved.
I cannot tell you how many times I have explained in very clear and concise factual simple language, how government is a systematic violation of rights. I prefer to focus on people who complain about the state of affairs in politics.
ReplyDeleteOften they respond with some form of "I disagree", ..as if it were an opinion. That is when I correct them to discern between fact and opinion. What they really mean is that they are in denial of reality.
They usually avoid any further discussion, opting to go vote, be a good statist and complain some more.
When they do this, I add them to the kill list because they have just been informed that they are violating people. It demonstrates they are a knowing willing participant in the violation of myself and everyone, that they refuse to acknowledge or cease with their criminal actions.
I cannot help it if they are stupid, if they do not want to think or understand or care if they do wrong. It is not my fault or responsibility. My concern is being able to live free and happy.
If defending my right to be free and happy means killing everyone, then so be it. I am willing to kill everyone on Earth if that is what it takes. If I spend the rest of my life killing everyone so that my last day will be one of freedom and liberty, so be it. It is worth it.
...or I could just sit here and complain about it, doing nothing in the way of solutions, so that I may spend my life in the misery of statism.
How do you banish a couple hundred million people? How would you round them up or peacefully rid your civilization of them?
ReplyDeleteHow do you banish billions of people?
until this dickwad identifies him/her/itself, the words just float in the air ... "7 billion"? Hardly. We are dealing with a few hundred at most, along with a lot of fesrful minions, and several billion innocent bystanders, too busy eking out a living to pay much attention ... The brainwashing is the issue, not the culpability of the many.
ReplyDeleteThanks for engaging, asshole.
DeleteOkay, maybe 7 billion was a little high of an estimate. But it is at least into the billions.
While I agree that brainwashing is indeed a major factor in terms of causality, how do you suppose it be corrected? How do you suggest reaching billions and changing their minds in any kind of effective efficient way?
What? ...no more discussion about how to fix the statism problem?
ReplyDeleteSo you would all rather be slaves than to even consider doing something?
...or maybe I have a solid argument that you don't find palatable, and thus would rather avoid discussion?
Actually, you have a fantasy.
DeleteI don't know how to kill 7 (or 6+) billion people even if I thought it was the ethical thing to do. Do you? If so, get with it and I'll deal with the aftermath if I survive. Until then, it seems pointless to debate it.
The best way to go against the state is for the masses to simply ignore it. It would likely lead to a fight, at which point self defense is necessary.
DeleteNon-compliance, as well as agorist markets would bleed them dry of their resources and leave them vulnerable to collapse.
I can assure you that nobody here believes that the genocide of the entire human race is a 'solid' argument.
DeleteYou could likely choose less than 1000 of the heaviest, statist shot-callers to eliminate which could produce effective results. If people that were next in line to rule witnessed 1000 tyrannical figures be executed, it is likely that they would either step down or straighten up their coercive acts.
"The tree of freedom needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-Jefferson
The fact that people haven't acted on these words is the very reason government got out of hand. Understand that killing those that are coercive towards you and your fellow man is an act of self-defense, killing everyone on the planet is maniacal murder/genocide. The fact that you hold these beliefs leads me to believe that freedom is not a main priority of yours, but rather tyranny is.
"Actually, you have a fantasy."
ReplyDeleteI have a statism problem, a BIG one. And I don't want to be in denial about it.
"I don't know how to kill 7 (or 6+) billion people even if I thought it was the ethical thing to do. Do you?"
Yes. They are called nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, ..also known as Weapons of Mass Destruction. They produce mass casualties. There are enough of them to kill everyone on Earth.
While I agree that not everyone is a criminal gang member, I recognize that there are billions of them that have to be killed if we are to be free.
...UNLESS SOMEONE CAN OFFER A BETTER IDEA AS TO HOW TO FIX THE AWFUL FUCT UP MESS CALLED STATISM.
I don't personally consider exercising the right to defense as unethical. In my opinion, it is okay to defend your rights.
"If so, get with it and I'll deal with the aftermath if I survive. Until then, it seems pointless to debate it."
