Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog

Thursday, July 07, 2016

The last thing a town needs

The local police chief is complaining that he needs the town to authorize him to hire another cop. Which also means buying another flashing-light-sporting Mobile Scummery Unit with which to chase down and rob more drivers.

Of course, there's no real crime here. If you look at the local victims of law enforcement you'll notice mainly people who ingested or possessed substances the State has formed a negative opinion of. With a few DWIs (although those are caught by someone other than the town cops, like state stormtroopers or the shire reaver department) thrown in. Usually several "driving without a license", fleeing a molester- sorry, I mean "evading arrest", and the occasional "refusal to identify", and some "illegal gun carry" for those they can't molest using another excuse.

Absolutely ZERO "need" for another cop.

"But all the other towns this size have three officers", he whines. "A third officer would free me and the other officer to take days off, and have someone available to respond when the others are busy."

Fortunately, the response I have seen to his suggestion is unanimously negative. Eventually, I know the cowards of the city council will give the bully what he wants. I have seen it too many times.

As everyone knows, adding more cops adds more crime. They will go around looking for more "offenses"- and will undoubtedly find them. Must justify that paycheck, you know.

It means less self-responsibility as people get brainwashed and lazy, depending on cops to do what they should be doing for themselves. This degrades quality of life for everyone. And will eventually give justification for even more "laws" and cops.

This means there will be yet another cop patrolling the school zone looking for "distracted drivers" or those whose "speed" is completely safe, but exceeds the arbitrary "limit", or people who don't fully stop at the stop signs (following the example of said cops who cruise around while staring absent-mindedly at their computer screen instead of paying attention to the kids).

This means justification for stealing more money from residents through "taxation"- unless the cops manage to steal enough through "fines" to pay for themselves.

Cops are scum, and the last thing this town needs is another sanctioned scumwad molesting the residents.

Instead of hiring another, fire them all.

If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.

Wednesday, July 06, 2016

The FBI endorses nullification... sort of

(A Patreon/subscriber-only post. Come on, subscribe! You know you want to.)

The FBI: Yes, Hillary broke the law. No, she shouldn't be punished. Don't get any ideas, because YOU are not Hillary.

This is nullification on an individual scale. Applied to one "special" individual in one specific case. Not that I don't believe she could get away with it as many times as it takes to protect her.

The thing is, I don't really care.

The "law" is stupid. There should be no government secrets. L. Neil Smith suggests that keeping government secrets should be the only capital crime. Would you allow your butler to keep secrets relating to his job from you?

Of course, there should be no FBI to investigate or rule on this. The agency is unconstitutional and demonstrably criminal. They earned the name "Feral Baby Incinerators".

Then again, there should be no government to have an FBI, a "secretary of state", secrets, a Constitution, or "laws". It's another case of striking at the root, rather than thrashing the branches.

I guess this is why I wasn't that worried over whether Hillary would be prosecuted. She broke the law, sure, but I have no respect for the law, or those it protects, or those who would enforce it. I say expose all government secrets and let people see exactly what government is. If it takes a lying bully such as Hillary to bring down the farce, so be it.

Of course, this proclamation from the FBI should have resulted in the immediate release of Chelsea Manning and the end of threats to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange and everyone else being punished for doing the exact same thing Hillary did... but it won't. They are not Hillary, either.

Expectations of perfection

I believe I have noticed another difference between myself and most statists: I don't expect perfection.

I'm accepting of the fact that the world isn't perfect, and will never be perfect. I try to adapt to the problems as they crop up. Sometimes I don't do well; other times I do OK.

But, the statists around me seem really stymied by simple imperfections. They wring their hands and gnash their teeth, and seem to have a hard time letting go.

What does bother me is intentional flaws- especially when the solution is simple.

"Taxation" is wrong, because it is theft, and the solution is so simple: just stop doing it. The world would survive just fine. Civilization would thrive. Innovation would be unchained. Yes, bullies and parasites would be inconvenienced, but that's a good thing.

And that's not the only simple solution to manufactured problems. Anti-gun "laws" empower murderers. End them.

Anti-business "laws" cripple the economy and impoverish individuals. End them.

The list could go on for many pages.

