Thursday, October 27, 2016
"You have no right to" vs "You shouldn't"
(A looser than usual transcript)
Saying "you shouldn't" is an expression of opinion.
Saying "you have no right to" can be an expression of fact.
Don't get the two mixed up.
For me, there's a short, straight line from "have no right to" to "you shouldn't". One naturally follows from the other in most cases. But, it's not necessary for that to be the case.
No human has the right to archate. To archate means to initiate force, or credibly threaten to do so, or to violate private property rights. Basically, to act like a government or other kind of bad guy. It's the opposite of what makes up anarchy.
The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) could be rephrased as the Zero Archation Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to archate against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate archation." This clears up any confusion as to whether property violations which involve no physical force are addressed by the ZAP. Whether or not they were in the past, they are now.
So, you have no right to archate, but does that mean you shouldn't? My opinion is that it usually does- but not always.
Yes, pushing a kid from in front of a bus is an initiation of force. You don't have a right to do it, but I think this is one of those cases where you should. If it were me, I'd take the chance and deal with any complaints from the kid later. I'd willingly submit to arbitration if the kid I saved believes I owe restitution for initiating force against him in this instance. Maybe I'd then present him with a bill for services rendered, just to even things out.
There may be other cases as well, and if you believe it's important to archate- to do something you have no right to do- in some instance, you ought to feel it's worth dealing with the consequences that come from your act.
So, yes, saying you have no right to do something can be a statement of fact, if you indeed have no right to do it, but translating that into you shouldn't do something is a less supportable position. It's merely an opinion. And not all opinions are equally valid.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Being nice to monsters
On one hand, I try to be nice and considerate to everyone. Whether in person, or online.
On the other hand, there are some kinds of stupidity and evil I just can't abide, and I can be pretty nasty when exposed to it. Especially when those espousing the stupidity and/or evil are nasty about it first. Statists wouldn't be statists if they didn't embrace stupidity and evil.
The moments I am most proud of are those when I don't respond in kind to the nasty, stupid, evil notions being promoted by statists. When I treat them with more respect, understanding, and kindness than they deserve. I don't always manage it-- I'm only human, and flawed-- but it is something I strive for.
My hope is that treating nasty, stupid, evil statist ideas as "worthy of consideration" will inspire the same consideration of civilized behavior from those promoting those statist ideas. When given serious, honest consideration, it is obvious that mutual consent is always superior-- ethically, morally, rationally, and pragmatically-- to coercion, theft, and aggression. People just need to be exposed to the idea.
Some percentage will still reject it-- it doesn't fit with their ideas of how "society" works, and they don't see how some things can be provided without forcing others to go along. They are wrong. Period. There is simply no excuse. But it's probably pointless to waste breath on them once they've expressed an unwillingness to be civilized. Some monsters enjoy being monstrous.
And, yet, I still want to be nice and considerate. Which means walking away and leaving them to their barbarism-- with the understanding that I may be forced to defend myself from them in the future.
-
On the other hand, there are some kinds of stupidity and evil I just can't abide, and I can be pretty nasty when exposed to it. Especially when those espousing the stupidity and/or evil are nasty about it first. Statists wouldn't be statists if they didn't embrace stupidity and evil.
The moments I am most proud of are those when I don't respond in kind to the nasty, stupid, evil notions being promoted by statists. When I treat them with more respect, understanding, and kindness than they deserve. I don't always manage it-- I'm only human, and flawed-- but it is something I strive for.
My hope is that treating nasty, stupid, evil statist ideas as "worthy of consideration" will inspire the same consideration of civilized behavior from those promoting those statist ideas. When given serious, honest consideration, it is obvious that mutual consent is always superior-- ethically, morally, rationally, and pragmatically-- to coercion, theft, and aggression. People just need to be exposed to the idea.
Some percentage will still reject it-- it doesn't fit with their ideas of how "society" works, and they don't see how some things can be provided without forcing others to go along. They are wrong. Period. There is simply no excuse. But it's probably pointless to waste breath on them once they've expressed an unwillingness to be civilized. Some monsters enjoy being monstrous.
And, yet, I still want to be nice and considerate. Which means walking away and leaving them to their barbarism-- with the understanding that I may be forced to defend myself from them in the future.
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Why I won't v*te
There have been a lot of strawmen erected around the reasons that people like myself won't v*te. I'm sure you've seen plenty of them yourself.
But, here are the real reasons I won't v*te:
I would never try to stop anyone else from v*ting.
Some believe they "need to" in order to defend themselves from bad guys who are employed by government. But whether it's statists or muggers, bad guys will always be there, always seeking to impose their will on the rest of us. V*ting is as effective in the real world as chanting and shaking rattles to cure cancer. But, if it makes you feel better, go for it. Just don't get upset when others won't participate.
Just don't fall for the delusion that you have "done enough" by v*ting. If anyone stops at v*ting OR non-v*ting, and believes they have accomplished something, they are fooling themselves.
Which is part of why I think v*ting is irrelevant- you haven't actually done anything useful either way. You have GOT to do more to have accomplished something of value. And, just like in math, where something that appears on both sides of the equation can be ignored, the rest is what needs to be focused on.
I see someone who insists that I should v*te as saying "Well, mugging isn't ideal, but it's the system we have, so we'd better use it to our advantage".
Maybe v*ting can delay the collapse of civilization (I doubt that, but whatever). If TSHTF now, I am here to help. If it happens years down the road, I may not be able to help. People will probably be even less able to survive, having been softened further by government dependency. Putting something off almost always makes it worse in the long run. Might as well get the show on and see what becomes of it.
I'm sorry if that isn't what you want to believe. Reality is harsh.
But, here are the real reasons I won't v*te:
- I don't "believe in it" anymore. I used to. I felt like I was doing something; doing the right thing. I would v*te for the candidate I thought shared at least many of my values. Usually, that candidate lost. When that candidate won, I always found out that he didn't share my values at all. He had lied to get my v*te. So, by helping that candidate win, I helped make the situation worse. I had helped give a bad guy power. I had undercut my own interests.
- My liberty is not up for a v*te. If every person v*ted for the rights of the one holdout to be violated, it's still not right to violate them. V*ting is mob rule. Might doesn't make right; neither does majority.