Got WMD's ...or a better idea?
"They are called nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, ..also known as Weapons of Mass Destruction."
DeleteI didn't realize you possessed those- I don't. That's why I referred to your "plan" as a "fantasy". So, get to it.
"I don't personally consider exercising the right to defense as unethical. In my opinion, it is okay to defend your rights."
DeleteI agree. However, killing (or using force against) people who are not using physical force against you- not credibly threatening to do so- is not defense. It is aggression. Some statist idiot on the other side of the planet, who isn't "political" but just goes with the flow, isn't using force against you. He's not deserving of death for simply not killing the local political bullies.
"They are called nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, ..also known as Weapons of Mass Destruction."
DeleteI didn't realize you possessed those- I don't. That's why I referred to your "plan" as a "fantasy". So, get to it.
Actually, it is not as far fetched as one may think.
Several years ago, the US Government did a study to find out just how easily a bio-weapon could be manufactured. So they hired a bunch of people with biology backgrounds, gave them an expense account, and tasked them with creating a bio-weapon with what was readily available in the marketplace.
It turns out that with the right knowledge, about $20-30K, and a year's work, a bio-weapon with the potential to incapacitate a large city can be produced in a lab in the average garage or kitchen.
Chemical weapons are probably the easiest, but not as damaging. Hell, that is as simple as buying a bunch of fuels and cleaners, things like starting fluid and bleach, etc.. and mixing them together.
Nuclear weapons are not as complicated as you may think either. Granted, enriching uranium is complex and expensive. But if you can acquire it, the bomb itself is not that complex.
The first atom bomb was comprised of mostly cardboard and masking tape. The trick to it is timing.
Essentially, the way it works is to squash fissionable material into a space it cannot fit within a nanosecond. The core of it is made of tungsten because it is denser than uranium. On the outside of the core is the uranium, and outside of that is explosives. You are sandwiching U239 between tungsten and plastic explosives.
To detonate it requires a uniformly timed explosion in the shape of a sphere. This is where the timing comes into play. All of it must explode simultaneously with a margin of error of a nanosecond or less. It instantly squashes the uranium from all sides, and BOOOM!
I posit that with a supply of uranium 238/239, some high grade explosives and timers, masking tape and cardboard, a facility the size of a large barn, and a couple of physicists, it is feasible to produce a nuke.
I actually know how nuclear weapons work. I can't afford to make even one-- even if I could manage to get the fuel for free-- much less enough of them to depopulate the entire planet.
DeleteSame for biological and chemical weapons. Or even dropping asteroids on cities.
What can you actually, realistically do- either today or in the lifetime you have left, with the resources you have or can expect to obtain- to kill 7+ billion people? This is why I call it a fantasy. Even if I thought it were right, I couldn't do it, and I don't believe you can, either.
"That is when I correct them to discern between fact and opinion. What they really mean is that they are in denial of reality."
ReplyDeleteDoctor, heal thyself. While it's true that intending to aggress against you is aggressing against you, indirectly desiring that others aggress against you isn't. Not even close and if you account for their ignorance, they're not even doing that.
The vast majority of those 7 billion haven't the least desire to aggress against you. That's why you're still here, duh.
I'm not so sure. When people vote for a team of politicians ti initiate force against me, be it robbery through taxes or kidnappping and imprisonment, should they be held guiltless? Is the person who hired the hitman guiltless? Or does he have designs on your life, while pretending he doesnt? I have to say, I have come to know the nature of people who believe my income should be drained to their service, through their vote. It sure the fuck feels like violence.
ReplyDelete"It sure the fuck feels like violence."
Delete...Because it is. We can come up with all of these complex arguments trying to analyze this and that aspect of it, etc etc... but at the core of it, it is merely people organizing to violate.
As anarchists/libertarians, we now this. It is the principle difference between us and basically everyone else.
If we look at it for exactly what it is, defense applies. Whether people realize it, whether they care or not, whatever the case, they are still simply organizing to violate. The damage is still being done. It doesn't negate the right to defense.