Yet, I don't expect perfection even in liberty. There will always be problems and flaws in the world. It's just that I see it as insane to pile unnecessary ones on top of the random and arbitrary ones which would exist anyway.

Somewhat related is the observation that statists assume intentions according to their preconceptions. They assume cops and "troops" mean well, even when their actions are completely evil. And they'll assume someone who isn't in one of their favored groups has the worst of intentions, no matter how well they behave. Myself, I go more by what they do than what they may have intended to do. I'd rather someone have bad intentions, but respect liberty, than someone to have the best of intentions, yet violate liberty. Call me silly, I suppose.

Tuesday, July 05, 2016

Awaiting Bernie’s plan to help poor

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 3, 2016)

It's a rare thing for me to agree with a presidential candidate-- and rarer still for me to agree with an avowed socialist.

Bernie Sanders recently said it is "unacceptable" that nearly 47 million Americans live in poverty. Assuming his numbers are right-- not that it matters even if he's off by an order of magnitude or two-- that's too many. I agree with him. It is completely unacceptable.

So, does Bernie have an actual plan to fix it, or does he believe he can magically lift the poor by bringing down everyone else with taxes and regulations?

If one is honest about finding poverty unacceptable, one will support the steps required to solve it.

So, is Sanders ready to end taxation? To allow everyone, rich and poor, to keep all their money? To end all business taxes? Every corporate tax ends up being paid by the customer, because that's the economic reality of taxing businesses. Any business which doesn't figure every expense, including all taxes and government fees, into the final price the customer pays, will go out of business. No more jobs; no more of the benefits the business brings to society, including to you and the poor. Taxation is not the price we pay for a civilized society; civilized society is what we sometimes manage in spite of taxation. The poor can't afford taxation, and neither can you.

It's a necessary first step, but there are more.

The best way to lift someone out of poverty is to stop preventing them from earning money. Is Mr. Sanders willing to advocate for ending licensing requirements and business permits? Wealthy people can afford to pay those ridiculous fees, but a poor person wanting to start her own business probably can't. If they dare to do business anyway, their business will be stolen from them by government employees "just doing my job", and they will be fined or jailed. All under the claim of "protecting society". Is he willing to end the criminalization of acts of free enterprise between consenting parties?

The poor are being "protected" into poverty, and kept there by red tape, regulations, and laws.

Widespread poverty should be a solved problem.

Or does Bernie plan to keep doing more of the same to trap those who are already impoverished in their current circumstances and make others join them; preventing both from helping themselves? Because that's been the standard government tactic for a century or so, and it isn't helping anyone but politicians.

Statist's opinions

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion!"

Yes, and you are also entitled to commit suicide by drinking Drano, too. So? Why yap about it?

When someone declares their entitlement to an opinion, you can be certain they are aware on some level that their opinion is wrong. They instinctively know their opinion has been weighed by reality and has been found wanting. They may not be willing to admit it, and may be desperately trying to carve out a safe space for their sad little flawed opinion with this classic gem.

An example (one of many*) of this is when an anti-libertarian is confronted with objective facts showing that there can be no such thing as a "good cop". They really don't like this one, and will unfailingly try to save face by whipping out their entitlement to an opinion.

Yes, they can hold the opinion that there are "good cops", but reality shows otherwise. Sure, there can be nice cops, just as there can be nice Mafioso, nice rapists, nice burglars, and nice murderers (at least when they aren't committing the acts which define them). But by being any one of those, including a cop, they eliminate any possibility of being a good person.

When this is pointed out, the "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" is one last desperate shot at trying to not look like an whining ethical weakling.

It never works.

*I also see it a lot with anti-gun bigots and "taxation" advocates. Like I say, basically anti-liberty bigots of all stripes who come to realize they can't support their flawed opinion when measured against reality.

Monday, July 04, 2016

In-duh-pendence Day

"How can we turn a specifically anti-State holiday into a grovelling celebration of the State and a worship service for its bullies, goons, thugs, and tools?"

"The Fourth of July", once known as "Independence Day", depresses me. It has for years now.

I'm not a huge fan of fireworks- I'd prefer actual gunshots and such; noise with a purpose.

I don't enjoy setting off my own fireworks, and wouldn't do it at all if it weren't for my 8 year-old daughter wanting them.

