Libertarians, especially the anarchist subset, are right. Time will show that we are. Until that time, we should try not to make enemies of the deluded people who think the state is a good idea. Roll your eyes when they start waxing eloquent about one of their pet slavery-enabling schemes if you must, then show them the better alternative with your actions. Words are generally wasted. Those who are part of the state are already lost. They will possibly discover their mortal error someday, but it won't be because we try to educate them. Their minds and eyes are closed. I'm not going to waste my time hating statists, but I do pity them. As for me, I DO NOT consent; I WILL NOT comply.
The state is really funny if you think about it. People who can't govern themselves insisting that they have the divine right to govern the rest of us? C'mon. People who think that no laws apply to them demanding that we submit to their counterfeit "laws" that are not based upon any reality? Might as well let cockroaches instruct us on sanitation.
Then again, we can be pretty funny, too. There is value in laughing at ourselves. We spend a lot of time and energy fighting against something that will collapse faster on its own if we just refuse to give it power over us. We should be concentrating on living our own lives; only fighting the state when it tries to interfere. Usually, just ignoring the nasties will be enough. We must also be a strong, united front that the state, confused at why we are smiling, thinks twice about crossing. Petty squabbles don't help us; they serve the statists who want us dead.
Wherever you say "no!" to government meddling or overreaching, I stand with you, regardless of whatever disagreements we may have on other issues. As long as we are moving in the same direction, the direction of more freedom, we are fellow travelers. Statists and "tyranny deniers" -I admit it, they can really get me down. When they do, it is my fault, not theirs. I will try to not post any more blogs when I am in a defeatist mood. I may not reply to any comments that are obviously calculated to push my buttons, either. Life is too short to worry about ignoramuses.
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
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Libertarian Troll Bingo

I found this over at Adventures In Frickintardistan, so I thought I'd play. I didn't get a "Bingo", though. Maybe I need to embrace more of the non-libertarian ideas it portrays so I can win! Nah, I keep forgetting, I am a hooligan libertarian and an anarchist!
Disclaimer: I really can't rightly claim to "get" the free space. I am male, and probably mostly "white" (to the racists), but I'm not young and I have no haircut at all.
Added: Here's what we came up with.
.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Voters and Other Dreamers
In the fight for liberty, voting is the safest, even the most cowardly, easiest action that can possibly be taken. It is supposedly secret. It is easy to blend in with the collectivists who are also voting on that day. If you want to, you can even lie about who you voted for if you feel intimidated. Yet, over and over again, voters vote for the anti-freedom candidates. When handed a non-confrontational way to express an interest in freedom, without any risk, people still don't do it.
I can hold out hope that the real freedom fighters stay away from the voting booth, recognizing it as a futile act, or an act of distasteful "implied consent". You know "lending legitimacy to an illegitimate system".
Still I wonder, if no one stands up for freedom when it is safe enough that a coward could do it; easy enough that someone as lazy as me could do it, and non-confrontational enough that a shy people-pleaser could do it... then how will liberty ever be regained once the shooting starts?
I can hold out hope that the real freedom fighters stay away from the voting booth, recognizing it as a futile act, or an act of distasteful "implied consent". You know "lending legitimacy to an illegitimate system".
Still I wonder, if no one stands up for freedom when it is safe enough that a coward could do it; easy enough that someone as lazy as me could do it, and non-confrontational enough that a shy people-pleaser could do it... then how will liberty ever be regained once the shooting starts?
Labels:
DemoCRAPublicans,
government,
libertarian,
liberty,
Rights,
society,
tyranny deniers
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Friday, February 08, 2008
Soul Searching
As you may have guessed, I am undergoing a lot of soul-searching and re-evaluation. My recent clash with the military people who think they are helping America by supporting the US government has made me decide liberty is doomed, at least in the short term. The government hates liberty. The military, even if they claim to love liberty, are working for the very organization that has done more to destroy liberty than any force in history: authoritarian government. Then we are told that we must work within the rigged system to beg for our liberty one measley drop at a time. Obey the masters until we can convince them to let us be free. When has that ever worked?