- I feel like if I v*te, I am making an illegitimate system look legitimate, or at least make it look like I support the idea that the opinion of the majority should be forced, at gunpoint, on the minority. (Ignoring that the "winning side" is only a majority of v*ters, not of the population.) Even if "my side" wins, and gets to force liberty on people who don't want it, how is that a good thing? You can't force people to be free.
- I get the "v*ting in self defense" argument. However, v*ting isn't aimed. It strikes the aggressor and the non-aggressor equally- if at all. Just because some people in a crowd threaten you, it doesn't justify spraying the crowd with bullets. Know your target and know what is behind your target.
- No one but me can represent me. It simply isn't possible. The idea is even more absurd when the "representative" is supposed to represent thousands or millions of people. This is magical thinking at its craziest. So, why go through the motions for something that isn't going to happen? That is impossible at its very foundation? It's like making a ritual of reading horoscopes religiously.
- I don't enjoy it. It's stressful and frustrating. Chances are, if I v*te for someone, that person would lose. If they win, all I can celebrate is that the other person lost. Then I can look forward to the winner treating my liberty just like the other guy was proposing to treat it. Just more slowly, or violating it in a slightly different way.
- It's unnecessary. Look, there will always be bad guys out there. To archate is a primitive human desire- politicians turned it into an art form. You can spend your life worrying about them, or you can live your life in spite of them. Does it enhance your life in any way to spend time thinking about politicians? Do you really look to them and their opinions for guidance? Do you let their opinions prevent you from doing what you know is right? Or force you to do what you know is wrong? I understand recognizing that what you are doing is "illegal" and not announcing it to the world, but if it's the right thing to do- or even if it is ethically neutral- just do it. But do it quietly if you don't want to get molested by employees of the State. Don't intentionally step in the dog crap, but step around it. And government employees are dog crap.
I would never try to stop anyone else from v*ting.
Some believe they "need to" in order to defend themselves from bad guys who are employed by government. But whether it's statists or muggers, bad guys will always be there, always seeking to impose their will on the rest of us. V*ting is as effective in the real world as chanting and shaking rattles to cure cancer. But, if it makes you feel better, go for it. Just don't get upset when others won't participate.
Just don't fall for the delusion that you have "done enough" by v*ting. If anyone stops at v*ting OR non-v*ting, and believes they have accomplished something, they are fooling themselves.
Which is part of why I think v*ting is irrelevant- you haven't actually done anything useful either way. You have GOT to do more to have accomplished something of value. And, just like in math, where something that appears on both sides of the equation can be ignored, the rest is what needs to be focused on.
I see someone who insists that I should v*te as saying "Well, mugging isn't ideal, but it's the system we have, so we'd better use it to our advantage".
Maybe v*ting can delay the collapse of civilization (I doubt that, but whatever). If TSHTF now, I am here to help. If it happens years down the road, I may not be able to help. People will probably be even less able to survive, having been softened further by government dependency. Putting something off almost always makes it worse in the long run. Might as well get the show on and see what becomes of it.
I'm sorry if that isn't what you want to believe. Reality is harsh.
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Government ‘help’ solves nothing
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 23, 2016- I honestly believe this is one of the worst CNJ columns I have ever written, and for that, I apologize.)
If you want something done, do it without forcing your will on anyone else, and without forcing others to pay for what you want. Good ideas don't require force.
After the recent SpaceX rocket explosion, I saw someone arguing that this was why space exploration should be left to governments, thus financed with taxation. After all, the apparent cause of the blast was something NASA solved fifty years ago.
While this may be true, you'll also notice tax-financed space exploration stagnated decades ago. Long before commercial rockets became a reality.
If you want space exploration to get anywhere, you need people trying new things and taking new risks; innovating, not just copying solutions found long ago.
Even when government does innovate it's as likely to make things worse as to make them better.
Government got involved and started regulating and de facto rationing health care over a century ago. This increased the cost of health care, which caused some to demand government "do something". Government did, and now we have ObamaCare regulating and rationing health care even further. When people start feeling the failure, some will scream for government to do even more, and the situation will accelerate toward a total collapse.
This belief, that government should get involved anytime someone sees a problem, creates even bigger problems; ones more meddling can't solve.
Government, if it is to exist at all, must stay within its limits. If it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution as something government is allowed to do, then it is a crime for government to do it, regardless of how many believe it's a good idea. A more permissive view would still limit government to protecting the life, liberty, and property of those who consent to its control. Government meddling does none of those.
Government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with space exploration, health care, education, travel, or even something as simple as pets.
When people decided government needed to "do something" about pets we ended up with animal control ordinances and animal shelters. For government extremists it wasn't good enough to let private individuals approach the problem-- if there was a problem. Force was used, and this coercive system is failing again.
Governments don't understand economics. When you raise the price of anything, especially if you charge for mandatory features people may not want, you reduce the demand for it. Yet they seem surprised at the decrease in the number of adoptions.
There are always consequences for letting government meddle. Government breaks everything it touches.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
If you want something done, do it without forcing your will on anyone else, and without forcing others to pay for what you want. Good ideas don't require force.
After the recent SpaceX rocket explosion, I saw someone arguing that this was why space exploration should be left to governments, thus financed with taxation. After all, the apparent cause of the blast was something NASA solved fifty years ago.
While this may be true, you'll also notice tax-financed space exploration stagnated decades ago. Long before commercial rockets became a reality.
If you want space exploration to get anywhere, you need people trying new things and taking new risks; innovating, not just copying solutions found long ago.
Even when government does innovate it's as likely to make things worse as to make them better.
Government got involved and started regulating and de facto rationing health care over a century ago. This increased the cost of health care, which caused some to demand government "do something". Government did, and now we have ObamaCare regulating and rationing health care even further. When people start feeling the failure, some will scream for government to do even more, and the situation will accelerate toward a total collapse.
This belief, that government should get involved anytime someone sees a problem, creates even bigger problems; ones more meddling can't solve.
Government, if it is to exist at all, must stay within its limits. If it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution as something government is allowed to do, then it is a crime for government to do it, regardless of how many believe it's a good idea. A more permissive view would still limit government to protecting the life, liberty, and property of those who consent to its control. Government meddling does none of those.