And I really dislike driving in horrible traffic, and sitting in red, white, and blue crowds to watch a government-sponsored fireworks display, complete with patriotic statist war marches. Ugh!!

I am depressed that almost everyone has turned the day into a celebration of government "allowing" them to have (a teeny tiny bit of) "freedom", and worshiping the military. While proudly obeying the "laws" against "open containers", smoking pot, open carry, and whatever else the bullies dream up "laws" about, of course. While law enforcement thugs swagger through the crowd looking to cause trouble. It's sickening, really.

I'd be thrilled to see some displays of independence instead of fireworks. People breaking counterfeit "laws" and defending themselves from bullies with badges trying to commit acts of enforcement against them. That would give me a bigger boost than any fireworks display ever conceived.

Yes, I know I can focus on what I want the day to be about. But be careful of celebrating actual independence too openly; it could get you kidnapped or murdered by enforcers in Police State USA.

Sunday, July 03, 2016

Sheltering their ignorance

Statists are much like obstinate children. They don't want to be told anything. Particularly anything which threatens what they believe (or wish to believe).

They'll repeat something clearly untrue or nonsense, but don't want to listen or hear the truth that exposes what they just said to be untrue. No matter how obvious the truth is.

Sure, you could probably explain reality to them so clearly even they would understand- reality really isn't that hard to explain or understand- but they won't listen. They can't. It would scare them too badly to have their worldview shattered like that.

The only way statists can remain statists is by refusing to learn.

Statism is a sad condition.

Saturday, July 02, 2016

No such critter as an aggressive good guy

Drug dealers are better people than cops.

You can deal drugs and not be a bad guy. Don't initiate force. Don't violate property. Don't defraud. Sure, prohibition makes it harder, and attracts people who are already aggressive thieves and cheats into the job. But, it's not a requirement for doing that work.

You can not be a cop without being a bad guy. It simply isn't possible to be a cop without initiating force and violating property as a daily requirement of doing that work- the work of committing acts of enforcement.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

So much "if"

"Something might happen!!".

Is that a good excuse for a "law"?

Well, for anti-liberty bigots it is good enough.

And, since almost anything might result in something bad happening, there are infinite possibilities for new "laws" in their sad, shriveled little minds.

What's really tragic though is when those who understand liberty fall for it- which I have seen happen. Don't do it!

Yes, something bad might happen. Would you rather risk it, or guarantee it with new "laws"?

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

"Too much liberty"? Not even possible

Moderation in all things.

Which is why liberty is so great.

Liberty is freedom, moderated by the equal and identical rights of others. It is self-regulated, so it is impossible to ever have too much liberty.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Regulation is radical extremism

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 27, 2016)

I am driven by a love of personal responsibility, individual rights, free enterprise, and private property rights. At one time these values would have labeled me a conservative. The conservative preference of an earlier era was to keep the tentacles of the state out of life.

This doesn't seem to be what mainstream political conservatives want anymore. Decades ago they became less concerned about their own personal lives and became politically progressive, moving in the wrong direction- the direction away from Rightful Liberty. Away from what I value; toward government intervention in every part of life.

Empire-building, with military personnel or bases in the majority of countries around the planet, is not a conservative value. Neither is state regulation of marriage, or restroom rules. Nor is allowing government to dictate what people eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise ingest. Nor is "securing the border" with an American version of the Berlin Wall.

Having government regulate and control so many parts of your life just so you can control the lives of others-- taking the decisions out of individually accountable hands, and giving that power to the state-- is a radical, government extremist position. And it is dangerous.

Long ago, before government extremists began to redefine words to make themselves look reasonable, the term "liberal" applied to those who valued individual liberty. No more- at least in America. Now those Americans who call themselves "liberal" want to use the force of the State to outlaw what little liberty the conservatives are still willing to allow, for the good of society, of course. Theirs is another radical, dangerous position.

It's why I generally choose to call myself libertarian in polite company.

My libertarian values would help those around me, both liberal and conservative, even if their tastes and preferences are very different than my own. All it would require is their respecting the same rights in everyone else as they demand for themselves. Is that really as hard as people seem to make it?

Regardless of the label applied, I have no wish whatsoever to use the force of the state, financed with the form of theft called taxation, to impose my personal tastes on anyone else. Live and let live. Don't attack and don't steal. Do whatever makes you happy, even if I think it's wrong, as long as it doesn't violate anyone's equal and identical rights. In which case, even if it personally disgusts me, I understand it's none of my business.