Granted, Kent makes a great point with respect to their ignorance. Many simply do not know the difference and have been brainwashed to think that statism is the right thing to do. It speaks to intent. They mean well. Thus it is difficult to hold them responsible.
And sine force is usually regarded as something to be reserved for a last resort, because we want to feel compassion for our fellow humans, we exhibit patience and understanding and try to change their mind, to enlighten them to the reality beyond their brainwashing. But as we see, most reject it.
That is the point in which they are responsible. That is when they become self aware and know the difference. If they choose to support evil, they are fair game.
So, do you support the US military's wars of invasion? They contribute a lot of death-- to as many of those 7 billion as they can get away with. A lot of those dead are children and babies, but as statists have said "Nits grow into lice".
DeleteDo you oppose medicine and sanitation? A lot of people are kept alive by those things, and that just adds to the number who need to die.
To me, the point at which someone deserves death is the point where they aggress against me, or make a credible threat to do so. Personally. I have the right to kill them- I have so far chosen not to because I understand it would be suicidal. I also seem to believe more in proportionality than you do-- although I believe in it a lot less than most people I know. But the number who personally aggress against me is rather low. Even if I include those who voted for the politicians who imposed "laws" I actually bother to obey, it would probably only be in the thousands- 6 orders of magnitude below those you believe violate you.
Now, you are responsible for defending yourself. Some of those you have a right to kill in self defense might overlap with those I have a right to kill. But I don't see how anyone on the planet is personally violated by everyone else on the planet, having a right to personally kill them all.
The end result might be the same if we all just killed those who violate us personally, though.
On the other hand, a lot of "soft statists" might suddenly grow some ethics and change when the price of being a statist becomes much greater than it is now.
"To me, the point at which someone deserves death is the point where they aggress against me, or make a credible threat to do so."
DeleteMe too. I guess the difference is that I recognize all participants as a threat, a collective threat, as having a responsibility to be accountable. I base my position on facts, principle, and rights.
What is government? It is a bunch of people organizing to decide on a person/persons to have religious ceremonies and decide what/how to dictate life to everyone by force.
It starts and is based on those people organizing, demanding the rest be violated. Thus it is their fault. If they didn't do what they do, government/crime gang could not exist. Thus voters are as much a threat as the representatives, judges and police, etc.
I look at it like this; I am a human being by order of god and the natural order of the universe. I have a right to exist freely, to be a human, to live and indulge in the human experience, to seek happiness and do whatever I want up to the point where it encroaches on the liberty of others. That is absolute.
Whatever way you want to argue it, however you want to assign responsibility, the end result of their actions is a violation of my rights. A threat is a threat is a threat, whether it be from an individual, collective, or anomalous circumstance (like dodging a meteor or lighting). The instinct of self preservation and right to defense applies.
I realize that me suggesting to "Kill 'em all and let god sort them" to destroy whole 'civilizations', is very utilitarian and indiscriminate, therefore unethical. FYI, I am intentionally being provocative.
You see, my thought process is naturally logical and scientific. I am a utilitarian thinker by default. More times than not, I will come up with a very efficient correct solution to a problem.
(perhaps this is a character flaw)
In regard to things social, I have to then take that utilitarian answer and weight it against and/or filter it through some kind of ethical standard. That standard is inalienable rights.
What I am trying to do here is provoke you all into engaging the ethics part. Because I know killing everyone would quickly solve the problem for a few thousand years until it 'needs' to be done again.
What is an ethical answer that is comparable in terms of efficiency? That is what I am trying to figure out.
"Personally. I have the right to kill them- I have so far chosen not to because I understand it would be suicidal."
...unless we can organize to be equally powerful. We disobey and they sick an army on us, unless we have an army to stop them.
;-)
I see where you are coming from, and I sympathize.
DeleteI hope I have been able to communicate why I disagree- part of which seems to come down to the fact I am not a utilitarian nor a pragmatist. I think principles are more important and should guide my actions. On principle I can't kill people who are not aggressing- even if they might agree with those who are.