Government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with space exploration, health care, education, travel, or even something as simple as pets.
When people decided government needed to "do something" about pets we ended up with animal control ordinances and animal shelters. For government extremists it wasn't good enough to let private individuals approach the problem-- if there was a problem. Force was used, and this coercive system is failing again.
Governments don't understand economics. When you raise the price of anything, especially if you charge for mandatory features people may not want, you reduce the demand for it. Yet they seem surprised at the decrease in the number of adoptions.
There are always consequences for letting government meddle. Government breaks everything it touches.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
Cops and politicians- parasites?
Are cops and politicians really parasites? After all, they do "give back" in exchange for what they take. That makes some people disagree with the assertion that they are parasites.
But what they give back is harmful and unwanted (at least I don't want it). They give back rules and aggression in exchange for the liberty and property they take. Is that a good trade? Hardly.
I can't steal $100 from you, then give you a Twinkie (or a bruise on your head) and call it even. Consent has to be part of the equation. It's the most important part. Without consent, any act is a violation.
The cops and politicians could even give back more than they take, but when there is no consent in the taking, they are a parasite.
It's not OK for me to take your pizza and give you my car, if you don't agree to the trade. Maybe you have no use for a car, and are starving to death. I can't claim you should be happy with the trade, so you should just shut up. Or, I can't without looking like a thug. And this is what cops and politicians do. It is what they are.
Without consent, their taking- even if they imagine they give something up in return- is theft. They are parasites on society, because they are parasites on some individuals. Maybe not on you, but they are parasites feeding on me without my consent, and one person is enough to prove the claim.
Cops and politicians ARE parasites.
But what they give back is harmful and unwanted (at least I don't want it). They give back rules and aggression in exchange for the liberty and property they take. Is that a good trade? Hardly.
I can't steal $100 from you, then give you a Twinkie (or a bruise on your head) and call it even. Consent has to be part of the equation. It's the most important part. Without consent, any act is a violation.
The cops and politicians could even give back more than they take, but when there is no consent in the taking, they are a parasite.
It's not OK for me to take your pizza and give you my car, if you don't agree to the trade. Maybe you have no use for a car, and are starving to death. I can't claim you should be happy with the trade, so you should just shut up. Or, I can't without looking like a thug. And this is what cops and politicians do. It is what they are.
Without consent, their taking- even if they imagine they give something up in return- is theft. They are parasites on society, because they are parasites on some individuals. Maybe not on you, but they are parasites feeding on me without my consent, and one person is enough to prove the claim.
Cops and politicians ARE parasites.
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
It's your right, but is it a good idea?
Just because it isn't a good idea to exercise a right, does that mean you don't have the right to do it? No.
This usually comes up with regards to "bearing arms". You have the right to carry a full-auto AK-47 openly down the streets of NYC, and into a courthouse. And you would be murdered by government employees for doing so. I would argue this makes it not a good idea. But it is still within your rights.
This follows along with the right to commit suicide. Usually, I think suicide is not a good idea. But you have that right and no one can take it from you. And, I am sure other examples could be found everywhere, if one looked.
It's not always smart to do everything you have an absolute human right to do. Not in every situation.
Why do people get confused over this?
Know what you have a right to do.
Stay within those rights.
Weigh the costs.
Be aware of circumstances.
Be smart.
Accept responsibility for your actions.
This usually comes up with regards to "bearing arms". You have the right to carry a full-auto AK-47 openly down the streets of NYC, and into a courthouse. And you would be murdered by government employees for doing so. I would argue this makes it not a good idea. But it is still within your rights.
This follows along with the right to commit suicide. Usually, I think suicide is not a good idea. But you have that right and no one can take it from you. And, I am sure other examples could be found everywhere, if one looked.
It's not always smart to do everything you have an absolute human right to do. Not in every situation.
Why do people get confused over this?
Know what you have a right to do.
Stay within those rights.
Weigh the costs.
Be aware of circumstances.
Be smart.
Accept responsibility for your actions.
-
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Thank you.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Those who "believe in obeying the law"
A while back the newspaper editor posted a link to the story about how more people were caged for "marijuana offenses" than for all violent crimes combined.
Of course, some copsuckers had to pipe up to tell us why we should just obey the opinions of evil people ("laws").
It is a very good illustration of the sick mindset of statists. It's actually an argument in favor of Anonymous' "Kill 'em all" comments, even though I hate to admit it, and I won't do that even if I could.
Anyway, here is a sampling of the comments from one of the law lovers regarding Cannabis prohibition:
Like running away from the slave plantation? If you let "law" dictate your ethics or morals, you have none.
Driving down Main St. at 90 MPH might be wrong if there are other people present, and if you present a credible threat to them or their property. But there is nothing inherently wrong with it just because someone made up an arbitrary "speed limit"
Stealing from a store is a violation of property rights. That makes it wrong. It would still be wrong even if legislation said it was OK- as with "taxation", for example.
So, you think slaves should just have waited until the "laws" were changed, and they were wrong when they tried to escape? If you believe in obeying the "law", without qualification, you are a fool and a moral cripple. Good people can't "just believe in obeying the law", but delusional State worshipers can. And do.
Actually, you do get to choose which "laws" to obey, just like the BadgeScum choose which "laws" to enforce against whom. If a "law" mandates you to do the wrong thing, or prohibits you doing the right thing, and you have ethics and principles, you will not obey that "law"- at least as long as you can break the "law" without being shot or kidnapped right now. I choose which "laws" to obey all the time.
And most people (well, smart people anyway) did negotiate with their parents regarding the rules. And they may even get some of the arbitrary or harmful rules eliminated through negotiation. I would rather my daughter be able to think for herself, and make a good argument against bad rules, than just be obedient. And I let her know that. Does it make parenting harder? Yep. Too bad for me- it will turn her into a much better person than demanding obedience ever could. Obedience is for slaves.
When the rules are harmful, only sociopaths enforce them, and only cowards willingly obey them. If you go downhill, either because you "broke the rules" or for any other reason, it's your own fault. Ask for help, and if you haven't been a jerk, help may be offered.
Society is NOT the same as government. Government's rules are often very different from society's rules. Society's rules have evolved over time, government's rules have been dreamed up by insane bullies and imposed by force. Often, government's rules oppose society's rules, to the detriment of society.