While the general direction of human civilization is toward greater individual liberty, I think we are on the verge of entering a dark age of tyranny that would make Hitler, Vlad Dracula, and George W. Bush giddy. Maybe our great-grandchildren will be free. The Tyrannocratus sux who run the state will eventually either evolve some decent morals and become human, or they will go extinct, but not before they drag humanity into a pit of authoritarian super-state torment as has never been seen before. Just as in past dark ages, the damage will take a long time to undo. It would be so much better to avoid the trap to begin with. Unfortunately, too few people are paying attention or would care if they were.
Then I wonder if humans are simply too programmed to seek a strong "leader", no matter how evil, to ever accept self-ownership in numbers large enough to matter. I worry that I am a defective person because I chafe under authoritarians. Maybe the "sheeple" are the true humans, and I am an aberration. The sad thing is that "sheeplehood" disgusts me to my core. If they would simply leave me alone, we could coexist in peace, but that is not the way of the state. Control and even the illusion of "implied consent" must be maintained at all costs and any dissenters must be marginalized until they consent or are killed. At least for the foreseeable future.
How will I deal with this future? I can either pretend to go along, and drown in resentment. Although that is my usual mode of operation, I want to change. I also don't relish the thought of being a martyr and dying in a raid by BATFEces or DEA. I can quietly monkey-wrench at every opportunity, although writing it here now makes that ineffective. I can try to get over my gloominess and laugh at the authoriturds as they tighten the noose on civilization. I depends if I feel optimistic or pessimistic today. The glass is half full... of cyanide.
While the general direction of human civilization is toward greater individual liberty, I think we are on the verge of entering a dark age of tyranny that would make Hitler, Vlad Dracula, and George W. Bush giddy. Maybe our great-grandchildren will be free. The Tyrannocratus sux who run the state will eventually either evolve some decent morals and become human, or they will go extinct, but not before they drag humanity into a pit of authoritarian super-state torment as has never been seen before. Just as in past dark ages, the damage will take a long time to undo. It would be so much better to avoid the trap to begin with. Unfortunately, too few people are paying attention or would care if they were.
Then I wonder if humans are simply too programmed to seek a strong "leader", no matter how evil, to ever accept self-ownership in numbers large enough to matter. I worry that I am a defective person because I chafe under authoritarians. Maybe the "sheeple" are the true humans, and I am an aberration. The sad thing is that "sheeplehood" disgusts me to my core. If they would simply leave me alone, we could coexist in peace, but that is not the way of the state. Control and even the illusion of "implied consent" must be maintained at all costs and any dissenters must be marginalized until they consent or are killed. At least for the foreseeable future.
How will I deal with this future? I can either pretend to go along, and drown in resentment. Although that is my usual mode of operation, I want to change. I also don't relish the thought of being a martyr and dying in a raid by BATFEces or DEA. I can quietly monkey-wrench at every opportunity, although writing it here now makes that ineffective. I can try to get over my gloominess and laugh at the authoriturds as they tighten the noose on civilization. I depends if I feel optimistic or pessimistic today. The glass is half full... of cyanide.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Increasing Liberty?
When I look at people, their actions, and what they advocate, I find myself asking "does _X_ increase my liberty or make liberty more difficult or dangerous?" Very often I find that whatever I am evaluating makes liberty harder for me and for society.
Several years ago ago I heard of the "Jews in the attic" yardstick. If some new government policy or bureaucracy would make it more difficult to hide innocent targets from government oppressors or murderers, it should be opposed and, if passed, violated. Does that ring any REAL ID bells?
It would be nice to be able to believe that "we" can still work within the system to change these illegal laws. Unfortunately the "system" is rigged against liberty. Liberty lovers are outnumbered by those who depend on government for their livelihood and those who think that it is OK to support the state, through its government, as long as they say they are supporting liberty. Even those who are otherwise on our side. It is impossible to strengthen the state and not destroy liberty. The misguided liberty-desiring government accessories are doing great damage to the cause of individual liberty while believing they are helping it.