With all due respect, Kent. Your logic is like trying to cut a dollar in half and calling it 50 cents.
Delete"On principle I can't kill people who are not aggressing- even if they might agree with those who are."
But they are not simply agreeing with aggressors. They are co-conspirators.
The question is whether or not a forceful response is necessary, or if there is another ethical means that will resolve it with the same effectiveness and efficiency.
Say that 3 people put their money and heads together to produce a hit-man to hunt and kill you. Your reasoning says that you should defend yourself against the aggressor.
A hit-man tries and fails. You shoot him dead and stay vigilant. A few months later, another tries it, and fails. ...Then another and another and another, ...until one of them actually gets you.
Me; after more than one attempt at my life, I am going to start hunting the source that I detect out there somewhere. When/if I find the source, I will kill them dead and be rid of said assassin problems.
Mine is more effective because I recognize the entire threat while you only recognize the extension thereof.
Statism works the same. The source is the voters. EnFORCEment is the hired gunman.
"Me; after more than one attempt at my life, I am going to start hunting the source that I detect out there somewhere. When/if I find the source, I will kill them dead and be rid of said assassin problems."
DeleteNo, you kill everyone on Earth to get the guilty party (which is obviously very effective- "utilitarian"), and "let god sort them out".
You also consider every violation to be an attempt to murder you.
And, again, if you are certain it's the right thing to do, why keep talking about it?- just get to it. I won't stand in your way as long as you don't try to kill me or anyone else I consider innocent. Focus on politicians and enforcers first and I'll certainly never criticize what you are doing.
Delete"No, you kill everyone on Earth to get the guilty party (which is obviously very effective- "utilitarian"), and "let god sort them out".
DeleteYou also consider every violation to be an attempt to murder you"
Actually, I have been dealing with a similar such situation for decades, only it is very similar to the movie "The Game", and something I did not sign up for.
I have handled it quite the opposite. I have been somewhat patient and methodical, opting to leave the minions be while I track the source and confirm.
I believe I have finally identified the source. As soon as I can confirm it, they will most certainly be dealt with as is necessary. I am probably going to kill them and take everything they own.
I warned them that if I could figure it out before they can confess and compensate me for time and money lost, that they were going to pay dearly. That time has arrived as soon as I can confirm.
"And, again, if you are certain it's the right thing to do, why keep talking about it?- just get to it."
Because it is good conversation.
Killing all the violators is indeed within my right. Killing everyone(including the innocent) I have admitted that I do not feel is ethical, however effective.
"I won't stand in your way as long as you don't try to kill me or anyone else I consider innocent."
I have no intention of harming you, Kent. I consider you an ally in the fight against tyranny.
"Focus on politicians and enforcers first and I'll certainly never criticize what you are doing."
Enforcers are indeed a clear and present danger. But politicians, according to your logic and principles, are not a threat, and thus should be left alone to hire more enforcers to violate us. ;-)
"But politicians, according to your logic and principles, are not a threat, and thus should be left alone to hire more enforcers to violate us."
DeleteNo, I definitely consider politicians to be a threat and deserving of self-defensive violence. But not quite so much the ignorant v*ters who elected them, and less so the grocers who sold the v*ters the food that keep them alive, and the farmer who grew that food, and the doctor who treated the farmer for heat stroke, etc. But the politicians? Fair game.
But the politicians are not aggressors. They only make the rules. They don't actually enforce them. Therefor they are not a clear and present danger.
DeleteAnd if the politicians are fair game(I agree BTW), what separates them from the voters who demand said rules and rulers? Ignorance?
If a man robs you because he is uneducated and cannot rightfully earn the money, does that make him not responsible for his actions?
Lemme restate that last example;
DeleteIf a man is uneducated, and wasn't raised to know right from wrong, and he robs you, does that make him not responsible for his actions?
What makes each level separated from the enforcers less responsible is partly intent. The ignorant amoral guy who robs you still intended to rob you, even if he doesn't know it's wrong. I would say educate him, and if he keeps pressing the issue use whatever amount of force is necessary to stop him.