Yes, if your tail light is broken, get it fixed. You'll probably be safer, and I would appreciate your courtesy. I'll even let you know if I see it broken without using that as an excuse to steal from you, waylay you, or violate your privacy. Only a really nasty bully would see a broken tail light and use it as a pretext for those violations. And, yes, cops are just that sort of nasty bullies.
And there you have it. This is why "we can't have nice things". Because evil idiots like this guy believe they are the "voice of reason" when they advocate unreasonable things. When they excuse the inexcusable.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Of course, some copsuckers had to pipe up to tell us why we should just obey the opinions of evil people ("laws").
It is a very good illustration of the sick mindset of statists. It's actually an argument in favor of Anonymous' "Kill 'em all" comments, even though I hate to admit it, and I won't do that even if I could.
Anyway, here is a sampling of the comments from one of the law lovers regarding Cannabis prohibition:
"Last I knew it's still against the law."
Like running away from the slave plantation? If you let "law" dictate your ethics or morals, you have none.
"Not going to argue the point. You don't drive down main st. At 90 mph or steal from Wal Mart. Legalization is only a few years away but they can't wait. It's just a misdemeanor and unless they're carrying weight no jail time. I just believe in obeying the law."
Driving down Main St. at 90 MPH might be wrong if there are other people present, and if you present a credible threat to them or their property. But there is nothing inherently wrong with it just because someone made up an arbitrary "speed limit"
Stealing from a store is a violation of property rights. That makes it wrong. It would still be wrong even if legislation said it was OK- as with "taxation", for example.
So, you think slaves should just have waited until the "laws" were changed, and they were wrong when they tried to escape? If you believe in obeying the "law", without qualification, you are a fool and a moral cripple. Good people can't "just believe in obeying the law", but delusional State worshipers can. And do.
"My point is we don't get to chose which laws we will obey or disobey. I'm sure you didn't negotiate with your kids or your parents on their rules."
Actually, you do get to choose which "laws" to obey, just like the BadgeScum choose which "laws" to enforce against whom. If a "law" mandates you to do the wrong thing, or prohibits you doing the right thing, and you have ethics and principles, you will not obey that "law"- at least as long as you can break the "law" without being shot or kidnapped right now. I choose which "laws" to obey all the time.
And most people (well, smart people anyway) did negotiate with their parents regarding the rules. And they may even get some of the arbitrary or harmful rules eliminated through negotiation. I would rather my daughter be able to think for herself, and make a good argument against bad rules, than just be obedient. And I let her know that. Does it make parenting harder? Yep. Too bad for me- it will turn her into a much better person than demanding obedience ever could. Obedience is for slaves.
"It all has to do with sociopathic behavior. I don't need to play by the rules so when I go downhill it's somebody else fault. Play by society's rules. If your tailight is out. Get it fixed!"
When the rules are harmful, only sociopaths enforce them, and only cowards willingly obey them. If you go downhill, either because you "broke the rules" or for any other reason, it's your own fault. Ask for help, and if you haven't been a jerk, help may be offered.
Society is NOT the same as government. Government's rules are often very different from society's rules. Society's rules have evolved over time, government's rules have been dreamed up by insane bullies and imposed by force. Often, government's rules oppose society's rules, to the detriment of society.
Yes, if your tail light is broken, get it fixed. You'll probably be safer, and I would appreciate your courtesy. I'll even let you know if I see it broken without using that as an excuse to steal from you, waylay you, or violate your privacy. Only a really nasty bully would see a broken tail light and use it as a pretext for those violations. And, yes, cops are just that sort of nasty bullies.
And there you have it. This is why "we can't have nice things". Because evil idiots like this guy believe they are the "voice of reason" when they advocate unreasonable things. When they excuse the inexcusable.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Bad words!
Here's something I end up telling my 9 year-old daughter frequently: There are no such things as "bad words"; there are only words that upset some people when they are spoken.
Or written.
And, yet, words which represent true evil aren't usually included in that list by most people.
Words like "government", "police", "laws", "State", "arrest", "vote", and things of that nature are actually much worse than the words most people get upset over and call "profanity" or "obscenity". They represent the mainstream acceptance of truly evil acts. Acts of archation.
I apologize for the foul language used above. You'll live.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Or written.
And, yet, words which represent true evil aren't usually included in that list by most people.
Words like "government", "police", "laws", "State", "arrest", "vote", and things of that nature are actually much worse than the words most people get upset over and call "profanity" or "obscenity". They represent the mainstream acceptance of truly evil acts. Acts of archation.
I apologize for the foul language used above. You'll live.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
"Never discuss politics or religion"
Here's a secret: I don't like discussing politics or religion with people face to face, in real life.
It makes me very uncomfortable. Almost to the point of panic. Especially when it comes at me out of nowhere. I am almost never the one to bring up such subjects in real life. I just don't do it.
Yet, so many people want to discuss these things with me. They know I have an opinion- and generally even know what it is. But they don't want to learn- they just want to hear me talk about it so they can disagree.
Sometimes I just refuse to talk about it. Sometimes I'm caught off-guard and start talking before I realize what has happened. Then the "fight or flight" kicks in as soon as I realize where the conversation has gone. Probably not a good thing at all.
If there were going to be a good, honest discussion, it would be one thing. But it's not. It's always an attempt to trip me up (doesn't happen); to fling questions at me in rapid succession so I don't have a chance to answer one before 2 more have been tossed out (almost always), or find the areas where I have no simple answers (happens a lot).
In those type of "discussions", there can be no communication.
Yes, these are topics of critical importance. The quality of life- sometimes life itself- depends on getting the answers right. Carefully and thoughtfully. But, people are going to believe what they believe. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind under those circumstances.
I suppose it's the danger of being known as outspoken and opinionated.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
It makes me very uncomfortable. Almost to the point of panic. Especially when it comes at me out of nowhere. I am almost never the one to bring up such subjects in real life. I just don't do it.
Yet, so many people want to discuss these things with me. They know I have an opinion- and generally even know what it is. But they don't want to learn- they just want to hear me talk about it so they can disagree.
