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
▼
Saturday, May 11, 2019
Rattling the cup
I'm in desperate need of a monetary infusion. I was trying to stretch things out enough that I wouldn't have to ask, but it didn't work. So... if you can, and if you want to, and as long as it won't put you in a bind, my Paypal could use some love: PayPal.Me/Dullhawk
As always, if you are a subscriber or frequent donator, you've already done your part. These are not the droids you are looking for.
If I could even get an aggregate of $50 or so it would relieve a lot of the pressure.
Thanks again.
.
A "border" compromise
Cows protected by borders |
Many of my readers lean heavily "conservative" when it comes to "borders". I understand their reasons, even as I reject them on ethical grounds.
But I'm not unreasonable and I'm willing to compromise with them. In fact, I'm offering the borderists a better compromise than I've been offering the anti-gun bigots.
If you can find a realistic way to have the "national borders" you crave without:
- violating the property rights of people (through "taxation") to fund, enforce, and manage the "border",
- without violating the property rights of those who live along that "border",
- without violating the right of association,
- without complicating trade or travel for Americans, and
- without delaying or inconveniencing Americans crossing the "border" in either direction
...then I'll support your efforts in a lukewarm way. I'd rather not single out Americans like I did in those points-- that's why my support would only be lukewarm, but that's my compromise point. Give me more and my support would be stronger.
Until you can do that at a minimum, no deal. Anything else is unethical and I can't support it no matter how "necessary" you claim it is and no matter how you try to justify it.