Several years ago ago I heard of the "Jews in the attic" yardstick. If some new government policy or bureaucracy would make it more difficult to hide innocent targets from government oppressors or murderers, it should be opposed and, if passed, violated. Does that ring any REAL ID bells?
It would be nice to be able to believe that "we" can still work within the system to change these illegal laws. Unfortunately the "system" is rigged against liberty. Liberty lovers are outnumbered by those who depend on government for their livelihood and those who think that it is OK to support the state, through its government, as long as they say they are supporting liberty. Even those who are otherwise on our side. It is impossible to strengthen the state and not destroy liberty. The misguided liberty-desiring government accessories are doing great damage to the cause of individual liberty while believing they are helping it.
Monday, February 04, 2008
"Absolved" by Mike Vanderboegh
Everyone, especially the anti-gun enforcers and rulers, needs to read this tale from The War on Guns. "Absolved" by Mike Vanderboegh. Powerful stuff.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Quick! Destroy the "Wondrous" Before... What???
One problem I have with a lot of science fiction or fantasy books or movies is that whatever wondrous discovery is made, it must be destroyed before the story ends. Whether it is The Nautilus, the "lost world" of living dinosaurs, or "The Lost Ark of the Covenant", things must be back to normal when the last page is read, or when the credits roll. I think this is a sign that most people value the status quo more than they value the new or the unknown. What are people afraid of? Am I odd to not feel the same way?
Maybe this is why people speak up in vehement support of the "way things are" instead of considering that maybe a different way is better. Maybe that is why they argue over which socialist clone represents "change". The normal world order must be maintained at all costs. Until freedom becomes the norm, it will be denigrated and its advocates will be reviled by tools of the system. I am tired of being in the minority of people who don't support tyranny in any form. How about you?
Maybe this is why people speak up in vehement support of the "way things are" instead of considering that maybe a different way is better. Maybe that is why they argue over which socialist clone represents "change". The normal world order must be maintained at all costs. Until freedom becomes the norm, it will be denigrated and its advocates will be reviled by tools of the system. I am tired of being in the minority of people who don't support tyranny in any form. How about you?
Labels:
Free speech,
future,
government,
libertarian,
liberty,
personal,
Rights,
society,
tyranny deniers
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Happy Groundhog Day!
I hope everyone enjoys their tasty groundhog dinners. Don't eat too much, you know how sleepy it will make you, plus you can only loosen your pants so much.
Poster-Children For the Death Penalty
I saw this on The War on Guns and a couple of other blogs. If these monsters don't deserve the death penalty, then no one does.
Labels:
articles/links,
cops,
Crime,
government,
militarized cops,
police state,
terrorism
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Bias, Justification, and Politics
I promised some mitigating thoughts on yesterday's blog post. I am in the process of reading an "advance reader's edition" of The Mind of the Market by Michael Shermer. In the book he is speaking of "bias" and how it colors our perceptions.
The ideas that follow all flow from this book, which I recommend highly even before finishing, and my interpretation thereof. Since some of the interpretations are mine, don't blame Michael Shermer if you don't like the implications.
With political beliefs, we are likely to think that we reached ours because of thinking it through carefully, while we think others have reached their ideology because they are deluded, or greedy, or stupid. In other words, "My bias is due to my enlightenment; yours is due to your lack of enlightenment".
It turns out that "expert opinions" are usually no better than "non-expert opinions", yet the experts are less likely to admit they were wrong than the others. Irrational judgements are then made in order to justify costly mistakes. This is because we overvalue "sunk costs" and the status quo. When making decisions about a course of action, we tend to choose the status quo because we are accustomed to it. So with regards to our personal politics, the majority will continue to support statism (the status quo) instead of liberty (the radical change). Instead of "staying the course" we should base our decisions only on the recognition of the future costs and benefits, and not dwell on past costs. Yet when our strategy is a losing one, we tend to raise the stakes higher and risk losing even more. He points out that a belief, when confronted with a disproof, can actually become even stronger in order to alleviate the pain of being wrong, especially if sacrifices have been made based upon that belief.