Sometimes I just refuse to talk about it. Sometimes I'm caught off-guard and start talking before I realize what has happened. Then the "fight or flight" kicks in as soon as I realize where the conversation has gone. Probably not a good thing at all.
If there were going to be a good, honest discussion, it would be one thing. But it's not. It's always an attempt to trip me up (doesn't happen); to fling questions at me in rapid succession so I don't have a chance to answer one before 2 more have been tossed out (almost always), or find the areas where I have no simple answers (happens a lot).
In those type of "discussions", there can be no communication.
Yes, these are topics of critical importance. The quality of life- sometimes life itself- depends on getting the answers right. Carefully and thoughtfully. But, people are going to believe what they believe. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind under those circumstances.
I suppose it's the danger of being known as outspoken and opinionated.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Monday, October 17, 2016
Government is slavery
It was near the beginning of my online life that I realized I am an abolitionist. Slavery is the ultimate anti-liberty. While no person can actually own another, the pretense that they can has been the justification for all sorts of evil throughout human history.
Most people don't seem to realize that slavery is still a big problem- and not just the kind that comes to mind when they think of the word "slavery"- but forms of slavery they they may not recognize and may even support.
Government- The State- is slavery in every sense of the word.
If you are forbidden to do what you have a right to do, you are being enslaved. If someone claims to have a right to tell you where you can live, what you are allowed to put into your bloodstream, how to use your property, can take your property from you against your will, and says they can forbid your right to own and to carry tools, they are trying to enslave you. If they kidnap and cage you for doing what you have a right to do, the slavery has gone from the abstract to the concrete.
How much you allow them to succeed is up to you.
In one sense, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
On the other hand, you must pick your battles. You are no good to anyone if you are dead.
And I can't make that choice for you. No one can. Because you are not a slave, no matter how many want to enslave you, as long as you take responsibility for your own choices.
As long as you do that, I am proud of you.
Be pro-liberty. Be an abolitionist. Be the anti-slave.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Most people don't seem to realize that slavery is still a big problem- and not just the kind that comes to mind when they think of the word "slavery"- but forms of slavery they they may not recognize and may even support.
Government- The State- is slavery in every sense of the word.
If you are forbidden to do what you have a right to do, you are being enslaved. If someone claims to have a right to tell you where you can live, what you are allowed to put into your bloodstream, how to use your property, can take your property from you against your will, and says they can forbid your right to own and to carry tools, they are trying to enslave you. If they kidnap and cage you for doing what you have a right to do, the slavery has gone from the abstract to the concrete.
How much you allow them to succeed is up to you.
In one sense, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
On the other hand, you must pick your battles. You are no good to anyone if you are dead.
And I can't make that choice for you. No one can. Because you are not a slave, no matter how many want to enslave you, as long as you take responsibility for your own choices.
As long as you do that, I am proud of you.
Be pro-liberty. Be an abolitionist. Be the anti-slave.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Liberty, anarchy go hand in hand
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 16, 2016)
Libertarians advocate best government (my chosen headline)
What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
Libertarians advocate liberty. Specifically, maximum liberty and minimum government, because the two are inversely related. The more of one you have, the less you have of the other. What's the minimum level of government you can impose on others?
"That government is best which governs least" wrote Henry David Thoreau. The best government is zero government.
In the Tao Te Ching, written around 2,600 years ago, Lao Tzu observed "When the government is quite unobtrusive, people are indeed pure. When the government is quite prying, people are indeed conniving." Unfortunately that's what it takes to survive being governed. Government breeds distrust and dishonesty.
There can't be "too much liberty" because liberty, being the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate others, is self-regulating. If an act violates someone, it's not liberty.
Anarchy isn't about chaos, "Mad Max", or "kill or be killed". Those popular misconceptions come from people taught in schools controlled by the state, which has an interest in promoting fear and ignorance concerning a lack of government.
Anarchy isn't a rejection of rules, but of people who rule. You govern yourself, without imposing control on anyone else. The buck stops with you. You are responsible for your own choices; there is no one else to blame.
Anarchy isn't about throwing bombs and growing bushy beards. It isn't against free enterprise. It most certainly isn't socialism or communism- although those groups sometimes misuse the label for propaganda.
Libertarians who don't eventually become anarchists fail to mature. They are ignoring inconsistencies in order to avoid discomfort. They seem to be trying to justify the government functions they support by pretending those aren't based on theft and aggression.
Anyone who carefully considers what liberty means, without making excuses, will eventually see there can be no such thing as a good government, and that evil is never necessary. He may not want to call himself an anarchist, but labels are only words. What matters is what you do, not what you call yourself.
As long as you don't use violence against the non-violent, you respect the property of others, and don't make excuses for people who refuse to follow these non-negotiable rules of society, you are on the right side.
Besides, hasn't this presidential election shown you the folly in seeking political answers to anything?
So, what's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About six months. Or so the joke goes.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
Libertarians advocate best government (my chosen headline)
What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
Libertarians advocate liberty. Specifically, maximum liberty and minimum government, because the two are inversely related. The more of one you have, the less you have of the other. What's the minimum level of government you can impose on others?
"That government is best which governs least" wrote Henry David Thoreau. The best government is zero government.
In the Tao Te Ching, written around 2,600 years ago, Lao Tzu observed "When the government is quite unobtrusive, people are indeed pure. When the government is quite prying, people are indeed conniving." Unfortunately that's what it takes to survive being governed. Government breeds distrust and dishonesty.
There can't be "too much liberty" because liberty, being the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate others, is self-regulating. If an act violates someone, it's not liberty.
Anarchy isn't about chaos, "Mad Max", or "kill or be killed". Those popular misconceptions come from people taught in schools controlled by the state, which has an interest in promoting fear and ignorance concerning a lack of government.
Anarchy isn't a rejection of rules, but of people who rule. You govern yourself, without imposing control on anyone else. The buck stops with you. You are responsible for your own choices; there is no one else to blame.
Anarchy isn't about throwing bombs and growing bushy beards. It isn't against free enterprise. It most certainly isn't socialism or communism- although those groups sometimes misuse the label for propaganda.
Libertarians who don't eventually become anarchists fail to mature. They are ignoring inconsistencies in order to avoid discomfort. They seem to be trying to justify the government functions they support by pretending those aren't based on theft and aggression.