Anti-social behavior

Social behavior is cooperative and voluntary.

Anti-social behavior is coercive, aggressive, and non-consensual.

Which one of those fits how government operates? It certainly isn't cooperative and voluntary. That's for sure.

Government is the ultimate anti-social behavior. War, taxation, and all that are just the natural results of being anti-social.

It is strange to me how many people confuse "society" for "government" or "The State", when they are so clearly opposites.

.

Monday, June 27, 2016

How to blog like me

Since I've been doing this for nearly 10 years now, I thought it was time to present a blogging how-to "for educational purposes only".

Number 1: Pick a subject that almost no one in the world even knows exists.

Number 2: Choose an angle that no normal person would choose, and which will infuriate all the "normies"- if they ever discover your blog. Which, if you do item 1 right, they won't.

Number 3: Even though you don't get much attention, don't change anything substantive trying to get noticed.

Number 4: Keep it up. Don't quit.

Added recently- Number 5: Make videos which can be ignored by billions of people worldwide.

OK. Slightly more seriously...

I find I have the best blog ideas (well, the ones I think are best, anyway) while I am doing completely unrelated things. Things like taking a shower, mowing, making something, or sitting and waiting. Things that don't require much thought, but also don't put me to sleep. (But falling asleep at night is when I also have ideas.) That's when my bored mind starts working and pasting together thoughts inspired by things I have read or heard or which just form in my mind from who-knows-where. Before I know it, a full-blown blog post will be rattling around in my skull, just waiting for me to either write it down, or forget what it was.

If I am smart, I quickly stop and text the idea to my email (or, make a conscious mental note, at least), otherwise I usually forget what I was thinking and miss the chance. I really hate when I forget one, but I still haven't learned to "save" them every time- I always think "I'll remember this for sure!".

If you do it right, after a decade or so you'll have literally dozens of people reading your blog every day. Only the best people, of course, not those other ones.

Good luck!

Sunday, June 26, 2016

My recent criminal adventure

"Laws" cause even me to alter my behavior. Sometimes.

I recently raised a couple of orphaned raccoons. Their mother was hit by a car, and they crawled out of the nest days later, desperately searching for food. The landowner- a relative of mine- found them and brought them to me.

Scared, weak, and starving

And, I kept it fairly quiet.

According to some people, it is "illegal" to rescue raccoons around here, and- so I gather- particularly in town. Not that I actually checked into it, because I have a serious lack of concern about legality, but they were probably right.

I used to do animal rescues all the time- often having multiple wild orphans or injured adults simultaneously. I even had government-employed "state wildlife biologists" bring me animals without demanding to see a license or anything. I've had hawks, a vulture, a skunk, raccoons, a heron, rabbits, squirrels, blue jays, and many others pass through my house and survive. In fact, I had one squirrel and one raccoon who kept coming for visits for a long time- both had been single orphans, which got a little more attached than usual. I never even thought about "laws" during that time.

But, apparently, the "law" just gets more and more dangerous to regular people every year.

So, out of respect to others, I just kept my mouth shut. Some others didn't, and word spread through some loose lips, but I escaped getting caught committing my heinous crime.

They grew, got stronger, cost me money I didn't have to spare, and eventually began to revert to the wild after they were weaned. Just as they needed to.

Mmmm! "Milk"

This is what happens when you poop on each other

Drying after the bath

Exploring the porch...

...and the woodpile

"Quit shoving!"

Getting big

Water playtime

And now the raccoons have been put into the wild, where I hope they can survive. At least they have a better chance than they did before they came to me. And I can finally talk about it freely.

New home

Just imagine a free society, where you don't have to break "laws" to do the right thing. Where people don't have to worry about getting you in trouble by saying something to the wrong person.

Ah, the adventures of living in a police state while still managing to do what you should.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Just a heads up

The next week is going to be a very busy one. One I have been dreading for months. I have my reasons, and they may be stupid, or you might understand if you knew. I don't think I'll share details, because it might make me look bad.

It might turn out OK and I may feel foolish later for having been dreading it.

It may give me lots of blog fodder, and a need to vent, or I may miss some days of posting- I don't know which.

