Consistency scares people. Some people claim that consistency means you're stuck in a rut. If you believe one answer fits every problem, you aren't being rational. You could be a cultist. I agree with that to some extent.
But these same people also keep asking questions that are really the same question phrased differently, so in that situation, one answer does apply. It has to.
Isn't "taxation" necessary? No.
Should government regulate guns? No.
Should government be able to mandate masks and shutdowns? No.
Isn't it OK for cops to shoot people who refuse to cooperate? No.
Should government regulate guns? No.
Should government be able to mandate masks and shutdowns? No.
Isn't it OK for cops to shoot people who refuse to cooperate? No.
Isn't security more important than liberty? No.
Aren't business licenses necessary? No.
Should government make up rules to help some people at the expense of others? No.
Should government bail out banks/corporations/Wall Street? No.
Should government make up rules to help some people at the expense of others? No.
Should government bail out banks/corporations/Wall Street? No.
Should Bitcoin be regulated? No.
Doesn't government have the right to control the border? No.
Doesn't government have the right to control the border? No.
Drugs have to be regulated, right? No.
But don't you agree government has to license drivers? No.
I could go on and on.
But those aren't really different questions. All of those "different" questions come down to "Do I (or does government, on my behalf) have the right to archate?", so the answer is always going to be the same. It's always going to be "No" as long as you keep asking the same question.
Those questions are dressed up to look different to people who aren't too bright. Or who have been brainwashed into government-supremacism.
You could rephrase the above questions so the answers would always be "yes"; "Is taxation theft?" for example. But the direction remains the same. No one has the right to archate, and saying "it's the law" can't change that fact.
Yet some government-supremacists would make the claim that I'm not "credible" unless I make exceptions where I say it's OK to archate; to rape, murder, kidnap, etc. as long as I call it something else and it is being done by government employees. They'll claim that unless you make these exceptions, you're not part of the adult conversation. Who thinks this makes sense?
-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Browse my TeeSpring shop
Check out my prepper community on locals!