Anyone who carefully considers what liberty means, without making excuses, will eventually see there can be no such thing as a good government, and that evil is never necessary. He may not want to call himself an anarchist, but labels are only words. What matters is what you do, not what you call yourself.
As long as you don't use violence against the non-violent, you respect the property of others, and don't make excuses for people who refuse to follow these non-negotiable rules of society, you are on the right side.
Besides, hasn't this presidential election shown you the folly in seeking political answers to anything?
So, what's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About six months. Or so the joke goes.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
Do you have the right to defend yourself violently?
If you don't have the right to defend your life, liberty, and property, with violence, from ALL who threaten or violate them, government employees included, you have no rights at all.
Yet, there are those who seriously say you have no right to use violence against aggressors, because doing so violates their right to life.
Those who make that claim are wrong.
And, no, it isn't that aggressors "give up" their right to not have violence used against them when they choose to archate- it's that they had no right to do so, and by choosing to do so they violated you, and you have the right to defend yourself. With violence if necessary. They made the choice; they can deal with the consequences.
So, yes, you have the absolute human right to defend yourself- with deadly force if necessary- against violators. Regardless of whether they work for the State or not, and regardless if those who work for the State are "just doing their job". If their "job" is a violation, they are no different from any other violator, and should expect to be treated any different. If they don't like that, they should quit and find an honest job.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Yet, there are those who seriously say you have no right to use violence against aggressors, because doing so violates their right to life.
Those who make that claim are wrong.
And, no, it isn't that aggressors "give up" their right to not have violence used against them when they choose to archate- it's that they had no right to do so, and by choosing to do so they violated you, and you have the right to defend yourself. With violence if necessary. They made the choice; they can deal with the consequences.
So, yes, you have the absolute human right to defend yourself- with deadly force if necessary- against violators. Regardless of whether they work for the State or not, and regardless if those who work for the State are "just doing their job". If their "job" is a violation, they are no different from any other violator, and should expect to be treated any different. If they don't like that, they should quit and find an honest job.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
The value of liberty (PINNED)
... and of those working to promote it the best we know how.
Even though my subscriptions are down by $55 from last year, I have been scraping by. That is due to donations which often come in the nick of time. Mostly, it works. Which amazes me.
I love my donors.
I also love my subscribers.
I would really appreciate a few more of both. Or either.
I know these begging posts are annoying- they annoy me, too. I can't expect each reader to subscribe to the order of $100 per month, or many one-time donations that knock my socks off (and I don't expect either), but whatever you can do, if you consider this blog to be of value (and if you can afford it) is greatly appreciated.
Either way, know that I value each and every reader (yes, even you) whether you've ever subscribed or donated or not, and I hope you are getting something of worth each time you show up to read a post. Well, all the real posts, anyway. And I sincerely thank you.
Enjoy watching the train wreck called "politics", if you're into such things. Creepy clowns, indeed.
And if other liberty ideas are more important to you, I welcome your advice on topics you'd like me to explore from my perspective.
Have a great day!
.
Even though my subscriptions are down by $55 from last year, I have been scraping by. That is due to donations which often come in the nick of time. Mostly, it works. Which amazes me.
I love my donors.
I also love my subscribers.
I would really appreciate a few more of both. Or either.
I know these begging posts are annoying- they annoy me, too. I can't expect each reader to subscribe to the order of $100 per month, or many one-time donations that knock my socks off (and I don't expect either), but whatever you can do, if you consider this blog to be of value (and if you can afford it) is greatly appreciated.
Either way, know that I value each and every reader (yes, even you) whether you've ever subscribed or donated or not, and I hope you are getting something of worth each time you show up to read a post. Well, all the real posts, anyway. And I sincerely thank you.
Enjoy watching the train wreck called "politics", if you're into such things. Creepy clowns, indeed.
And if other liberty ideas are more important to you, I welcome your advice on topics you'd like me to explore from my perspective.
Have a great day!
.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
From the Extraordinary Claims Department
(Previously posted to Patreon)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim, not with those who scoff at the claim..
Such as the claim that government employees should be allowed to kill people as long as it is called "capital punishment" or "war".
It doesn't matter that governments have been doing both-- and getting away with it-- for thousands of years and few have stood up to say it's wrong. It is still an extraordinary claim.
I can't accept this claim without extraordinary evidence in its favor. And I have yet to see any evidence, extraordinary or not. Lots of claims and emotions and name-calling; religious and statist claims, but nothing more. That won't cut it for me.
My thought on the issue of capital punishment remains the same-- it is murder motivated by revenge. It is a primitive, superstitious cleansing ritual. It taints everyone involved-- no one comes out the good guy. When you hand government the power to kill, there is nothing left to hand it. You have accepted total State domination. It is wrong. Just because you approve of some of the murders doesn't change it.
The ONLY ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge. I understand the lust for revenge in some cases, but I also know it's wrong.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim, not with those who scoff at the claim..
Such as the claim that government employees should be allowed to kill people as long as it is called "capital punishment" or "war".
It doesn't matter that governments have been doing both-- and getting away with it-- for thousands of years and few have stood up to say it's wrong. It is still an extraordinary claim.
I can't accept this claim without extraordinary evidence in its favor. And I have yet to see any evidence, extraordinary or not. Lots of claims and emotions and name-calling; religious and statist claims, but nothing more. That won't cut it for me.
My thought on the issue of capital punishment remains the same-- it is murder motivated by revenge. It is a primitive, superstitious cleansing ritual. It taints everyone involved-- no one comes out the good guy. When you hand government the power to kill, there is nothing left to hand it. You have accepted total State domination. It is wrong. Just because you approve of some of the murders doesn't change it.
The ONLY ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything later is revenge. I understand the lust for revenge in some cases, but I also know it's wrong.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
Friday, October 14, 2016
I come not to praise democracy...
I'm always seeing these embarrassing videos praising democracy and telling people why they should v*te.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
What a crock of male Bos taurus fecal matter.
Here's one example, and my response to it.
Video link
Sayu, you are badly off-course. Democracy isn't something to strengthen or promote. There is no good in it. It is mob rule. (As is a republic, which will always evolve into a democracy anyway. Before someone gets their constitutional panties in a wad. Both are just mob rule- "majority makes right" is wrong.)