This would be a really good time to subscribe or donate if you want to and can.

Hang on to your hat.

.

Brexit... Texit... whatever. I love secession!

I'm probably very late to weigh in on this, but that's how I roll.

If I were a British subject, would I have v*ted in favor of the "Brexit"? Of course not.

Am I in favor of it? Of course I am.

I am in favor of secession as a matter of principle. Breaking up big government into smaller pieces is something that will always make me smile. I always support secession from any government, no matter why it is done, where it happens, or whose idea it is. Even if the secessionists make the first move with a v*te.

But my liberty isn't up for a v*te, and I won't bother putting effort into something I don't put any stock in. I'll still be happy about it when it happens.

Will this v*te lead to liberty for Brits? No. As far as I can tell, the British v*ters aren't even considering that- they are only worried about who will rule them and where their "taxes" will go, not about rejecting rulers and theft altogether.

Still, I like upsetting big governments and the plans they have, even if it's just due to another government breaking away. It's always a step in the right direction- or at least it makes me smile.

Now I see more calls for "Texit", a Texas secession from the US. I'm on board with that, too.

Do I believe the Texas government is somehow "better" than the US government? Ha ha... no.

The thugs who call themselves the Texas government are every bit as bad as those who call themselves the US government. Anti-liberty bigots to the core.

Government is inexcusable. Both the governments in question are gangs of tax-addicted bullies, seeking to use your life and property to gain power. Governments are invariably made up of the lowest scum imaginable- those who believe they have a "right" to run your life, and help themselves to your property. There's no good way to spin that.

One of the primary backers of Texit is the Texas Nationalist Movement. I don't support them because I don't need to be ruled. By anyone. Period. But I will support their secession movement. If it happens, and they are content with small gain, I will keep advocating more secession. All the way down to the individual.

So, yes, I'd like to see Texas (or any other state) secede from the US. The US is the biggest enemy of Americans' liberty, and it needs to be cut down to size by states breaking away. So it's something I would love to see happen. Or a county secede from a state and refuse to join a different state. Or a town secede, or whatever. Ad infinitum.

I've already seceded from every political collective, whether they recognize it or not. It's not up to them. Do they still impose on me? Yes, of course. Bullies do that, but that they call themselves "government" doesn't make them something other than bullies.

It would be great if the Brexit v*te gave the secession movement a little kick in the pants. Even if it doesn't, I still like it.

Secession is NEVER wrong.

#Texit

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Magic wands aren't an option

Statists desperately want a magic wand. They insist on being handed one. Reality doesn't make them happy, and they don't want to hear it.

If they are to consider letting go of the cult of Statism, they insist on everything being magically fixed in its absence. Fixed in a way they can understand and approve of. Instantly.

You can point out the failures of statism, but because you admit that Utopia isn't going to come about in its absence, they refuse to budge.

As has been pointed out, government could never live up to the standard they insist on imposing on a free society. If it didn't already exist, they would never agree to try something so insane and obviously doomed from the start. For good reason- to believe something so stupid, you have to have been raised in the belief.

It doesn't matter that their chosen cult fails to deliver, time after time, without exception for thousands of years- they'll hang on to it until someone else offers them a magic wand with which to solve everything with a wave.

I think this shows they believe they already have a magic wand in coercion.

By contrast, the grown-ups see when something is a failure and toss it, knowing that things work themselves out when people are motivated, and when artificial barriers are removed. They may not work themselves out like you expect, but people solve problems. It's what we do, unless we form a big gang which depends, for its very existence, on making the problems worse. A solved problem puts government employees (tax junkies) out of work. They aren't going to stand for that.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

"Bad words"

My 8 year-old daughter often wants to know if a word she has heard is a "bad word".

My response to her is that there is no such thing as a "bad word", but there are words which will upset some people, and it's probably best to not say those words in most cases. Then I ask what word she is thinking of.

A few days ago she quietly asked me if "doofus" was one of those words. I tried to not smile as I told her that word was probably safe as long as she wasn't trying to use it to hurt someone's feelings.

The words which upset me are probably a lot different than the words which upset my Religious Right family. Words they fling around every day are deeply offensive to me- even as I avoid saying words I know they would find offensive. Even more offensive to me are some of the concepts they embrace. Words may not break bones, but bad concepts kill.