DeleteV*ters don't know right from wrong, but most of them also don't mean to rob you- and probably don't even realize they are hiring thugs to do so.
By the ZAP, politicians are aggressors ("No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." Most v*ters don't mean to advocate or delegate the initiation of force, and are ignorant of the fact they are doing so by v*ting. I do try to educate them.
Again, this may be a problem without a solution (those do exist). I don't see wiping out the human species to be a viable solution, no matter how "necessary" others may believe it is.
Kent, I happened over here to your site from your link on Claire's Living Freedom site. I've now read this entire thread and can certainly understand why Anonymous hides in the shadows as he has expressed not only the desire but the intent to commit murder here. (not the 7 billion lunacy, but The Game scenario he has almost confirmed) Is he aware that the feds can pretty effectively track down the origin of most of these posts? Especially of those who have remained online for a significant time as he has.
ReplyDeleteThe irony of his fantasy is he would destroy everyone who agrees with him just as he would destroy those who are aggressors against him. And that is LUNACY. There is no logic supporting such action--and his arguments claiming such are not logical in themselves. There is no sane rationale whereby one can eradicate the innocent globally to exist solo as the only non-aggressor on earth. He is the most violent and most intentional aggressor I've ever encountered and definitely needs to be put down because he intends to attack everyone else. He is worse than a rabid dog, operating without thinking but desiring to eradicate everyone.
WMDs are not selective. Whether a nuclear device, a biological or a chemical weapon, when deployed these kill without regard to the guilt or innocence of the victims. They don't care about one's ideology, sanity or lunacy.
Any individual conceiving the plan to kill everyone other than himself is, by definition, the most delusional person I've ever encountered. He speaks of everyone else being a threat to him while his desire is to destroy them; is that classic psychological projection or what?
I'll start here; "(not the 7 billion lunacy, but The Game scenario he has almost confirmed)"
ReplyDeleteWhen I speak of my experiences like "The Game", I am speaking of a different circumstance than simply government.
I have had an organized group of people stalking me and playing a range of sick games with my life for decades. I am finally homing in on their origin, and my only recourse at this point is to kill them all in order to make them stop. Additionally, I am rightful in taking whatever I choose from them as restitution. What is a life worth?
I also suspect they murdered of a friend of mine. What are two lives worth?
I am absolutely within my right to do as I please with them.
As far as everything else goes, I think I have made myself clear. And no, I do not care what you think. But thank you for your opinion anyway.
Further,
ReplyDeleteI would love to find a peaceful resolution to my stalker problem.
I have been dealing with something very extraordinary for a long time. It has caused me a lot of problems, a burden if you will. I have been reaching out to anyone and everyone whom I think can help. All I get in response is that I am crazy, simply because they lack the intellect and open mind to actually understand it. I also think part of it is that people are simply selfish and don't care.
Those who know what is going on refuse to be honest and just come clean with me.
All it is doing is limiting my options. As much as I would like to avoid using force, it may actually come down to that. All indications are that it will.
Regardless, one day the truth will come out and I will be vindicated. All will see, and it will change things.
Are you saying you are a "Targeted Individual"?
DeleteWhy are these people stalking you? What's in it for them? What is their goal?
I can understand why you advocate for exterminating the human species under those circumstances- but I can't help but wonder whether you are playing right into their hands this way.
I cannot say for sure what their motive is exactly, but it has everything to do with religion and time travel.
ReplyDeleteIn short, my identity, as well as my beloved dead friend's identity, is the two part code key to proof of time travel.
I am what appears to be the code key to the real bible code. If/when I show the world, the beliefs of four billion people come into question, I am deemed the epitome of evil, all hell breaks loose, and I have one hell of a fight on my hands.
(and you all think the notion of defense against billions is unreasonable)
I know that sounds fantastic. I have been dealing with it for years, and I am still having a difficult time believing it. But there it is, all of it in perfect order. WOW! ...more like "OOHHH SHIT!!!!"
this is why we love the internet !
ReplyDeleteUm...yeah. Kind of saw that coming.
ReplyDelete