Sunday, November 21, 2021

Actions have natural consequences

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 20, 2021)

Actions have consequences. I can disagree with what someone does, and even believe they should face consequences for their actions, without believing government should hand out those consequences. Government isn't the proper place to look for solutions.

Natural and social consequences are unavoidable; consequences from government are arbitrary.

I don't believe government authority has any legitimacy. It looks to me like any other superstitious belief lots of people share. It's just astrology with a lot of guns and bombs and offices.

Consequences shouldn't necessarily be legal consequences, anyway. Social consequences don't require government, and often government steps in to save bad guys from any real social consequences their behavior earned them. This rewards antisocial behavior and encourages more of it.

Murder is wrong regardless of the opinions of politicians. The murders they approve of or call something other than "murder", are exactly as wrong as those they weep and wail and hold press events over. Government or legislation is not the proper way to deal with murder.

I believe the corporate social media empires should face consequences for censoring speech on their sites; I don't believe government is the proper institution to hand out those consequences. Getting government involved would likely make the situation worse; the censorship would only increase. Especially since so much of the censoring is aimed at silencing those who question the sketchy government story.

If someone has violated the life, liberty, or property of another, they owe restitution as a result. This is justice; anything else isn't. Government courts don't deal in justice, even when it's in their name. They deal in punishment, which is revenge. This is only going to make things worse in the long run, as should be obvious by now.

But without government, how would you collect the restitution you are owed as the victim of a crime? You'd better find a way which doesn't involve government unless you want to be on the wrong side. Using government to collect your restitution from the violator means you now owe restitution to those who were taxed-- robbed-- to fund the government you used. It's a destructive cycle which solves nothing.

There are better, consensual ways, to do everything you have a right to do. Find them.

All actions, good and bad, have consequences. Whether anyone believes they should happen or not, they will happen with or without government stepping in. Let them happen naturally.


Thank you for helping support

Truth is "hate speech" in a society of lies.

A system built on thuggery and cheating

I don't believe you can build a legitimate or credible "system" using illegitimate or non-credible parts. This is why no political government (or any piece thereof) looks legitimate or credible to me. It is based on politics and is political throughout. Politics is cheating.

Even if such a "system" gets something right on occasion, I see this as an accident, not as proof of legitimacy.

And, in the case of the Rittenhouse trial, the jury got it right, not the "system". The "system" allowed there to be a trial-- an attempt to punish a victim (an unlikeable victim, in my opinion) while portraying his attackers as victims. There's nothing legitimate about that.

Now, the prosecutor and arresting officers (if there were any) need to pay restitution. They wouldn't be able to afford the amount I would suggest they owe. I'd also shun them to death. But that's just me, and seems to be a reasonable consequence of being part of an evil, illegitimate "system".


If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.