Those are worse than any word.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Liberty offers better options, rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 20, 2016)

When discussing libertarian ideas with non-libertarians, I have discovered one common fear: the fear that libertarians would take away the government services people have grown accustomed to. To "force people to be free", as it were.

That's not my goal at all.

I support removing the roadblocks which prevent better options from being offered and then let you-- the former government supporter-- kill off that which you once supported after you see there's a better way. If you want. And you will.

How can this be?

Once you get a taste of private property rights as they truly exist, not just as permitted under government, and see how pointless and harmful those imaginary "national borders" really are, you will be excited to replace borders with property rights.

When you experience the educational choices offered once tax-funded "public" schooling is no longer compulsory to attend or fund, you'll no longer tolerate what passes for public education today.

When you see how easily real crime is discouraged once "victimless crime" laws are abolished and the natural right of self defense is respected everywhere, you'll view sticking with the current system as falling backward into the Dark Ages.

You will be eager to replace government roads, government's health care rationing, government safety, prohibition, and all the rest with the free enterprise options which will result from giving people a choice. You may even be the person with a new solution!

In each case, all libertarians want is to replace coercion with choice, and then stand back and let the chips fall where they may. The next move will be up to you.

The only changes needed are ending the criminalization of opting out of the government monopoly, and ending any "laws" prohibiting private competition with government services. If those services are so necessary, giving people more options to choose from can only make things better. Not everyone wants to wear athletic shoes or western boots, after all. The only ethical thing to do is stay out of the way and let people make their own decisions. This is what I am excited to encourage you to do.

I realize even this is too much for some government supporters. I believe it clearly shows they know how poor the current options are, and realize how easily the free market would replace them with something better. It's sad when people are so attached to a failed system they outlaw competition. That doesn't apply to you, does it?

"Support him no longer"- how does it look and how can it change things?

I'd like to share another Facebook conversation. Or at least my response to an honest question. This one is quite a bit less hostile than the last one.

I was pointing out that the best solution to the violent government extremists is to stop supporting them.

“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”― Étienne de La Boétie

It also helps if you can get over the superstitious belief in "authority".

"What would that look like in practice, and how would it change things?"

In practice, it wouldn't look too much different to casual observers. That's because it is mostly an absence of certain behaviors rather than a presence of new behaviors.

You would stop wasting time pledging allegiance, thanking troops, writing congress to beg for a change in "laws". You would stop harboring worship for cops, politicians, and other government extremists in your heart, but you wouldn't replace it with fear or hatred (ideally), either. You'd recognize bad people are out there looking for an opportunity to violate you, and that this is not going to change no matter what justification the particular bad guys use. Just focus on avoiding them and protecting yourself from them. You would stop worrying about whether something is "legal" and focus instead on whether it is right.

I am still as polite to a cop I pass on the street as I am to any other aggressive gang member wearing his colors. I'm not looking for trouble, and don't ever intend to start it. But I don't pretend they are the good guys or somehow legitimate in the counterfeit rules they enforce. They are the same as any mobster or MS-13 gang member, except that they believe you owe them gratitude for existing. It's pretty funny if you think about it.

How would it change things?

I can only tell you how it has changed things in my life. I am much less frustrated. I don't expect government to act differently than it is designed to act. I don't expect it to rescue me, or protect me. I don't get angry when it gets in my way any more than I get angry at the wind or mosquitoes. I see statists (those who believe governing others to be a legitimate human endeavor) getting really angry or shocked over things government does. I see them putting all their hope in electing new gang members in the hope it will change the nature of the gang- in spite of all of human history to the contrary. I feel bad for them. How can they expect things to act against their own nature? It's not the individual people in the office that are the problem, it is the existence of the office. You shouldn't have an "official town rapist", no matter who you choose to fill the post. The same applies to every government position.

If it works in others as it has worked in me, it would change things as fewer people are willing to lower themselves to work for government, or to support those who do. It would cause people to stop looking to government when trouble crops up, but to find ways to solve it without violating others. Eventually, perhaps, people would find government as "necessary" as bicycles for fish.

If you are truly interested in looking into these ideas, I highly recommend The OnLine Freedom Academy.

KentForLiberty pages