Then there is the problem of "confirmation bias". This is when we seek and find evidence to confirm our beliefs and discount evidence that contradicts our beliefs. Confronted with both types of evidence, we will accept the validity of the evidence that confirms out notions and be very skeptical of the contradictory evidence. Or the contradictory evidence may be reinterpreted in a favorable light. We make up our minds first and then pick through the evidence and to confirm our views. "Self justification" is a basic need that causes us to screen out evidence that contradicts our positions so that we can continue to feel good about our decisions.
What it all comes down to is that our emotional minds have more to do with our views than do our logical minds. Therefore I may be a libertarian/anarchist simply because I am emotionally predisposed to be that way. In that case I should just shut up and let the world spin down the drain of statism. Plus, freedom is a lot more work than socialism, and I am terribly lazy and getting extremely tired of swimming upstream.
The ideas that follow all flow from this book, which I recommend highly even before finishing, and my interpretation thereof. Since some of the interpretations are mine, don't blame Michael Shermer if you don't like the implications.
With political beliefs, we are likely to think that we reached ours because of thinking it through carefully, while we think others have reached their ideology because they are deluded, or greedy, or stupid. In other words, "My bias is due to my enlightenment; yours is due to your lack of enlightenment".
It turns out that "expert opinions" are usually no better than "non-expert opinions", yet the experts are less likely to admit they were wrong than the others. Irrational judgements are then made in order to justify costly mistakes. This is because we overvalue "sunk costs" and the status quo. When making decisions about a course of action, we tend to choose the status quo because we are accustomed to it. So with regards to our personal politics, the majority will continue to support statism (the status quo) instead of liberty (the radical change). Instead of "staying the course" we should base our decisions only on the recognition of the future costs and benefits, and not dwell on past costs. Yet when our strategy is a losing one, we tend to raise the stakes higher and risk losing even more. He points out that a belief, when confronted with a disproof, can actually become even stronger in order to alleviate the pain of being wrong, especially if sacrifices have been made based upon that belief.
Then there is the problem of "confirmation bias". This is when we seek and find evidence to confirm our beliefs and discount evidence that contradicts our beliefs. Confronted with both types of evidence, we will accept the validity of the evidence that confirms out notions and be very skeptical of the contradictory evidence. Or the contradictory evidence may be reinterpreted in a favorable light. We make up our minds first and then pick through the evidence and to confirm our views. "Self justification" is a basic need that causes us to screen out evidence that contradicts our positions so that we can continue to feel good about our decisions.
What it all comes down to is that our emotional minds have more to do with our views than do our logical minds. Therefore I may be a libertarian/anarchist simply because I am emotionally predisposed to be that way. In that case I should just shut up and let the world spin down the drain of statism. Plus, freedom is a lot more work than socialism, and I am terribly lazy and getting extremely tired of swimming upstream.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Libertarians Are Right, Just Accept It
Before anyone flips out over my inflammatory headline, let me explain. I have read and been told by several people throughout the years that people dislike libertarians for one main reason: because libertarians see their philosophy as the only "right" one; that we are unable to think that other views may be just as valid. Do we think our position is the "revealed truth"? Yes, we do.
Try as I might, I can not see any view that condones aggression against innocent people as a morally acceptable one. The same goes for any political position that depends on taking money away from its rightful owners to give to others. We acknowledge that the rules must apply equally to everyone, or they are not good. There can be no "elite" class of rulers that make the rules, yet who are allowed (or expected) to flout them. The people who promote the other philosophies call these depraved acts by other names, trying to reframe the debate. Yet, if you look clearly, you can see what they are really advocating.
If they are offended by this obvious "revelation", then maybe they need to examine their beliefs more closely.
Now.... before you leave angry comments, stayed tuned for tomorrow's post which may punch holes in, or completely deflate, this whole idea.... The "but".
..........................................................