Governing yourself is a good idea. Even necessary. Governing your neighbor? Well, that just makes you a thug- whether you do it personally, or v*te to have someone do it on your behalf.
Publicly praising democracy is the same as publicly praising other forms of theft, rape, kidnapping, and murder. Don't do it- and if you insist on doing it anyway, own it. Accept what you are praising and promoting. Understand why this makes you a bad guy. Understand that your condemnation of your critics is as empty as the protests of any other bully when people stand up and refuse to pretend you have some imaginary "right" to bully them.
Calling what politicians do "public service" is a lie. A nasty one which harms the innocent.
It doesn't matter what "race" or gender a politician is, or where it was born or hatched- NO ONE has the right to violate another using the excuse of governing.
A good politician (if such a thing were possible) wouldn't advocate for (or against) anyone based on "race" or gender or anything else, because all humans have equal and identical rights. It wouldn't matter who or what that politician is.
If you violate one person, you are violating everyone. If you leave everyone to live their life as they see fit (free of archation on their part), and free to defend their life, liberty, and property from those who violate them, it doesn't matter who you are. Just like it doesn't matter who you are if you violate others.
It doesn't matter who is governing- it matters that you allow governing to happen right in front of you. That's wrong.
You do get one thing right though: You admit that politics is about fear and taking things away from others. And yet, you want to promote more of this. Sayu, politics makes people stupid. Looks like you are suffering from exposure and you need to find a cure. Or, at least take that first step. You can't even know the meaning of liberty or freedom until you turn away from politics. I hope it's not too late for you.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.Video link
Sayu, you are badly off-course. Democracy isn't something to strengthen or promote. There is no good in it. It is mob rule. (As is a republic, which will always evolve into a democracy anyway. Before someone gets their constitutional panties in a wad. Both are just mob rule- "majority makes right" is wrong.)
Governing yourself is a good idea. Even necessary. Governing your neighbor? Well, that just makes you a thug- whether you do it personally, or v*te to have someone do it on your behalf.
Publicly praising democracy is the same as publicly praising other forms of theft, rape, kidnapping, and murder. Don't do it- and if you insist on doing it anyway, own it. Accept what you are praising and promoting. Understand why this makes you a bad guy. Understand that your condemnation of your critics is as empty as the protests of any other bully when people stand up and refuse to pretend you have some imaginary "right" to bully them.
Calling what politicians do "public service" is a lie. A nasty one which harms the innocent.
It doesn't matter what "race" or gender a politician is, or where it was born or hatched- NO ONE has the right to violate another using the excuse of governing.
A good politician (if such a thing were possible) wouldn't advocate for (or against) anyone based on "race" or gender or anything else, because all humans have equal and identical rights. It wouldn't matter who or what that politician is.
If you violate one person, you are violating everyone. If you leave everyone to live their life as they see fit (free of archation on their part), and free to defend their life, liberty, and property from those who violate them, it doesn't matter who you are. Just like it doesn't matter who you are if you violate others.
It doesn't matter who is governing- it matters that you allow governing to happen right in front of you. That's wrong.
You do get one thing right though: You admit that politics is about fear and taking things away from others. And yet, you want to promote more of this. Sayu, politics makes people stupid. Looks like you are suffering from exposure and you need to find a cure. Or, at least take that first step. You can't even know the meaning of liberty or freedom until you turn away from politics. I hope it's not too late for you.
-
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.
(Steemit link)
Thursday, October 13, 2016
What are people worth?
In politics, one's worth is almost entirely subjective.
Sure, all humans have a baseline "worth" simply because they are humans. From that level ground, they either add to their worth during their lifetime by being kind, helpful, or productive, or they subtract from their worth by being aggressive, unpleasant, or parasitic.
Since politicians are some mix of both- with the unshakable reality of aggression and parasitism attached by definition to the poor choice of being a politician- they have to appear to lean heavily toward the positive human traits to break even. Very few manage it even for a short time. Think Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi as prime examples of those who gave up even trying to appear pleasant. Or even human.
Someone is not worth more due to being president, a congressvermin, or any other political position. In fact, by my estimation, the very best possible outcome for a politician's worth is that he'll be as worthwhile as any random person you might encounter on the street. That's just hypothetical, of course, since the reality is none have even approached that level.
But, for those blinded by the star-power of politicians, they imagine them to be of a higher class than the rest of us. "Worth more". It's a silly opinion, but it's what they believe. You aren't going to reason them out of their delusions.
Your worth is also subjective to a politician. What can they get from you and how can you be used? Beyond that, you are nothing to them, no matter how they act to your face.
(Steemit link for those of you who "do Steemit" and would like to help out without actually donating or subscribing.)
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Sure, all humans have a baseline "worth" simply because they are humans. From that level ground, they either add to their worth during their lifetime by being kind, helpful, or productive, or they subtract from their worth by being aggressive, unpleasant, or parasitic.
Since politicians are some mix of both- with the unshakable reality of aggression and parasitism attached by definition to the poor choice of being a politician- they have to appear to lean heavily toward the positive human traits to break even. Very few manage it even for a short time. Think Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi as prime examples of those who gave up even trying to appear pleasant. Or even human.
Someone is not worth more due to being president, a congressvermin, or any other political position. In fact, by my estimation, the very best possible outcome for a politician's worth is that he'll be as worthwhile as any random person you might encounter on the street. That's just hypothetical, of course, since the reality is none have even approached that level.
But, for those blinded by the star-power of politicians, they imagine them to be of a higher class than the rest of us. "Worth more". It's a silly opinion, but it's what they believe. You aren't going to reason them out of their delusions.
Your worth is also subjective to a politician. What can they get from you and how can you be used? Beyond that, you are nothing to them, no matter how they act to your face.
-
(Steemit link for those of you who "do Steemit" and would like to help out without actually donating or subscribing.)
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
 |
| When "Don't tread on me" just isn't enough |
(Steemit link)
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Prohibition dangerous as addiction
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 9, 2016)
Prohibition is drug abuse (my chosen headline- I didn't even try to come up with something they'd use this week)
Drugs can make people crazy. For proof, just look what drugs have done to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.
His craziness apparently doesn't come from taking drugs, but from his murderous lust to prohibit them. Like so many prohibitionists in the US.
He's a perfect role model for supporters of the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Particularly for those who have the political power to continue to impose prohibition on society.
People who support prohibition are some of the most dangerous drug abusers out there. They abuse the excuse that some people will use drugs, some of those who use drugs will abuse them, some of those who abuse them will become addicted, and some of those who become addicted will be harmed to find justification for harming everyone; drug abuser or not. In fact, the drug war has been used as a model for the equally perverted war against gun owners. This chain of linked excuses can be used to violate any liberty you have.
Drug abuse is dumb, but prohibition is evil. Prohibition never has the effect its pushers claim, but instead adds crime and corrupt law enforcement to the list of harm the drugs may do, without preventing the harm done by drugs.
Most of the harm claimed to result from drug abuse-- legal trouble, loss of jobs and social standing-- can be traced more to the effects of prohibition than to the drugs themselves. And prohibitionists are OK with that-- anything to punish drug users. To prohibitionists, it's worth any collateral damage.
Those who advocate prohibition are effectively saying "Drugs are bad for you, and to prove it we will destroy your life, and maybe kill you, if we suspect you possess drugs". It's one of the craziest acts ever committed in the name of "for your own good".
Prohibitionists are on the wrong side of morality, and on the losing side of history. One day their crusade will look as backward and evil as the acts of those who supported the runaway slave acts. On that day those who enforce prohibition will be seen in the same light as those who captured and returned-- or killed-- runaway slaves in the name of "enforcing the law". In fact, growing numbers of us already see them this way.
Some of us also see them as absolutely crazy, like President Duterte, and hope they come to their senses before they do more damage.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
Prohibition is drug abuse (my chosen headline- I didn't even try to come up with something they'd use this week)
Drugs can make people crazy. For proof, just look what drugs have done to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.
His craziness apparently doesn't come from taking drugs, but from his murderous lust to prohibit them. Like so many prohibitionists in the US.
He's a perfect role model for supporters of the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Particularly for those who have the political power to continue to impose prohibition on society.
People who support prohibition are some of the most dangerous drug abusers out there. They abuse the excuse that some people will use drugs, some of those who use drugs will abuse them, some of those who abuse them will become addicted, and some of those who become addicted will be harmed to find justification for harming everyone; drug abuser or not. In fact, the drug war has been used as a model for the equally perverted war against gun owners. This chain of linked excuses can be used to violate any liberty you have.
Drug abuse is dumb, but prohibition is evil. Prohibition never has the effect its pushers claim, but instead adds crime and corrupt law enforcement to the list of harm the drugs may do, without preventing the harm done by drugs.
Most of the harm claimed to result from drug abuse-- legal trouble, loss of jobs and social standing-- can be traced more to the effects of prohibition than to the drugs themselves. And prohibitionists are OK with that-- anything to punish drug users. To prohibitionists, it's worth any collateral damage.
Those who advocate prohibition are effectively saying "Drugs are bad for you, and to prove it we will destroy your life, and maybe kill you, if we suspect you possess drugs". It's one of the craziest acts ever committed in the name of "for your own good".
Prohibitionists are on the wrong side of morality, and on the losing side of history. One day their crusade will look as backward and evil as the acts of those who supported the runaway slave acts. On that day those who enforce prohibition will be seen in the same light as those who captured and returned-- or killed-- runaway slaves in the name of "enforcing the law". In fact, growing numbers of us already see them this way.
Some of us also see them as absolutely crazy, like President Duterte, and hope they come to their senses before they do more damage.
-
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
.
Rule yourself
There are those who prefer the idea of autarchy over anarchy. I believe they are basically the same thing- if you have no king, then you rule yourself... which means you are your own king.
The only "problem" with the word "anarchy" is that bad guys have used the word to describe their non-anarchist acts, and other bad guys embraced and spread the misinformation. Not much you can do about that, besides use the word correctly when you use it.
Maybe the word "autarchy" has less baggage (not none), but if it started being talked about, it would gather baggage very quickly. I don't really see much point in abandoning a word you like to use due to baggage. But, whatever.
None of that changes the basic fact: You are the rightful king of your own life- including of your liberty and property. No one else has a higher claim on it, and if they try to act as if they do, they are the bad guys. It doesn't matter if they call themselves "the police" or the mayor, or anything else. No one else has a legitimate claim on your life, liberty, or property unless it is due to a debt you took on. You can't take on a debt by being born in a particular place, or by a gang coming together to assign a debt to you.
Those who believe they can create a debt for you to owe, against your will, or without you archating, are liars. Don't fall for their lies.
If you let someone rule you, they are probably going to violate you in some way, and they will definitely have you violating someone on their behalf- even if it is just through your silence in the face of the evil they do to others.
Anarchist, Voluntaryist, abolitionist, autarchist, libertarian... whatever you call yourself doesn't really matter, as long as you don't archate, and don't support or excuse those who do. You are your own king. Be a good one.
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
 |
| Get your own crown |
The only "problem" with the word "anarchy" is that bad guys have used the word to describe their non-anarchist acts, and other bad guys embraced and spread the misinformation. Not much you can do about that, besides use the word correctly when you use it.
Maybe the word "autarchy" has less baggage (not none), but if it started being talked about, it would gather baggage very quickly. I don't really see much point in abandoning a word you like to use due to baggage. But, whatever.
None of that changes the basic fact: You are the rightful king of your own life- including of your liberty and property. No one else has a higher claim on it, and if they try to act as if they do, they are the bad guys. It doesn't matter if they call themselves "the police" or the mayor, or anything else. No one else has a legitimate claim on your life, liberty, or property unless it is due to a debt you took on. You can't take on a debt by being born in a particular place, or by a gang coming together to assign a debt to you.
Those who believe they can create a debt for you to owe, against your will, or without you archating, are liars. Don't fall for their lies.
If you let someone rule you, they are probably going to violate you in some way, and they will definitely have you violating someone on their behalf- even if it is just through your silence in the face of the evil they do to others.
Anarchist, Voluntaryist, abolitionist, autarchist, libertarian... whatever you call yourself doesn't really matter, as long as you don't archate, and don't support or excuse those who do. You are your own king. Be a good one.
-
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions.
(Steemit link)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)