Try as I might, I can not see any view that condones aggression against innocent people as a morally acceptable one. The same goes for any political position that depends on taking money away from its rightful owners to give to others. We acknowledge that the rules must apply equally to everyone, or they are not good. There can be no "elite" class of rulers that make the rules, yet who are allowed (or expected) to flout them. The people who promote the other philosophies call these depraved acts by other names, trying to reframe the debate. Yet, if you look clearly, you can see what they are really advocating.
If they are offended by this obvious "revelation", then maybe they need to examine their beliefs more closely.
Now.... before you leave angry comments, stayed tuned for tomorrow's post which may punch holes in, or completely deflate, this whole idea.... The "but".
..........................................................
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The State of the Union- 2008
The "state of the union" depends on what your idea of "the union" is. If you mean "America", times have been better. If you mean the government-imposed mutual suicide pact that is "The USA", then the train is still running full speed- not noticing that the bridge is out and the gulch is deep.
The authoritarians are still "in charge". The economy is still getting worse, heading for the inevitable result of a fiat currency. The never-ending war on an emotion, "terror", is still being fought, is dividing America, and is still resulting in too many deaths. The mainstream media is still trying to promote support for its chosen candidates of imaginary "change" (based on race and gender and more openly socialist ideology), and ignoring any candidate who would bring about real change. The country is being deliberately divided along racial, gender, religious, and other lines by the government and its enablers. Terroristic wars with ninja-suited thugs are being waged by "law enforcement" against gun owners and people who use unapproved chemicals, regardless of the obvious damage it does to the people of the country and the spirit of freedom America was founded upon. More money is stolen- and euphemistically called "taxes", "fees", "fines", and "licenses" -to feed the beast each year. Your money is being stolen and used to enslave you. "Big Brother" of fiction would be proud of the new schemes being pushed on us, like REAL ID, by the ever-paranoid rulers.
Yet, there is an undercurrent in the world. An undercurrent fed by a real desire for liberty. It drives support for Ron Paul; the man who is the only mainstream candidate who even has an inkling of what liberty is. It brings people together to build friendships that can help them stand against the statist tsunami that threatens to drown human civilization. It drives people to search for people who will have the courage to speak the words they hunger to hear. Against all odds, the love of liberty is refusing to die. We are building a competing "union" based on a love of liberty and respect for the self-determination of individuals.
The state of that union is hopeful.
________________________________
The authoritarians are still "in charge". The economy is still getting worse, heading for the inevitable result of a fiat currency. The never-ending war on an emotion, "terror", is still being fought, is dividing America, and is still resulting in too many deaths. The mainstream media is still trying to promote support for its chosen candidates of imaginary "change" (based on race and gender and more openly socialist ideology), and ignoring any candidate who would bring about real change. The country is being deliberately divided along racial, gender, religious, and other lines by the government and its enablers. Terroristic wars with ninja-suited thugs are being waged by "law enforcement" against gun owners and people who use unapproved chemicals, regardless of the obvious damage it does to the people of the country and the spirit of freedom America was founded upon. More money is stolen- and euphemistically called "taxes", "fees", "fines", and "licenses" -to feed the beast each year. Your money is being stolen and used to enslave you. "Big Brother" of fiction would be proud of the new schemes being pushed on us, like REAL ID, by the ever-paranoid rulers.
Yet, there is an undercurrent in the world. An undercurrent fed by a real desire for liberty. It drives support for Ron Paul; the man who is the only mainstream candidate who even has an inkling of what liberty is. It brings people together to build friendships that can help them stand against the statist tsunami that threatens to drown human civilization. It drives people to search for people who will have the courage to speak the words they hunger to hear. Against all odds, the love of liberty is refusing to die. We are building a competing "union" based on a love of liberty and respect for the self-determination of individuals.
The state of that union is hopeful.
________________________________
Labels:
DemoCRAPublicans,
militarized cops,
Permits,
police state,
privacy,
Rights,
society,
taxation,
terrorism
Monday, January 28, 2008
A Quote About "Rights"
I have no clue if this quote is original or not, considering its source, but here it is before I forget.
I just awakened from a dream where a grizzled old character was telling me "Rights are the first gift you are given when you are born, and the last thing you surrender when you die." What you do with them in between is up to you.
I will go back to sleep now.
I just awakened from a dream where a grizzled old character was telling me "Rights are the first gift you are given when you are born, and the last thing you surrender when you die." What you do with them in between is up to you.
I will go back to sleep now.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
"Libertarian" vs. "Anarchist"
There is no doubt I am an anarchist, but am I a "libertarian"? I always thought so. From what I have always been told, a "libertarian" is one who opposes aggression and fraud, nothing more, nothing less. Now I have recently been told that a strict adherence to the Constitution is also a core value of libertarianism. The thing is no one ever mentioned that part to me until now. If that really is that important, shouldn't someone have mentioned it? Even looking at the Libertarian Party website I find no mention of it, and they are the ones who are trying to be a part of "the system". They do mention the "libertarian foundation" of America, but it is a bit of a stretch to interpret that specifically as a reference to the Constitution.
From a link on Check Your Premises I found a book on libertarianism from the early 1980s which contains this statement: "Libertarianism elaborates an entire philosophy from one simple premise: initiatory violence or its threat (coercion) is wrong (immoral, evil, bad, supremely impractical, etc) and is forbidden; nothing else is." Nothing about the Constitution in there either.
I know the internet is not the sum total of human knowledge, but it is a good Cliff's Note of reality. The fact is, in an internet search of a great many libertarian sites, I only ran across one that even mentioned the Constitution as something that libertarians believe in (and now I can't even find it again). If it were that important, someone is seriously dropping the ball.
I ask this rhetorically. I'm not looking for a debate over what makes a "real" libertarian, since that has been done to death. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I know what I believe, and that doesn't change because of a label. I am happy being an anarchist if no one else wants me.
__________________________
From a link on Check Your Premises I found a book on libertarianism from the early 1980s which contains this statement: "Libertarianism elaborates an entire philosophy from one simple premise: initiatory violence or its threat (coercion) is wrong (immoral, evil, bad, supremely impractical, etc) and is forbidden; nothing else is." Nothing about the Constitution in there either.
I know the internet is not the sum total of human knowledge, but it is a good Cliff's Note of reality. The fact is, in an internet search of a great many libertarian sites, I only ran across one that even mentioned the Constitution as something that libertarians believe in (and now I can't even find it again). If it were that important, someone is seriously dropping the ball.
I ask this rhetorically. I'm not looking for a debate over what makes a "real" libertarian, since that has been done to death. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I know what I believe, and that doesn't change because of a label. I am happy being an anarchist if no one else wants me.
__________________________
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Tolerable Socialism?!
I have found a socialist world, fictional though it is, that I could live in comfortably. I just finished reading For Us, the Living: A Comedy of Customs by Robert A. Heinlein. It is his last, and first, novel. If that seems confusing, you should get the book and read the introduction by Spider Robinson.
In Heinlein's fictional world, the government pays everyone a living allowance (of its fiat money), just for being born. Beyond that it pretty much leaves you completely alone, unless you commit some terrible act, such as being jealous (the only crime covered in the book). Even then the punishment is restricted to correcting, through education, the mistaken concepts that lead to such violations.
I never thought I would find any socialist world acceptable, and I seriously doubt that any government could keep its nose out of everyone's business like this fictional one does, being driven by accumulation of power and control as they all are. This makes for an interesting read and thought experiment anyway.
In Heinlein's fictional world, the government pays everyone a living allowance (of its fiat money), just for being born. Beyond that it pretty much leaves you completely alone, unless you commit some terrible act, such as being jealous (the only crime covered in the book). Even then the punishment is restricted to correcting, through education, the mistaken concepts that lead to such violations.
I never thought I would find any socialist world acceptable, and I seriously doubt that any government could keep its nose out of everyone's business like this fictional one does, being driven by accumulation of power and control as they all are. This makes for an interesting read and thought experiment anyway.
Friday, January 25, 2008
I Don't Hate the Military
Just to be clear, I do not hate the military. I hate the way the government uses the military. I would gladly support the military repelling an invading force here, where it threatens our homes and families. This is simply not the current situation. American tax money should not be spent to occupy, or even free, other countries. At least not until the budget is balanced or until the government can support itself without taxation.
If someone wishes to go ahead and fight in a foreign country for whatever cause or reason, they should do so. Just not on behalf of American taxpayers or the US government. Become a mercenary. As long as you are fighting for what is right, there is nothing wrong with that career choice in my eyes.
If someone wishes to go ahead and fight in a foreign country for whatever cause or reason, they should do so. Just not on behalf of American taxpayers or the US government. Become a mercenary. As long as you are fighting for what is right, there is nothing wrong with that career choice in my eyes.
The X-L-I Report Blog
There is a new weekly blog about gun rights called The X-L-I Report. Check it out.
I Just Want More Freedom!
All the arguments over "this or that issue" really irritate me. They all miss the point. The point being: I want more freedom; for myself, for my children and for YOU. That is really all that matters. Things that get in the way of that are bad, things that increase the liberty are good. Some of us don't agree on which things move toward freedom and which things move away from it. Some things don't do either one. Consider your positions and actions in light of this. I will continue to fight, one way or another, those things I see as anti-freedom. I really have no choice. Liberty Fever is in my blood! That may alienate some people, which is sad. I will occasionally make mistakes. When I do, and I realize it, I will reverse course as fast as I can to try to undo any damage I have done. I ask that you do the same, if individual liberty is also important to you. If it is not, then please just go watch TV now.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Getting Along
This blog is about politics. That means it is likely to lead to arguments. I understand why some people believe so strongly in opposite positions. Most of the time, regardless of what the "politically correct" may tell us, one side is right and the other is wrong. That is just the nature of reality. I don't care if anyone calls me names, but I ask that you only attack the positions of the other commenters; not them personally.
I have certain ideas about right and wrong, and about how one should relate to others, and about rights and responsibilities, and ... well, probably just about everything. Other people may not agree with me on everything. That is alright with me.
For most of my life I was a "libertarian in a vacuum" or an anarchist in an alternate universe. Or so it seemed. I knew no one else who thought of things in a way similar to me. I didn't even know OF anyone else who did. I had to get along with statists of every stripe. Maybe it is why I still can, as long as they don't throw the state at me.
I could not live off of Social Security or other forms of welfare, and personally feel it is wrong to do so. Other people do not think the same way. I don't go around asking my acquantances about their personal finances. It is none of my business and I really don't want to know. That doesn't mean I wouldn't put an end to welfare if I had the chance.
I think it is better to avoid working for any government entity in any capacity. Yet I know people who do and I don't lecture them about it. It would only alienate them and change nothing. Probably the only exception to that rule would be "a shunning" if anyone I knew worked for the BATFE. My tolerance can only go so far.
I have certain ideas about right and wrong, and about how one should relate to others, and about rights and responsibilities, and ... well, probably just about everything. Other people may not agree with me on everything. That is alright with me.
For most of my life I was a "libertarian in a vacuum" or an anarchist in an alternate universe. Or so it seemed. I knew no one else who thought of things in a way similar to me. I didn't even know OF anyone else who did. I had to get along with statists of every stripe. Maybe it is why I still can, as long as they don't throw the state at me.
I could not live off of Social Security or other forms of welfare, and personally feel it is wrong to do so. Other people do not think the same way. I don't go around asking my acquantances about their personal finances. It is none of my business and I really don't want to know. That doesn't mean I wouldn't put an end to welfare if I had the chance.
I think it is better to avoid working for any government entity in any capacity. Yet I know people who do and I don't lecture them about it. It would only alienate them and change nothing. Probably the only exception to that rule would be "a shunning" if anyone I knew worked for the BATFE. My tolerance can only go so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)